An Unpersuasive Argument for Selling Development Rights

Commentary on the Article “Land as Airspace: How Rezoning Privatizes Public Space (and Why Governments Should Not Give It Away for Free)”

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21633859
AutoresPaavo Monkkonen (0000-0002-3513-0230, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA, autor de correspondencia)
Año2024
Volumen34
Número2
Páginas252-256
Fecha de publicación2024-03-03
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaHousing Policy Debate (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1051-1482 • E-ISSN: 2152-050X
EditorialInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10511482.2023.2234884
OpenAlexW4385271507
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas8

Funding urban governments is important and in places with weak governance, it may be the case that selling development rights is the most viable option for raising local revenue. Murray and Gordon, however, do not make such a conditional argument in their essay “Land as Airspace”. They argue that governments should charge landowners for development rights and not upzone land “for free” to stimulate housing development, in opposition to recent zoning reforms not to other land-based revenue-raising strategies. This framing is unpersuasive and their proposal does not present a logically coherent case that charging for upzoning achieves housing goals (production or affordability) that upzoning alone does not. The essay ignores existing empirical research on zoning and housing development that contradicts its arguments and presents policy proposals without considering their effectiveness or the tradeoffs they imply. The essay also neglects the fact that most of the recent, largest, and most controversial upzoning programs did not change air rights at all

Corporate governance · Economics · Law and economics · Microeconomics · Political economy · Political science · Property rights · Public economics · Revenue · Zoning · Housing Market and Economics · Land Rights and Reforms · Law · Property Rights and Legal Doctrine · Finance