Opponents of “YIMBY” (“Yes, In My Backyard”) zoning reform often emphasize the need for “local control” of land use decisions. They say state and federal governments should not override local zoning policy decisions. After all, people within a community know their needs better than authorities at a distance. Different communities have different needs. This oft-heard mantra conflicts with the reality of what YIMBYism refers to more Local control is essential. There is nothing more local than giving each owner control of their own land.
The “local control” argument for zoning restrictions has been adopted by both the left and the right. The housing chapter of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s controversial Project 2025 declares that “legislation must provide states and localities with maximum flexibility to pursue locally designed policies and minimize federal preemption of local land uses and zoning.” Possibility of decision-making. For this reason, among others, it emphasizes that “conservative governments should oppose any efforts to weaken single-family zoning.” Single-family zoning, of course, is the most restrictive type of exclusion zoning, preventing new home construction in many areas of the country.
Yes, I know Donald Trump has disavowed Plan 2025 and claimed he “knew nothing about it.” But the author of the housing chapter is Ben Carson, secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the first Trump administration. During the 2020 election, Carson and Trump co-authored a wall street journal The column attacked efforts to curb exclusionary single-family zoning and emphasized the need to maintain local control. So it’s fair to say that the 2025 Housing chapter reflects a common view of the right in the Trump era, even if Trump himself may not quite understand what’s in it.
Left-wing NIMBYs also often emphasize “local control.” Blue-state defenders of single-family zoning and other land-use restrictions in places like California generally don’t think so. Blue state NIMBYs may disagree with the 2025 plan on many other fronts; but they are on the same page here.
Defenders of zoning on both the left and the right ignore the reality that abolishing zoning restrictions can actually increase localism. Removing restrictions does not impose a single land use on an entire community. Instead, it allows individual owners to make their own decisions. You can build multi-family housing on your own land. But you don’t have to. You can continue to use the single-family home or use the land for another purpose. I can’t control what you do with your land, and you can’t control what I do with mine. It’s hard to get more local than that.
Impey zoning reform makes land use decisions more diverse and localized than central zoning board mandates. If you believe it is important to draw on local knowledge and consider the different needs of different areas, then letting property owners decide on their own land use is the right choice. The best use for my property may be very different from the best use for the property next door or down the street. Each property owner may have local knowledge that is not readily available to municipalities.
This is especially true if we remember that most zoning regulations are not just a matter of neighbors making decisions among themselves. In large cities and suburbs, local governments often impose a single set of zoning rules on tens or hundreds of thousands of properties. This is not localism: it is a regional form of central economic planning.
Even if local government zoning is overturned by a higher level of government (e.g., the state), the end result is still an increase in local control, since the final decision on how to use a particular piece of land now rests with the local government. State authorities. Property owners are more dispersed and localized than government zoning boards.
It is also worth noting that YIMBYism, backed by strong property rights, does not exclude all local coordination. Property owners can still cooperate on a voluntary basis and even form private planned communities if greater coordination is desired. I have previously outlined why such private efforts differ from government-mandated zoning and do not share the latter’s major drawbacks. Voluntary private partnerships are more sensitive to local needs than zoning because property owners will only make such arrangements if they believe it is best for them and their land and use local knowledge to make those decisions.
In conclusion, if you truly believe in local control of land use decisions, you should oppose zoning restrictions and support YIMBYism. This is as local as you can get!
The better argument in favor of zoning restrictions is not localism but the opposite: the fear that excessive localism in land-use decisions might harm outsiders. If I built an apartment building on my land, it might annoy neighbors, overburden regional infrastructure, or have other negative impacts that I might not consider because my focus is so local ation, the main concern is my own personal interests. Even if my neighbors have a say in decisions, we may not consider the potential impact of new development on people in other parts of the area.
I won’t discuss this anti-localist defense of zoning here, except to note that zoning restrictions themselves do great harm to outsiders because they raise housing costs, prevent people from “moving to opportunity” and reduce economic growth. Historically, they have also been used to maintain racial and ethnic segregation.
There are non-localist and even anti-localist justifications for various zoning restrictions. But if you care about “local control” you should be YIMBY!
I criticized the rationale for localism and federalism in limiting constitutional property rights in more detail in my 2011 article on “Federalism and Property Rights.”
