What is it about housing that turns many otherwise free-market conservatives into a bunch of central planners? Apparently socialism is just fine so long as it’s imposed in the name of local control.

My view is that, generally, government should respect and protect people’s property rights, including their right to develop their property as they see fit.

Yes, it is possible for one person to use his property in a way that interferes with others. No one thinks starting a pig farm in a residential area is a good idea. So government should set broad guardrails to protect rights.

Moreover, we’ve put local governments in the position to manage things like streets, water, and sewage. (We can leave libertarian debates about this for another day.) So we have to expect local government to ensure reasonable delivery of these services.

But local governments generally have gone far beyond reasonable restrictions pertaining to property rights and basic services. Government has instead set myriad arbitrary restrictions on property development that drive up the cost of housing, business, and transportation.

Shades of gray

I admit we quickly can run into gray areas. I have a small suburban house with a big yard. I easily could fit a mother-in-law cottage (“accessory dwelling unit”) in my back yard, something that until recently was restricted. I also (technically, not legally) could tear down my house and put in a three- or four-plex, or several tiny houses, with adequate on-site parking. I should be allowed to do things like that on my own property.

On the other hand, a ten-story tower on my lot obviously would block views, cast shade, drive traffic, increase noise, and potentially stress water and sewer services. So there’s a good case that government properly may block such a development on my lot.

Still, it makes no sense to permanently lock in a given type of structure, come what may. For example, if several neighbors wanted to pool their property in order to build a large residential unit with green space around it, government probably should allow that, depending on details. (Obviously a lot of people live in Home Owners’ Associations that restrict development.)

Usually what we’re talking about in the context of housing policy are currently undeveloped plots. In those contexts developers should have maximum freedom to build the sort of housing or other structures they think the market will support.

In some cases it can be hard to know where to draw the lines, but local governments generally have been far too restrictive. On the margins, then, I’m for more housing freedom. We need to shift the default from command-and-control to property rights and markets.

The governor’s order

On May 16, Governor Jared Polis signed an executive order, “regarding strategic growth through compliance with state laws.” This was in response to cities bucking pro-development state laws. You may recall the news from a few weeks ago, as CPR summarizes, “Some local governments say they won’t follow new Colorado laws requiring denser housing, less parking.”

Polis’s order is meant to strong-arm cities to comply by threatening to deprive them of certain state funds if they don’t. Polis mentions continuing problems with “the cost and lack of housing supply.” Yes, the Colorado housing market is shifting a bit more in favor of buyers, with relatively more units for sale, but it remains the case that for many families the cost of housing remains frighteningly high. As anyone with even a passing familiarity with basic economics understands, the solution is more housing.

I don’t agree with all aspects of Polis’s agenda. Sometimes Polis falls into the progressive trap of thinking that if something should not be outlawed then it should be subsidized. I’m for free markets in housing while Polis, in part, favors government funding. In his order, Polis points out that, since 2020, the Department of Local Affairs has spent $768 million for housing development, $152 million for affordable housing, and $538 million for rental assistance. Meanwhile, the Office of Economic Development and International Trade spent $290 on housing and $50 million “in Colorado’s offsite construction industry.” Meanwhile, legislators spent the entire session screaming about budget gaps.

But Polis also supported various state-wide measures to rein in local restrictions on housing. Generally I support such bills because they further property rights. People who oppose such legislation generally do so in the name of local control. But since when do conservatives get so excited about government control of people’s lives and property?

In his order, Polis mentions seven state laws that he’s signed this year and last:

House Bill 24-1007, Prohibit Residential Occupancy Limits.

House Bill 24-1152, Accessory Dwelling Units.

House Bill 24-1304, Minimum Parking Requirements.

House Bill B24-1313, Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities.

Senate Bill 24-174, Sustainable Affordable Housing Assistance.

House Bill 25-1273, Residential Building Stair Modernization.

Senate Bill 25-002, Regional Building Codes for Factory-Built Structures.

I’m skeptical about Senate Bill 174, but besides that I think these are good bills, and I agree with Polis that they will help “allow housing supply to finally start catching up with demand.”

An aside: The legislature killed the “Yes In God’s Back Yard” bill, which I’ve discussed before. Although I argued the bill should have been expanded to include all nonprofits, it was a good way to expand the ability of charitable groups to provide housing. But religious conservatives among others in the legislature denied this increased ability of church groups to help people.

Then Polis brings out the stick in his order: “To ensure State funds are effectively used to support these laws and further the legislative goal of incentivizing more housing and reducing costs for Coloradans, this Executive Order outlines the scope of State funding that will be tied to compliance with strategic growth laws.”

Again, I’m skeptical that any of the spending in question is legitimate. However, I certainly don’t support the state subsidizing local governments that put the screws to housing developers.

Cities sue the state

Six cities have sued the state over the land-use rules, as Bente Birkeland reports. “The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality” of Polis’s order, she reports, and it claims cities should not have to follow the laws pertaining to denser housing near transit hubs and parking requirements. The cities behind the suit are Greenwood Village, Arvada, Aurora, Glendale, Lafayette, and Westminster.

Here is how Greenwood Village Mayor George Lantz described the suit: “We’re seeing a steady erosion of our citizens’ ability to have a voice in the communities in which they live. The flurry of legislative proposals continually eroding our Home Rule rights applies a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach, removing all of their uniqueness.”

Let me translate Lantz’s statement: He thinks people who already own houses in his city often should be able to forcibly prevent other property owners in the area from building more housing. In short, he advocates housing socialism at the local level, where your property is controlled by the collective. What Lantz proposes is precisely a “top-down, one-size-fits-all approach,” only with him at the top.

But the entire point of a free society is that your neighbors are not able to dictate how you live your life or use your property. Look, no one is trying to force anyone who owns a house to tear down that house and put up something different. Mostly we’re talking about currently empty lots than someone wants to develop. The people who own that land have the right to develop it as they see fit, according to how they judge market demand.

How to handle parking

You can see why neighbors of a new development would care about parking. If a big development goes in down the street without much parking, and the people who live there all have cars, are those people going to start cluttering nearby neighborhoods with their vehicles?

So I am sensitive to concerns about parking. But the problem has solutions. I live close to a school, and my neighborhood already restricts street parking to residents.

For some people who own a car but rarely use it, it might make more sense to store their car at a paid lot away from where they live.

Longer term, technology might dramatically change people’s relationship with cars. Waymo already offers self-driving car rides in several U.S. cities. If these catch on in a big way, many people probably will give up their personal cars. My family has two cars that sit around maybe 95% of the time. In a world of autonomous vehicles, we’d give up at least one of our cars.

The point is, parking practices should be left to developers and their customers, not imposed by city bureaucrats. Again, it is astonishing to me how many “free market conservatives” suddenly become central planners when it comes to such things.

Anyway, “Denver could eliminate parking minimums citywide,” Denverite reported.

Liberty in housing

Thankfully, not all cities are waging legal warfare on property owners. I hear from the YIMBY crowd that Thornton is moving ahead with some housing policies more supportive of liberty and property rights. The left-leaning Southwest Energy Efficiency Project reports that various cities are revamping housing policies in what I consider a positive direction.

I’m tired of friends moving out of state because they cannot afford housing here. If my family did not already own a house we’d have a hard time living here. Others have the right and deserve the opportunity to build and buy housing in a free market. We need housing liberty.

Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.