Judge Glock on Zoning and Local Government

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Judge Glock argues that U.S. housing affordability is often better than critics suggest, and that zoning can sometimes support efficient local public goods and amenity preservation. But he contends much of current zoning is too restrictive, especially where state policies, property-tax equalization, and growth controls weaken local incentives to build and compete. He favors restoring competition, local fiscal incentives, and outward growth rather than one-size-fits-all mandates.

Main Topics: Zoning's mixed value (Priority: 5/5): Glock gives zoning a limited defense: it can help local governments finance public goods, preserve neighborhood character, and align homeowners' incentives with community quality. He rejects the idea that zoning is purely harmful, while still criticizing its common overuse. Housing affordability across regions (Priority: 5/5): The discussion contrasts expensive coastal metros with more affordable U.S. cities like Nashville, Atlanta, Dallas, and Oklahoma City, arguing that strict zoning alone cannot explain national housing outcomes because many regulated places remain affordable. Local public choice and the Tiebout model (Priority: 5/5): The conversation centers on the idea that competition among local governments can improve public-goods provision by letting residents choose among jurisdictions, but only if governments retain incentives to attract residents and investment. Property taxes, schools, and California's incentives (Priority: 5/5): Glock argues that school-funding equalization and property-tax limits weakened the link between local development and local benefits, reducing homeowners' incentive to support growth and contributing to California's housing crisis. Growth boundaries, LAFCOs, and municipal competition (Priority: 4/5): He criticizes California-style barriers to forming new municipalities and expanding outward, saying these rules function like cartels that block competition and keep land artificially scarce. Sprawl, density, and environmental tradeoffs (Priority: 4/5): The guest challenges the claim that density is always environmentally superior, pointing to local pollution, construction emissions, and the resource intensity of high-rise development, while acknowledging costs of sprawl. City governance and public space (Priority: 3/5): Russ Roberts and Glock discuss how cities often overregulate private space while under-managing public space; Glock argues good city policy should focus on safety, cleanliness, and street order.

Key Arguments: American housing is not uniformly broken; many regions remain relatively affordable, so zoning is not the sole or even main driver everywhere. Zoning can support local public goods by tying property wealth, tax burdens, and neighborhood quality together, making homeowners more willing to fund services. The Tiebout-style model works best when residents can exit to competing jurisdictions; zoning and local government competition are part of that system. Current zoning in many places is too restrictive and functions like a monopoly by limiting supply and keeping land underdeveloped. California's housing problems are amplified by barriers to outward growth and the creation of new municipalities, not just by single-family zoning. Redistributing school property-tax revenue weakened local incentives to support development and may have contributed to Proposition 13 and declining school quality. Urban density is not automatically greener; it can raise local pollution, require more concrete and steel, and increase energy use in buildings. Cities improve when they protect public order and street quality; excessive regulation of private construction alongside weak public-space management is backwards. A strong exit option is essential: if people can move or create new local governments, local control becomes more efficient and less exploitative. Higher-level courts and governments should prevent extreme local exclusion, but should not collapse diverse local choices into a single national rule.

Data Points: Median house price to median income ratio (U.S.): about 4 - Used to argue American housing is relatively affordable compared with other countries. Median house price to median income ratio (New Zealand/Australia): about 7-8 - Compared with the U.S. to show higher relative housing costs in other Anglophone countries. Median house price to median income ratio (Japan, as cited): about 7-8 - Presented as another example of expensive housing despite an urbanist reputation. Bay Area land under grazing/pasture: almost 40% of the nine-county Bay Area - Used to argue outward growth constraints matter more than dense-core zoning alone. School test performance gap (Palo Alto vs. East Palo Alto): 99th percentile vs. single digits / 1st percentile in some areas - Illustrates unequal school outcomes and why local school funding matters to property owners. Property tax growth cap in California (Prop 13): roughly 1% per year - Described as limiting property-tax increases and altering local government incentives. Voter margin for Proposition 13: about two-to-one - Passed in 1978 after property-tax equalization debates. Local air pollution reduction from cars: more than 90% per mile driven - Used to argue that anti-sprawl arguments based on local pollution are less compelling today. Millennial preference for single-family homes: about 90% - Cited to support the claim that many Americans still prefer suburban housing types.

Pivotal Quotes: "if you have zoning that determines sort of how much property people could afford or should afford... you basically had something that looked, you know, kind of, if you really squint a little bit, maybe like a business" — Judge Glock: Explaining the economic rationale for zoning and local fiscal incentives "The last thing we want to do is collapse an admirable diversity of lifestyles into a battlefield in a state capitol or into Washington, D.C." — Judge Glock: Summarizing his preference for local diversity over uniform national rules "the argument that zoning is the overwhelming reason why housing prices are high, Houston shows has very low housing prices" — Judge Glock: Using Houston and other cities to challenge the idea that zoning alone explains affordability

Implications: The conversation suggests housing reform should focus less on blanket upzoning and more on restoring local competition, fiscal incentives, and outward growth. Policymakers should preserve diversity while removing cartels, tax distortions, and barriers to new communities.