That list is interesting and contradictive. I agree with their opposition to regional planning dictating local development. Regional planning commissions should undertake issues such as transportation, watershed, and regional infrastructure planning, not local land use planning. I also support their opposition to minimum lot size restrictions and belief that local planning decisions should be made based on solid facts. How many land use decisions have been made based on lies and falsehoods? How many Cities have approved plans out of fear of sprawl without ever researching sprawl? How many Cities have denied projects because of Residents’ usual trifecta of complaints – increased traffic, increased crime, lower property values, without actually researching to determine if they are true? I also like the idea that future residents rights should be considered. I am so sick of this “I moved here, now I don’t want another house or business to move into the city ever again” attitude.
My big problem with their list is the whole “let the free market decide” attitude towards comprehensive planning. Houston is an example of what happens when communities take that approach.
Pretty much as I expected. Taking something from the Heritage Foundation is much the same as taking it from Earth First! Indeed at times they closely resemble one another.
There is no evidence that "common law principles" of nuisance ever protected anyone of ordinary means from anything, and it clearly is not preventative. And would the HF folks accept common law on trespass, which clearly held that trespass meant entry onto another person's land AND causing harm? The common law allowed free passage over an uncultivated space. I don't think they'd be too consistent on this one. Likewise, while they purport to love efficiency, they only believe in cleaning up messes after they are made, never before. Is that efficient?
You can go all the way back to the Wealth of Nations and find even Adam Smith making it clear that land is NOT a commodity in the same sense as, say, the pins he used as his example. Overall this is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.
I agree with you both. The list contains many glaring contradictions. Empowering local neighborhoods while at the same time planning for future residents rather than current residents and "planning for "diverse neighborhoods"-that ain't how local homeowners think.
To a certain extent, comprehensive planning, which these "principles" also de*****te, is supposed to do just that. And, very rarely have I seen comprehenisve plans that are so rigid that they can't reflect changes in the market.
Don't get me started on the use of nuisance law in local courts instead of zoning.