 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)”Paavo Monkkonen Housing Policy Debate, 2024, vol. 34, issue 2, 252-256 Abstract: 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. Date: 2024 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:houspd:v:34:y:2024:i:2:p:252-256 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2234884 Access Statistics for this article Housing Policy Debate is currently edited by Tom Sanchez, Susanne Viscarra and Derek Hyra More articles in Housing Policy Debate from Taylor & Francis Journals |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.