Lessons from Texas

May 16th, 2011 at 8:24 am by David Farrar

blogs:

I have spent much of this week in Houston, Texas. Texas is the go-ahead large state in the United States today, and Houston is the oil and gas capital, America’s second largest port and home to a huge medical complex.

With it’s business-friendly environment, Texas is attracting firms and people from other states, notably over-taxed and over-regulated California, in large numbers. It has no state income tax. The state legislature only meets for 8 weeks every two years – and without air-conditioning so that politicians do not get too attracted to the place.

Heh. Amusing but not the part I suggest we emulate.

Houston is famous for having no zoning (land regulation). Yet it looks pretty much like many other US cities. Without controls you do not find an oil refinery next to prime residential real estate and the expected collection of businesses cluster around the port. But there are many neighborhood associations that set their own rules about things like how close to a boundary you can build or what colour you can paint your house.

The absence of land supply restrictions makes housing (and much else in Houston) incredibly cheap. You can get a very nice two-garage, four-bedroom house for as little as US $200,000. Some 500,000 ‘refugees’ from New Orleans moved to Houston after Hurricane Katrina without putting any significant pressure on house prices or the land market.

If ever the government gets around to a fundamental review of our dysfunctional Resource Management Act, there would be many lessons to be learned from Houston.

What I find most interesting is that the absence of zoning hasn’t resulted in the city being vastly different to other cities – just cheaper.

Think how much time and money would be saved, and lawyers dispensed with, if there was no district plan for a city!

Tags: ,

39 Responses to “Lessons from Texas”

  1. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,065 comments) says:

    Only Kerr could visit a place as unrelentingly horrible as Houston and think ‘let’s capture this magic!’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. YesWeDid (1,040 comments) says:

    And an alternative view from someone who lives in Houston (isn’t the internet wonderful):

    ‘Central Houston is a mess of adult entertainment shops juxtaposed to the swank homes and handful of commercialized villages filled with chain stores. If you step outside the highland villages or rice villages of the city, you are stuck with dilapated buildings. Good luck living even in the wealthiest of neighborhoods – from West U to med center to Galleria – without having crack or sex thrust onto you. In “central houston,” you’ll see neighborhoods without homeowners associations so the houses have disturbing businesses running out of them. The best located neighborhoods are unsafe and usually abutting some cheap 2 story apartment complex. There is no great place to live in Houston even if you have $1.5 mm to spend. My junior high school was right next door to a chemical plant and I remember evacuating one day because there was a spill at the plant.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. PaulL (5,964 comments) says:

    YesWeDid: so your concern is that the rich people might have to live near the poor people? Unusual concern for someone on the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nick R (498 comments) says:

    @ YesWeDid – Sounds like Roger Kerr’s description of an earthly paradise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. nasska (10,827 comments) says:

    …”The state legislature only meets for 8 weeks every two years “…..

    It reads like a description of heaven on earth until reality dawns. Given any government’s inability to keep out of its citizen’s affairs there must be a lot of power vested in the executive & the bureaucracy. Too much like NZ under FPP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Sam (498 comments) says:

    If the unregulated free market delivers cities as bad as status quo average (rather than iconic – e.g. NY, Chicago et al), US cities (i.e. no different), then there isn’t much to be said for that approach either. Most would argue that NZ cities (with the exception perhaps of Auckland), are much more preferable places to live in.

    That isn’t to say that there aren’t lessons to be learnt however, just that an assessment as superficial and blinkered as Kerr’s should’t be the standard upon which we aspire to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. robcarr (132 comments) says:

    Where my uncle lives in Houston there are holes where the pavements are meant to be because people have failed to get around to building them and there was no logical way to get to shops other than a half hour drive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    What I find most interesting is that the absence of zoning hasn’t resulted in the city being vastly different to other cities – just cheaper.

    What I find more interesting is that you just take that at face value.
    I suggest you visit Houston for a week and then come back and see if you think you can still make such a statement.

    Of all US cities I have been to, Houston is by far the worst and ugliest I have seen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. garethw (205 comments) says:

    Ha, classic – let’s model ourselves on Houston! The poster child for urban sprawl (when you’re in TEXAS land supply isn’t really an issue) and it’s costs…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    @ eszett I’m guessing you havent been to Pittsburgh or Detroit then. Houston’s ok, San Antonio is prettier tho.

    Or Baltimore – one nice block next to the water and the rest is a cess pool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    The nay-sayers have to explain why New York and similar iconic cities are losing population while Houston is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and also has one of the highest employment growth stats. (rank 3 of large cities in the US.)
    Stats:
    “For the second year in a row, the Dallas and Houston metropolitan areas led the nation in population growth in what may be a preview of 2010 Census results, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday.”

    The Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area gained 146,530 residents from July 2008 to July 2009, the highest numerical increase in the country, the bureau said.
    The Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land area ranked second with 140,784 additional residents.

    Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6927069.html#ixzz1MSbIrFMt
    Why are people leaving California for Houston if it so bad. I must say I was surprised at how green the city is and the peripheral new town are splendid. Have a look at Sierra.
    I suppose you see what you look for. Tourists rank cities very differently to the rankings of residents who actually regard housing affordability (and mobility) as highly important – as is access to employment.

    The older down town areas are “truly mixed” because they are totally free of both zoning and home associations. But they are kept this way to provide that choice and many take advantage of it.

    What struck me was the absence of graffiti and how well presented both the town and the people were – especially the minority groups.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    Not only that, but in that American Way, they can get what they want by force.

    In the 90s the Houston City Council decided to annex the suburb of Homewood, about 22,000 acres of residential suburbia that had been developed after World War 2 largely for employees of oil companies, many of whom were British.

    Homewood was independent, with its own council, but did depend on Houston City for some services. Houston City Council had territorial ambitions. Homewood was a desirable jewel to have. But the Homewooders were happy to be Homewooders, and not Houston-ites.

    An acquaintance of mine, who’d been in the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm for more than 25 years before retiring in the rank of captain and then going on to be a corporate pilot for BP, based in Houston, was rather alarmed to find armed policemen in his bedroom at 2am one day.

    At gunpoint, he told me, he was marched outside to the street, where other residents were also held at gunpoint, and then and there they were forced to sign papers agreeing to Houston City’s takeover. If not, Houston City could strip them of their properties.

    And apparently it was all legal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    @ tripewryter – any evidence to support that rather astonishing claim?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. adze (1,940 comments) says:

    Why would they be forced to sign at gunpoint if a refusal meant legal forfeit of their property anyway?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wat dabney (3,714 comments) says:

    Ha, classic – let’s model ourselves on Houston! The poster child for urban sprawl (when you’re in TEXAS land supply isn’t really an issue) and it’s costs…

    I agree. Let’s. Low-density living with big sections isn’t a problem for New Zealand with its tiny population.

    As Owen says, if Houston is so terrible people wouldn’t live there. It’s that simple. Yet still the left insists that it must assume power over the rest of us in order to control everything we do. Such arrogance and vanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Farmerpete (39 comments) says:

    We have a very large issue in this country. We will never have affordable housing with the inefficient, bureaucratic council process that developers like myself have to contend with. Before I make these comments let me first point out that I am in favour of careful environmentally responsible development. I favour regulation and planning control, but we have gone nuts!
    My partner and I develop subdivisions in the 50- 150 section range. We are both from heavy business and professional backgrounds and we run a virtual company. All expertise is employed for the specific project.
    Recently I did a rough and ready calculation that showed council costs and gst amounted to approximately $90k on a $250k section. That is 36%. It is just not possible to develop affordable housing with such hefty up front infrastructure costs, especially since the developer pays for all the services (apart from upgrades to sewerage plants etc)and hands them over to council on completion.
    But this isn’t the worst issue by a long shot. This can be planned for and budgeted, and as long as everyone knows (which they don’t) where the costs lie then it can be dealt with.
    The worst issue is the obstructionist attitude of councils. In my view, once land has been zoned and has been widely consulted on in the planning process, then councils should facilitate complying applications. They don’t! The first instinctive reaction of a council officer is to kick the application to touch by asking for more information, regardless of how frivolous this request might be. Anything to stop the clock ticking. Anything to avoid their statutory responsibility to complete the process within the specified number of days. In doing this council officers regularly obfuscate and totally mislead the elected officials, who generally are just not smart enough to deal with the complexities of the RMA etc. Further, councils have a revolving door with staff and you frequently have to start over again with a new staff member who has a different view.
    On a recent substantial development we did due diligence with council prior to purchase and confirmed they would provide water and sewerage connections on a block of residentially zoned land. Some 15 months into the application council finally told us the would not provide connections. They just didn’t give a toss about the ethics, the morality, or that they were in flagrant breach of their own regulations. Their attitude was ‘ we don’t have to give you a consent. and if you don’t like it take us to the environment court’. It was only after a very heavy threat of civil litigation and damages that they relented.
    In the meantime their process had taken so long that they had moved our application from one fiscal period to another and development charges went up over 100% to $33k per lot. Their total inefficiency moved the construction calendar by over 12 months. How do you think potential home owners would feel about this?
    In dealing with this particular council I have found council officers (not all of them, there are one or two exceptions) to be inefficient, to lack knowledge and experience, to endlessly lose files, and to routinely to lie to both us and their elected officials. They will even depart from their own published documents to delay fully compliant applications.
    You can draw your own conclusions about all of this. I wouldn’t want to live in Houston, and I believe we need to pick up our game here in terms of sensible planning (look at the dog’s breakfast on Auckland waterfront or the Nautilus eyesore in Orewa) but ask yourself why is it that Australians get such a bang for the buck in terms of housing costs. One thing I promise you is that the comparatively high price for NZ housing is not because the land and building developers are rorting you! They are not. Margins are incredibly skinny. The real truth is that councils are incredibly restrictive about zoning, and their costs are comparatively huge.
    One thing I have learned is that the average rate payer doesn’t have a clue about the shameful performance of their local body.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. nasska (10,827 comments) says:

    Farmerpete @ 10.32am

    Thanks for your interesting comment…..it confirms what many of us suspect but seldom do we get instances of local body incompetence explained.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. YesWeDid (1,040 comments) says:

    @farmerpete – my experience of councils and getting building consents and resource consent is the exact opposite to yours.

    To be fair it was only for a house extension and it was CHCH but it was after the September earthquake so they had a pretty big workload. And the total cost of the consents etc was about 4% of the total build price.

    I would also ask, if the developer does not pay for the infrastructure for the sections you are developing, who should? The rate payer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. reid (16,062 comments) says:

    Farmerpete, I would think it would make a lot of sense for developers like yourselves to get together and put a website together that names names and documents the issues you describe.

    The MSM and blogger communities would not ignore such evidence, well the MSM would try to but they couldn’t after awhile. Provided you stick to the non-trivial issues and when I say name names I don’t necessarily mean people but councils, places, particular developments, dates so those interested can work it out.

    It might be worth talking to Lawrence Yule who is the President of Local Government New Zealand and as a farmer, understands business. He would be very influential. But of course there is nothing so vigorously defended as a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction so don’t be too surprised if he’s totally against it either, but you never know.

    This issue of freeing up land has been on the table for ages with little articles here are there in the MSM but is not taken up on a sustained basis by any political group which is a shame. ACT should do it, frankly, it fits on many levels with their policies. But failing that, why not try to get a grassroots campaign going? Nothing to lose, and wouldn’t cost much, might take a bit of your time and I know that’s not free but hey, might work. You could become the Garth McVicor of the land development world

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg:

    The story of it used to be on the Net. He first mentioned this in a chatroom discussion about 2002, and it triggered a discussion among American members about whether that could be done, and then they talked about ‘eminent domain’.

    In later years (and I haven’t heard from him for about four years, when he was about to retire from corporate flying and sail off to Spain in a yacht he had been renovating over the years) we used to talk privately and occasionally exchanged e-mails.

    I’m interested in navies, flying, defence, world affairs, and I think he liked it that I was someone who could get him to reminisce with.

    I knew his name, and I checked it with The Navy List, which has entries for all officers of the Royal Navy. That was kosher. He mentioned an incident in which he had lost an aircraft in an accident, and I found that in an aviation magazine of the time. He talked about a task he had to do during the Falklands war in 1982, and that checked out, too.

    Homewood: before I wrote my post here, I Googled ‘The annexing of the suburb of Homewood by the Houston City Council’, and went through the first 10 pages, and then every 5 pages to about page 25. I had anticipated your question, which is reasonable. I was surprised that it wasn’t there, and yet it had been, and it had been reported by The Houston Chronicle. I had read it.

    But apparently the annexing was legal, and upheld in a court, whether state or federal I can’t recall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    My apologies: it was Kingwood, and it was 1996.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    The Houston annexation sounds trivial compared to the great Auckland annexations – the world’s biggest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Development contributions are not levied to cover costs generated by the development.
    Those are financial contributions levied under the RMA.

    Development contributions are simply fines imposed on developers to cover the costs of growth – such as libraries, swimming pools or whatever the Council choses. Consequently they work mainly to prevent growth – as does any fine.

    A couple in Auckland has applied for a building consent to raise their house to allow their mother (80+) to live downstairs.
    IT has taken since November so far and the last straw has been a charge of $40,000 development contribution because putting in a kitchen makes it a unit of demand. Clearly the old lady will put massive loads on the Regional Infrastructure.
    So the kitchen adds $40 thousand to the cost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. reid (16,062 comments) says:

    .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. reid (16,062 comments) says:

    Re: Kingwood. Why is anyone surprised? This is Texas, after all.

    I’m just surprised there wasn’t a massive gunfight between the police and the good citizens of Kingwood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    Reid:

    Apparently it was allowed under state law.

    My acquaintance had lived in the US for several years, and before that as a Royal Navy officer had been a frequent visitor since the late 60s-early 70s.

    He never thought he would experience anything like what he did in the Good Ol US of A.

    I’ve now found more about it. Houston would gain 50,000 or so mainly Anglo residents (apparently there was a race card played), but the city council’s case was that Kingwooders got their water from the city, and weren’t paying their fair share of it. Houston was a very annexing city, it seems. Need for liebensraum and all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    For goodness sake. Get up to date and forget your wild west fantasies.

    You might ask what Roger Kerr was doing in Houston.

    And wonder why the Congresswoman who was shot in the head in Nevada was moved ASAP to Houston because it had the world’s best rehabilitation health services.

    The Houston medical centre employs over 70,000 health professionals and of course has generated a huge number of health and medical related jobs around it.
    The electronics industry is booming and is now attracting all the bright young things from Silicon Valley because they can not only afford the housing but the cost of industrial land and building is so low.

    Costs count.

    [DPF: In 20 years the Houston population has increased a massive 25%. This indicates that plenty of people are finding it a great place to live]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. BlairM (2,303 comments) says:

    …”The state legislature only meets for 8 weeks every two years “…..

    It reads like a description of heaven on earth until reality dawns. Given any government’s inability to keep out of its citizen’s affairs there must be a lot of power vested in the executive & the bureaucracy. Too much like NZ under FPP.

    Your ignorance is forgivable – it is hard to imagine living in a place is awesome as Texas, but it really does exist. The reality is that the executive is even LESS powerful than the legislature! The Governor has almost no powers at all – in fact, on a sliding scale of executive power, Rick Perry is probably closer to Satyanand than he is to John Key. The most powerful position in Texas is probably the Lieutenant Governor, who heads up the Texas Senate and guides a lot of their programme. But even the Texas Capitol is not that powerful – a lot of power for lawmaking is devolved to the local counties, of which there are almost 100, from memory (Texas is a big place).

    All this adds up to Texas being (with the exception of a few morality laws – it’s still illegal to buy dildos here and there’s more than a few “dry” counties) a very libertarian place to live :-)

    Where my uncle lives in Houston there are holes where the pavements are meant to be because people have failed to get around to building them and there was no logical way to get to shops other than a half hour drive.

    In Texas, you don’t walk anywhere unless you are homeless. Everyone has cars and everyone drives. It’s just part of the culture. I found it weird when I first got here, but what is the point of building footpaths in that sort of culture? None really.

    I’ve visited Houston and it is FREAKING HUGE. No, it’s not the prettiest city on earth – it’s fairly functional by comparison to, say Auckland, with it’s beautiful harbour and volcanic hills – and if you want amazing architecture, you won’t find it there, but probably the majority of Houstonites would care very little for such things – they just enjoy living in one of the largest, most economically healthy, fastest growing cities in America. It’s built on a hurricane-battered swamp, so it started out ugly in the first place, and whatever is there now is a vast improvement on whatever was there before. If such an amazing place can be built in such a shitty location simply by getting rid of crappy council planners, imagine how absolutely freaking awesome Auckland could be by doing the same thing?

    (and personally I don’t find all the big box stores ugly – they are cathedrals of capitalism and civilisation. New Zealand, OTOH, has turned down IKEA because it would be “too popular”, which says everything about the shitty Kiwi mentality and the government we have there now)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. reid (16,062 comments) says:

    New Zealand, OTOH, has turned down IKEA because it would be “too popular”, which says everything about the shitty Kiwi mentality and the government we have there now

    Did the OIC turn it down and if so for that reason? Really? Crikey.

    Seriously the Nats have done nothing about streamlining resource management and investment framework law, have they. Shame on them. Where’s the downside in doing that? Perhaps they haven’t yet explained to John how very popular it would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. BlairM (2,303 comments) says:

    reid – it was the council, but yes, literally for those reasons! They thought it would draw too much traffic to Panmure and that the roads wouldn’t cope! So retarded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ben (2,412 comments) says:

    I visited Ikea today in Chicago. I am now so incensed at the prices being charged by Freedom Furniture in NZ that I am considering rounding up the funding required to research just how large the difference in furniture prices are, then estimate a gain to New Zealand from the introduction of Ikea and the elimination of Freedom Furniture, who can only be considered to be running a racket at the prices they charge. Then publish the report, forwarding a copy to Herr Brownlee and to the developers behind the Ikea proposal in Mt Wellington. Get Ikea into Christchurch right now. Christchurch and New Zealand needs the competence and excellence of Ikea.

    Incidentally, I believe it is on the record that Freedom Furniture was associated with the objection to Ikea made in the Environment Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RRM (9,597 comments) says:

    Engineer RRM thinks it’s interesting to see a lack of land control/zoning regulation actually operating in a real-world experiment, instead of just being endlessly and futilely theorised / wanked over by the political left and right.

    Leftie RRM suspects that a partizan political ideologue like Roger Kerr probably sees the validation of his theories and pet hobby-horses almost everywhere he looks!

    The overlap between Engineer RRM and Leftie RRM wonders if any form or local/state government could possibly fail in a territory with such immense mineral wealth? I.E. is it really the lack of zoning that is key to Texas’ success?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    @ eszett I’m guessing you havent been to Pittsburgh or Detroit then. Houston’s ok, San Antonio is prettier tho.

    Or Baltimore – one nice block next to the water and the rest is a cess pool.

    I was way too briefly in Detroit to enjoy the beauty, and I am sure there are some pretty bad cities in the US.
    But Houston is pretty much up there in the top 10. To claim that Houston is brilliant because it has no zoning is absurdly comical.

    I can’t really make out whether this is supposed to be satire or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    [DPF: In 20 years the Houston population has increased a massive 25%. This indicates that plenty of people are finding it a great place to live]

    Also true for e.g. Sana, Lagos and Karachi.
    All indication that plenty of people are finding these cities a great place to live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Also true for e.g. Sana, Lagos and Karachi.
    All indication that plenty of people are finding these cities a great place to live.

    Zing!…or maybe not…those countries (not cities, but still) have had very high birth rates for the last few decades (off the top my head). So unless that’s the case with Houston (which I doubt) you might have to think of something else. Just sayin’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Thomas Sowell on Houston and housing.

    http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Davo36 (34 comments) says:

    I really agreed with Farmerpetes story. I developed some property recently. I refurbished and existing commercial building in Papakura. All the activities were permitted in the zone. But I still needed resource consent. And that was the start of the ‘troubles’.

    I have blogged extensively about it here: http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?22149-Davo-Tries-Again and another thread with lots of examples of councils causing problems here: http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?25996-Councils-Holding-the-Country-to-Ransom

    It’s every bit as bad as what Farmerpete says. I for one, will certainly never every develop anything ever again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. macdo (18 comments) says:

    Two things….

    1. Interesting article at

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/3/why-our-major-cities-are-in-decay

    2. Been shopping – or transiting – Lunn Ave in Auckland lately? How did that all happen in a regulated environment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Belated contribution; I know Farrar will find this interesting. Houston has had several referendums about whether to adopt zoning or not. It is the LOW INCOME EARNERS who are overwhelmingly in favour of staying NO ZONING. i.e. they prefer the low cost of housing, to being excluded from the market by being “protected” by regulations.

    The more I learn about the intuition of the bible-bashin’ cornpone red-neck hicks of heartland USA, the more I admire them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.