Local zoning: population control without all that 15-minute city fuss

In the U.S., authorities control access & mobility with boring land use rules, not with barbwire fence.

The debate around 15-minute cities continues to rage, both in the form of protests (Oxford, England) and social media name-calling. People around the world are jumping in the fray.

“You stupid conspiracy theorist!”

“You evil authoritarian!”

But it’s not as simple as “a government is/isn’t gonna _____ with this new policy.” In some cases, it’s simply an effort to give people more access options (walking & bicycling, especially). In other cases, it’s a clear mechanism of control by the authority.

Here’s one angle on this kerfuffle that corporate press outlets aren’t reporting: local governments in the United States already demonstrate power and control over the movement of citizens.

While Americans across the political spectrum have spent the post-9/11 years worrying about how governments might use technology to control populations, governments were using local land use and transportation regulations to control populations.

The fear over 15-minute city policy is that residents could be locked in place without means to leave. (Read this if you haven’t already.) But limiting the public’s access and mobility has already happened in the past, is happening right now, and will continue to happen in the future. In the U.S., it’s done with boring land use rules, not with barbwire fence.

I hate caveats dropping caveats, but here we go. Please don’t interpret the above as a claim that your local planning department has intentionally been herding you into pens so they can lock you in when the time is right. Please do interpret the above as authorities have already stripped us of mobility freedom.

Local zoning: population control without all that 15-minute city fuss

If I was a government leader hellbent on controlling the population, my go-to tool would be exclusionary zoning. Don’t even think about the intentions of land use regulations for the moment. Focus on the outcomes.

Local planning departments create and enforce the rules for development patterns.

• You are permitted to live in this zone, but you’re not permitted to operate a business in your living zone.

• You are permitted to serve ice cream in this zone, but you’re not permitted to rent part of the space as an Airbnb in the retail zone.

• You are permitted to build a church in this zone, but you’re not permitted to set up an apartment attached to the church to help struggling members of the community get back on their feet.

• You are permitted to travel from one zone to another in any gas-powered or electric vehicle of your choosing.

I’m grateful that in early 2023, there’s a growing number of writers confronting the harms of land use regulations. Zoning specifically has created social and economic disasters that have been documented for decades, but little reform has come. Groups like Congress for the New Urbanism have championed form-based codes, and there are certainly independent planners acting as reformers. But the “allowable” range of debate about zoning abolition is painfully narrow. This is true for planning departments and planning consultants.

Dept Head: "I’m leading a webinar about how exclusionary zoning has done incredible damage over the years, especially to low-income and other disadvantaged communities."

Dept Staff: "So we’re abolishing exclusionary zoning?"

Dept Head: "Well. It's not that easy. You don't want to live next to an oil refinery, do you? Exclusionary zoning does a lot of good, actually."

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.

Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

I think about this Chomsky quote all the time. It’s true for international issues like war policy and disaster relief, and for domestic issues like tax code and street design. I’ll leave you with a reminder from the AICP Code of Ethics. All planning work is to be informed by continuous and open debate. Our challenge as promoters of human-scale design is to expand the spectrum of acceptable opinion.