[tryitnow]

It's not really a "free-market" issue. It's more about good regulation versus bad regulation.

Sure, we could just complain about how NIMBYism hurts us all, but as long as there isn't a more powerful government unit intervening to control local regulations then we are always going to have overly restrictive zoning.

This is an example where the libertarian arguments come up short. Paradoxically, what's needed is more regulation, specifically, regulations restricting excessive zoning regulations. Yep, that seems bureaucratic and confusing, but is there another serious alternative? Local governments love to meddle and will do so unless a more powerful authority prevents them.

It's weird, but really the only way out of this mess is more regulations at the state or federal level.

[fche]

"but is there another serious alternative?"

Certainly. Enforcing constitutional limits on government action.

[eli_gottlieb]

The problem is that when it comes to local government, there basically are no constitutional limits. American government is constructed under the assumption that local government ought to be able to vary enough to support everything from communes to monasteries, rather than state or county governments enforcing a uniform notion of "normal life" with "normal" civil rights overriding local notions of morality.

If you live in a dry town and you're a drinker, you're supposed to GTFO, not complain about human rights.

[fche]

"local government, there basically are no constitutional limits"

They certainly get a lot of leeway, but "incorporation" applies many federal protections against municipal governments too.

[jbangert]

guidelines on what rules can do (e.g. That restrict rules on other actions) act to increase agency, not decrease it so I'd say they reduce the amount of bureaucratic hassle (they also decrease the total complexity of rules)