Urban Libertarianism

Planning is generally thought as being centralized, command and control. Maybe once upon a time? Central planning makes sense when an economy can be directed toward a single goal: winning a war, engaging in 'catch-up' economic development. But when neither the way forward nor the common goals is known, central planning is problematic: You can't plan for something without a common understanding of ways and means, what is to be achieved, and how. 

As an urban planner, I am somewhat bemused by my own libertarianism. Perhaps a function of living in a blue city in a red state: I get why red states rail against the federal government in a very visceral way: top down intervention by a bunch of buffoons who either don't care about local context, or are hostile to it. 

So, let me define 'urban libertarianism' as the following: The most minimal restrictions on liberty possible, consistent with public safety, health, welfare, and morals. Or, as the Wiccan's put it: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will". But in a planning context, the harms (potentials for harm, endangerment) that must be considered are much broader, and longer lasting than in personal interactions. 

In an urban context, 'harming none' a pretty high standard. Unlike the country, there is simply less margin for error in a city: Things are closer together. So when you fire a gun, drive a car, build a structure, there are more limitations on where you can do it, when, and how.   This seems like common sense to me. When I go shooting, I recognize that I need to go someplace there is no-one to hit, and that what I'm shooting at should be back-stopped by a hill. And I recognize that there is a difference in building a shed by backyard, and building a house on a hill (which might slide downhill onto someone else's house). 

The importance of public safety is the easiest one to elucidate. Health likewise: noxious land uses are limited in where they are permitted to locate, recognizing proximity to many industrial pollutants is sickening. Welfare...let us take a moment to define it: the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization. (And ignore the spurious definition of 'a government handout'.) 

Welfare is more than the silver rule ("Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you"). The idea of public welfare relies more on an understanding of equity: You should not, in pursuit of your enjoyment, be permitted to make me miserable.  Even if you find that an acceptable trade-off. My classic example would be amplified music: Your neighbor feels it acceptable to impose it on you, with the (reasonable) expectation that you might expect to do the same. Within planning law, 'spite fences' would be the example: You cannot build a fence to block a view, with the aim of making me miserable, regardless of how much you might enjoy it.

'Morals' is something I would not have included five years ago, and indeed would have actively excluded. Perhaps becoming a parent has taught me how much of our civilization consists of customs and habits, prone to lapse, unless we are active in their transmission and perpetuation. In which case, what restrictions on human liberty in pursuit of public morality are acceptable to planning, in it's role as regulator of the built environment? You can't legislate morality: you can only legislate the creation of a built environment consistent with morality, one that facilitates moral behavior in public. Largely, it becomes a matter of how it's proper to act: specifically in the division of actions which are acceptable in the public realm, and those which ought be constrained to the private. And providing facilities accordingly: People don't defecate in the streets for kicks (looking at you, San Francisco). Paris doesn't provide public toilets out of generosity, but out of a recognition that if your built environment doesn't permit moral behavior, violations result. Crosswalks might be another example: Too many cities make it too difficult to cross the street legally. Likewise, too many cities make it too easy to speed--they encourage it even, designing streets as if they were rural highways.

Undeniably, restricting behavior for guard public safety, health, welfare, and morals leads to a parcel of restriction. But those restrictions ought be as minimal as possible, drawn as tightly as possible: the most minimal restrictions on liberty possible. And that requires laws drawn narrowly, even to the point of absurdity. Laws against protesting, or making a 'public nuisance' are far too broadly drawn. It invites abuse.

Over-regulation is rife. Let the thicket be pruned, and anything inconsistent with public safety, health, welfare, and morals be removed.