As Utah lawmakers consider zoning pre-emption legislation, supporters frequently point to Houston as proof that eliminating local zoning authority unleashes economic growth and housing innovation. The narrative sounds compelling: America’s fourth-largest city thrives without the bureaucratic constraints that supposedly stifle development elsewhere.
The reality proves far more complex. A closer examination of Houston’s land use system reveals not the free-market success story advocates claim, but a cautionary tale about what happens when communities lose the power to shape their own futures. For Utah legislators who prize local control and community self-determination, Houston’s experience should prompt serious reconsideration of any move toward state zoning pre-emption.
The Two-Houston Problem
Houston may lack formal zoning ordinances, but it certainly has not eliminated land use controls. Instead, the city operates under a two-tiered system that protects wealthy neighborhoods while leaving working-class communities vulnerable to incompatible development.
Affluent areas like River Oaks maintain strict private deed restrictions that function exactly like zoning ordinances. These neighborhoods successfully exclude unwanted commercial and high-density residential development through contractual agreements that Houston’s government actively enforces. Residents possess the legal sophistication and financial resources to create, maintain, and defend these private regulations.
Meanwhile, lower-income neighborhoods often see their deed restrictions expire or go unenforced due to lack of resources and legal knowledge. The result creates what land use attorney Matthew Festa calls a system where “the affluent are protected” while others face the consequences of unregulated development.
This disparity manifests in stark environmental justice outcomes. Research by Dr. Robert Bullard documents how Houston’s industrial development concentrated in minority communities precisely because those neighborhoods lacked effective land use protections. Between 1930 and 1978, 82 percent of Houston’s waste disposal facilities located in primarily Black neighborhoods, despite those residents comprising only 25 percent of the city’s population.
The pattern continues today. Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee recently sued state environmental regulators to prevent yet another concrete batch plant from locating across from a hospital in a predominantly minority neighborhood, a fight that would be unnecessary with proper zoning protections.
Market Failure in Housing Affordability
Proponents of zoning elimination (or pre-emption) often argue that removing regulatory barriers will increase housing supply and reduce costs. Houston’s experience suggests otherwise. Despite theoretical development flexibility, the city struggles with affordable housing availability comparable to much more expensive markets.
According to research by Texas Housers, Houston residents actually have worse access to affordable rental housing than residents of Boston, a city with significantly higher overall housing costs. The absence of zoning creates intense land speculation and competition that often prices out affordable housing developers who cannot compete with luxury residential and commercial projects.
“Land use deregulation and zoning reform alone is at best only a partial answer for increasing housing affordability,” explains Ben Martin, research director for Texas Housers. “You really need more public sector intervention in addition to any of these reforms in order to make housing affordable.”
The Houston model fails because it assumes market forces alone will produce equitable outcomes. In practice, the absence of public planning simply allows private wealth to determine land use patterns, often to the detriment of working families and community stability.
Regulatory Complexity Without Input
Perhaps most troubling for defenders of limited government, Houston has not actually eliminated land use regulation, it has simply made that regulation less transparent and accountable. The city maintains extensive development codes governing setbacks, parking requirements, building heights, and density limits. Developers still navigate complex bureaucratic processes and seek variances from planning commissions.
The difference is that communities lose meaningful input into what gets built in their neighborhoods. Local planning becomes reactive rather than proactive, forcing residents into expensive legal battles after inappropriate development proposals emerge rather than allowing participation in creating neighborhood plans.
This system particularly harms communities that lack the resources to hire attorneys and fight individual development projects. Wealthy neighborhoods can afford legal challenges and have the political connections to influence city policy. Working class communities often discover incompatible developments only after construction begins.
Utah’s Better Path Forward
Utah faces legitimate housing affordability and availability challenges that demand thoughtful policy responses. However, zoning pre-emption represents a false choice between local control and housing innovation. Our state can pursue meaningful housing reforms while preserving the community self-determination that defines Utah’s governance tradition.
Local zoning authority allows Utah communities to craft solutions tailored to their unique circumstances, geography, and values. Rural towns face different development pressures than suburban neighborhoods or urban centers. Mountain communities must balance growth with environmental protection in ways that valley cities do not. Stripping away local authority ignores these crucial differences.
Instead of pre-emption, Utah should pursue targeted reforms that incentivize rather than mandate changes to local zoning codes. The state can offer technical assistance to communities seeking to update outdated ordinances, provide funding for affordable housing initiatives that require local zoning flexibility, and create model ordinances that communities can voluntarily adopt.
Such an approach respects both the legitimate need for housing solutions and the fundamental principle that communities should control their own development patterns. It harnesses local knowledge and democratic participation rather than imposing one-size-fits-all mandates.
Principled Governance in Action
The Houston experience demonstrates that eliminating local zoning authority does not eliminate land use regulation, it simply transfers control from public institutions to private wealth and market forces. For Utah Republicans who champion local control, property rights, and community self-determination, this represents precisely the kind of centralized overreach our party traditionally opposes.
Utah’s strength lies in empowering communities to solve their own problems while providing state support and resources. Zoning pre-emption abandons that principle in favor of a top-down approach that has produced mixed results at best in Houston and could create serious inequities in Utah.
As lawmakers consider housing policy this session, they should remember that good governance requires more than theoretical economic models, it demands attention to real-world outcomes and respect for the communities we serve. Houston offers not a model to emulate, but a reminder that complex challenges require nuanced solutions that preserve both opportunity and local control.
Lance Haynie is a public affairs professional with over two decades of experience in government relations, risk management, policy development, and strategic leadership. He has worked with local, state, and federal partners to advance practical, results-driven solutions that strengthen communities and improve how government serves the people it represents.
A Republican who believes government should remain limited, focused, and accountable, Lance draws on experience in both the public and private sectors to advocate for policies that promote freedom, responsibility, and individual opportunity. His writing explores the intersection of policy, leadership, and community success with a focus on responsible governance, local control, and solutions that empower people rather than institutions.
Related Posts
Articles written by Lance Haynie are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The views and opinions expressed are those of Lance Haynie, and do not represent the official position of his employer or any affiliated organization.