Land use serves development

Land use planning pretends to balance multiple interests while systematically serving development capital. Every zoning decision, every environmental review, every community input process is theater disguising value extraction from land appreciation.

──── The development capture mechanism

City planning departments are structurally dependent on development revenue through impact fees, property taxes, and construction permits. They cannot survive without continuous development projects generating municipal income.

This creates a fundamental conflict of interest: the agencies supposedly regulating development depend financially on approving development projects.

Planning staff careers advance by facilitating projects, not blocking them. Environmental consultants are hired by developers to produce approvals, not genuine assessments. Community engagement processes are designed to exhaust opposition rather than incorporate feedback.

The system is captured by design, not accident.

──── Zoning as value distribution

Zoning laws don’t protect communities—they distribute land value to preferred recipients.

Single-family zoning artificially restricts housing supply to inflate property values for existing homeowners. Commercial zoning concentrates retail profits in designated areas. Industrial zoning segregates environmental costs away from wealthy neighborhoods.

Each zoning designation creates or destroys billions in land value. The question isn’t what’s best for the community, but who gets the windfall and who bears the costs.

Rezoning processes are elaborate theater for predetermined value transfers.

──── Environmental review as procedural legitimacy

Environmental impact reviews have become bureaucratic rubber stamps that legitimize predetermined development decisions.

The process requires developers to identify environmental impacts, then allows them to proceed anyway with “mitigation measures” that rarely address actual damage.

CEQA in California and NEPA nationally create an illusion of environmental protection while systematically approving environmentally destructive projects.

The reviews serve legal liability protection for agencies, not environmental protection for communities.

──── Community input manipulation

Public comment periods and community meetings are designed to create the appearance of democratic participation while ensuring predetermined outcomes.

Meetings are scheduled during work hours when working people cannot attend. Technical documents are made intentionally incomprehensible. Comment periods are too short for meaningful review.

Developer-funded “community benefits” divide opposition by offering token concessions to selected groups. Environmental justice rhetoric gets deployed to approve projects that harm environmental justice communities.

The process manufactures consent rather than seeking genuine input.

──── Infrastructure as development subsidy

Public infrastructure investment follows development priorities rather than community needs.

Transit systems are routed to increase property values in targeted development areas. Utility upgrades subsidize private development costs. Road improvements facilitate suburban sprawl while displacing urban communities.

Infrastructure spending becomes indirect public subsidy for private land value appreciation.

Taxpayers fund the infrastructure that makes private development profitable.

──── Affordable housing theater

Inclusionary housing requirements and affordable housing mandates serve development interests rather than housing needs.

Percentage requirements are set low enough to maintain development profitability. In-lieu fees allow developers to pay money instead of providing housing. Affordability periods expire after 15-30 years, converting affordable units to market rate.

The programs create political cover for approving market-rate developments while providing minimal actual affordable housing.

Affordable housing policy becomes a tool for approving expensive housing.

──── Displacement as urban improvement

“Urban renewal,” “revitalization,” and “smart growth” are euphemisms for systematic displacement of low-income communities.

Existing communities are rebranded as “blighted” or “underutilized” to justify their destruction. New development is marketed as “community improvement” while displacing the actual community.

Transit-oriented development displaces communities near transit rather than serving existing transit users. Mixed-income housing replaces low-income housing with moderate-income housing.

The language of improvement disguises the reality of removal.

──── Historic preservation selectivity

Historic preservation protects property values in wealthy neighborhoods while allowing destruction in poor neighborhoods.

Historic districts in affluent areas prevent density that might reduce property values. Historic designation becomes a tool for exclusionary zoning.

Meanwhile, culturally significant buildings in low-income communities get demolished for development projects. Historic value depends on current property values.

History gets preserved where preservation serves wealth.

──── Climate policy as development opportunity

Climate change mitigation and adaptation policies are being rewritten to serve development interests.

Sea level rise planning becomes justification for coastal development restrictions that increase inland property values. Carbon reduction becomes rationale for dense development that displaces existing communities.

Green building standards add costs that smaller developers cannot afford, consolidating market share for large development companies. Electric vehicle infrastructure requirements become barriers to affordable housing development.

Climate policy becomes another mechanism for value extraction.

──── Regional planning as value coordination

Metropolitan planning organizations coordinate value extraction across multiple jurisdictions.

Regional housing needs assessments distribute development requirements to maintain regional property value hierarchies. Transportation planning directs infrastructure investment to predetermined growth areas.

Regional coordination prevents jurisdictions from opting out of development pressure, ensuring continued value extraction opportunities.

──── Legal framework alignment

Property law, municipal law, and environmental law align to prioritize development over other values.

Property rights are absolute when supporting development but conditional when restricting it. Eminent domain can seize property for private development but not for community land ownership.

Standing requirements prevent community groups from challenging development while giving developers broad legal rights. Appeals processes favor parties with resources for extended litigation.

The legal system structurally advantages development capital.

──── Financial dependency reinforcement

Municipal finance structures ensure continued dependency on development revenue.

Property tax systems require continuous property value appreciation to maintain city budgets. Impact fee systems depend on new development to fund infrastructure maintenance.

Bond financing for municipal projects requires future development to generate repayment revenue. Cities become addicted to development because they’ve structured their finances around growth dependency.

──── Alternative value frameworks

Land use planning could prioritize community stability, environmental health, and housing affordability instead of development profit.

Community land trusts can remove land from speculation markets permanently. Social housing can provide stable communities without profit extraction. Participatory budgeting can democratize infrastructure investment decisions.

Environmental restoration can be prioritized over development opportunity. Cultural preservation can protect communities rather than just buildings.

But these alternatives threaten the value extraction mechanisms that currently drive land use decisions.

────────────────────────────────────────

Land use planning serves development capital by design, not accident. Every mechanism—zoning, environmental review, community input, infrastructure investment—is structured to facilitate value extraction while creating the appearance of balanced decision-making.

The system doesn’t fail to serve community interests; it succeeds in serving development interests while disguising that service as community planning.

Understanding this structural capture is essential for evaluating any land use proposal. Reforms that maintain development capture will reproduce development-serving outcomes regardless of their community-oriented rhetoric.

The question isn’t whether development is necessary, but whether land use decisions should be structured to serve development profit or community values.