An eye-opening
piece in today's Chicago Tribune today highlighting a recent Reason Magazine study that ranked the 35 biggest US on their propensity for laws restricting personal freedoms: alcohol, tobacco, food, sex, movement, gambling, guns, and a few idiosyncratic others.
The study reveals Chicago to be a stagnant brew of blue-state for-your-own-good paternalism and red-state moralism: the most governmentally controlling city in the country. And, as the article puts it, "it wasn't even close."
Maybe it's a stretch to tie this disheartening trend into the real estate market, but let me try: It's about where people want to live.
American cities have enjoyed a nearly two decades of prosperity and revitalization. They have done so as people (generally young people) sought a rebound from the stifling banality of American Suburbia. Cities bring depth and texture, excitement and engagement, grit and opportunity. These laws are designed to smooth out the very grit that people seek.
The legal activism that seeks a protective climate suitable for everyone's comfort-level winds up with a harsh climate tolerable by none.
No city is immune of course. San Francisco is incredibly nosy about what you eat, live, and move, but is ok if you like to partake in recreational drugs. Louisville may not like your bedroom practices, but a bourbon and a concealed weapon make for a good party anyway. Chicago just can't make up it's mind so Richie Daly steamrolls everyone.
The impact on housing prices is a long term one. Over time, these personal nuances are the underpinnings of a city's desirability for the next generation of creators, builders, innovators. These freedoms are what people seek cities for. Restrict at your peril.
Yesterday I wrote about Chicago's dubious distinction as the most socially regulated city in the US. I argue that trend does not bode well for the creative class, the city's future prosperity and ultimately its real estate values over the long haul. How
Tracked: Jun 30, 09:59