When government imposed restrictions are lifted on a property, does it automatically result in the property owner being better off? If a developer can has more leeway for a new project there is a sense that would create a positive income.
Say the new rules allowed for things like tightly stacked mobile homes and low-slung light industrial; neighbors that not everyone welcomes. Even without a formal acedemic review, it is possible to imagine that the neighborhood as a whole would drop a bit in value. It is even more believable should the nearby suburbs still exclude this type of land use in their geographic purview. Buyers choose the area that protects their lifestyle over the one that doesn’t and thus reducing price in the undesireable and increasing price across the city border.
And even if local government loosened some restrictions on development there is still the possibilty that the neighbors will fight a new project. In fact, it could be argued that changing the status quo is likely to drive up the prep and presentation costs for a developer. The more uncertainty, the more likely it will take longer to get through the approval process. No one likes not knowing.
What is relevent about the above tweet is that zoning rules, parking restrictions, turn around time for approvals all affect the cost of doing business and thus the value of the property in question. The rights of the those representing the public share a portion of the underlying value of real property which is then represented in money-form in the final sales price of the parcel.
Home Economics 