I agree! I'm not at all a just-let-the-market-do-its-magic kind of guy, but "inclusive zoning" is a form of sliding scale pricing, imposing certain social costs we should collectively cover on arbitrary others who happen to be adjacent. 1/

When we want to purchase social goods, the purchaser should be the we that we compose as a government, with the burden sharing we democratically enact via tax policy. 2/

The issue is, which doesn't fall cleanly left or right, is that lots of people like to hide the existence of burdens and any proper accounting of upon whom they fall. 3/

Inclusive zoning is palatable to people on the right, because it's not overtly building social housing. It's palatable to people on the left, because you get units of affordable housing for people. 4/

But it'd be better if the state just bought units of affordable housing, and regulated the marketplace to ensure the provision is competitive and price-elastic. 5/

(There are lots of parallel cases. The fact that most college students don't pay the full "sticker price" for tuition is a way to get wealthier parents to subsidize poorer students.) 6/

(But why should the burden of subsidizing poorer students be restricted to wealthy people who happen to have college age kids? Wealthy childless people should chip in at least as much!) 7/

(But a sliding scale "looks" progressive, and hides redistribution in prices and price discrimination rather than overtly enacting it in government. So we ubiquitously and unjustly resort to it.) /fin