As this fall’s midterm elections fast approach, candidates everywhere are scrambling to convince voters they’re in touch with the will of the people while painting their opponents as “Beltway insiders.” An uncomfortable truth for all involved is that when public and elite opinions clash, the customer isn’t always right.

I’ve written about how laws prohibiting buildings taller than 130 feet in Washington, D.C., contribute to astronomical rent prices in the area. It’s a position held by liberals and libertarians alike — see this explainer by progressive Vox’s Matt Yglesias for proof. Even Salon, hardly a champion of economic laissez-faire, partially attributes the gangbuster growth of Arlington, Virginia, to its having much looser building height restrictions than the ones inside the neighboring capital city’s boundaries.



[GALLERY: Cartoons on the Economy]

In other words, it’s practically settled science that keeping people from building up in an area with high demand drives prices through the roof. Little more than freshman economics is needed to understand that. A recent discussion on Twitter among a bunch of political reporters demonstrates the point: Even the skeptics conceded that building regulations “exacerbate the problem,” though they felt that taller construction “on its own” was not enough to fully fix it.

Calls for fewer regulations tend to be associated with radical free-market supporters like me, but in fact, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray is among the biggest proponents of loosening the District’s height restrictions. He has teamed up with the political odd couple of Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat, and House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, a Republican, to float the idea. Even small changes could “help hugely with economic development,” Issa has said.

But D.C. residents are not persuaded. In January, the Washington Post asked 1,003 adults in the area whether the city should keep its existing height limits. Six in ten said yes. Just 37 percent thought D.C. ought to allow taller buildings in some places. Which goes to show that just because a proposal lacks popular support doesn’t mean it’s not good policy.



