Shouldn't cities pay for downzoning?

Opponents of Prop 90, like Seal Beach city councilman Charles Antos, believe that cities shouldn't have to pay for downzoning. That it would be the end of local land use controls. It is true, of course, that cities have used downzoning quite extensively in recent decades. But is it really all that crucial? Have we ever really given any alternatives a chance?

Consider a typical downzoning scenario. Let's say you're allowed to build a three story structure on your property. Your property value reflects this. And thus so have your local property taxes, to the benefit of your city's general fund. But before you're able to make that major upgrade, the city decides it wants to downzone you so you can only have a two story structure. So your value has decreased, but you don't get paid anything for it. And you've paid taxes on that value all those years, but you don't those back either.

Is this fair? Is it right? No. But cities don't care about that. They argue that the practice is effective. It seems we live in a government neither of laws nor men, but in a government of utils.

But even if this practice results in the greatest good for the greatest number, it's hard to deny that this taking of property rights is not outright socialist behavior. But as long as it happens in controlled doses, most of us don't seem to notice. Or care.