In the areas where it was applied, zoning has been justified on the basis of its retaining property values. Initially, this appears to be a positive aspect. The defense of zoning is usually stated in fiscal terms. This argument usually says that to keep taxes in line there should not be an undue burden on local services, including schools. Therefore growth must be contained.
Larger properties provide relatively higher tax base with minimal cost for services.
However, zoning is a government program, and as such it should serve the needs of the larger community first. The stability resulting from zoning is not uniform throughout the community as a whole. What must be recognized is that although it may help maintain property values in one area, it may cause a decline in property values in another neighborhood, where those who cannot break the zoning barrier must remain. Thus, the question must be asked whether the overall community benefit is served, or is the gain in one neighborhood more than offset in other neighborhoods, indirectly impacted by zoning, where it does not work to the advantage of residents, but through benign neglect to their disadvantage. 1 Robert L. Judkins.