• By any honest measure, America’s zoning laws are overdue for reform.

In 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., a case that legitimized what we now call “Euclidean zoning”—the rigid separation of land into residential, commercial, and industrial districts. At the time, the ruling reflected the realities of a smokestack economy and rapidly industrializing cities.

One hundred years later, those same assumptions continue to shape local land-use rules across the country. The result? Thousands of home-based businesses—especially small, low-capital, and food-related enterprises—are still treated as zoning problems rather than economic assets.

A late U.S. Senator (who grew up in a rural farmland community) liked to remind folks, “All politics is local”,  and when it comes to zoning, that maxim cuts both ways. Local control has often meant arbitrary control, enforced by hundreds of municipalities applying outdated rules to modern livelihoods. Many of us grew up hearing, “You can’t beat City Hall.” For home-based entrepreneurs, that sentiment still rings true.

Legal scholar Alexandra G. DeSimone captured this problem succinctly in a 2020 law review essay. She notes that zoning categories like “residential” and “commercial” no longer reflect how people actually live and work. Technology, e-commerce, and shifting social norms have blurred those lines beyond recognition.

Americans today want flexibility—to run businesses from home, sell food at local markets, operate mobile services, or supplement household income without leasing expensive commercial space. These aren’t fringe activities. They are the backbone of modern local economies. Yet zoning codes rooted in 20th-century thinking routinely block them.

DeSimone also warns that alternatives to rigid zoning, when poorly designed, can create subjective and politicized approval processes—often harming marginalized entrepreneurs first. In other words, the problem isn’t just outdated rules; it’s arbitrary power.

That warning should resonate in Washington State. As of 2026, more than 300 local jurisdictions maintain a patchwork of home-occupation regulations. Some are reasonable. Many are not. Collectively, they form an anti-competitive maze that favors established, brick-and-mortar businesses while burdening small, home-based operators with inconsistent restrictions, fees, and enforcement risks.

This is not theoretical harm. It affects cottage food producers, artisans, family-run startups, and rural entrepreneurs—precisely the people policymakers claim to want to support.

There is, however, a working model for reform.

In 2021, Florida enacted a statewide home-based business protection law that sharply limited local governments’ ability to prohibit or discriminatorily regulate businesses operating from residences. Under Florida law, home-based businesses may operate in residential zones and may not be treated differently from other businesses within a jurisdiction, subject to reasonable health and safety standards.

Five years in, Florida’s approach appears both balanced and effective. It preserves legitimate local concerns—such as traffic, noise, and safety—while eliminating blanket prohibitions and protectionist zoning barriers. Importantly, it replaces a fragmented local regime with clear statewide rules, giving entrepreneurs certainty instead of guesswork.

Washington has not taken this step. Instead, it continues to rely on zoning doctrines developed for a different century, enforced unevenly across hundreds of jurisdictions. The result is economic friction where there should be opportunity.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “I am an enemy to vice and a friend to virtue, a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power.” Zoning that blocks lawful, low-impact home businesses without clear public benefit fits squarely within what Franklin warned against.

As we mark the centennial of Euclid v. Ambler, lawmakers should ask a simple question: Are zoning laws still serving the public—or merely preserving the past?

Florida has shown that reform is possible. Washington—and much of the nation—should take note.

RESOURCES: 

DeSimone essay: https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/943-967-DeSimone-Updated.pdf  (No firewall)

Florida Law: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0559/Sections/0559.955.html

Florida reforms: https://ij.org/ll/double-the-freedom-double-the-fun-for-second-straight-year-florida-sets-the-standard-in-economic-liberty-reforms/