My normal position on Matt is that he needs kicked in the teeth. I know him as the economics blogger at slate.
You know he "only" has a BA in philosophy. Sure, sure, it's from "Harvard". But that really means it was taught by advanced grad students. My state degree came from actual "Doctors".
And his Slate stuff was insufferable. I don;t think it was his fault though. He has to spill a lot of content.
I really thought he was an insufferable writer, but then I read this.
Matt shows how current zoning is bad for both left and right reasons. Maybe we should allow better and smarter zoning so that more dense development is allowed where the market asks for it. If the measure of a book is that is convinces a reader of the writer's position, this book works (in spite of my preconceived notions of Matt's writings).
The only issue, as it remains with all public policy books, is the "What is to be done" section. I have an appreciating piece of land in an inner-ring suburb of Chicago. Why would I accommodate what he wants? Otherwise, go Matt, I might want to learn how to spell "Yglesias".