[djreece]

I'm not a fan. I started my first post by stating I am absolutely opposed to the visioning and smart growth agenda. I took issue with the idea that the status quo is a "free market in housing." We would have to go back at least 40 years in most of the country to find anything close to a free market.

My concern is that when conservatives start defending the status quo as the "free market," we box ourselves into a corner. I have too often heard conservatives defend the status quo as if admitting any problems with it means that the only solution is socialism. (For instance, the health care debate where many conservatives defended HMOs--started by Sen. Ted Kennedy of all people--as being free market as opposed to socialist government-provided healthcare for all. HMOs have many problems. Ignoring them just encourages those who are frustrated to listen to the socialists and statists who tell them the answer is government healthcare. Eventually, conservatives came up with what I believe is a far superior, and truly free-market, solution: medical savings accounts.)

By ignoring the mess and decreasing quality of life that government zoning and overregulation has wrought, we just open the door for people to think that the only solution is the "visioning process" and "smart growth." We should acknowledge that not everyone wants to live in cookie-cutter, tract home neighborhoods where they have to fight traffic to get to their jobs, the supermarket, and the doctor. Acknowledging that the current system is not free market is the beginning to working toward a truly free-market solution that will benefit everyone.

[hedgetrimmer]

My concern is that when conservatives start defending the status quo as the "free market," we box ourselves into a corner.

I don't think anyone has done that on this thread. But there have been a few posters who insist that living in high density mixed use situations is peachy keeno boss, while studies show most Americans don't want to live like that. It has been explained that the goverment will coopt the building permits that are issued on a limited basis, so that the only kind of housing that gets built is as described above, and the individual hoping to build a private home on a little piece of land cannot compete with the government for those building permits.

When the only housing built is the high density properties you describe, and they are funded by taxpayers because the free market does not support that kind of development its true that this is a fairly recent development. People leave cities because they don't like the noise, crime, congestion and because they can build personal wealth by owning property instead of renting an apartment, they can raise families in a way that the children have access to the outdoors and fresh air without going to a public facility or park, and they have less impact on the environment because they are spread out, what's not to like about getting out of the cities?