'Open space' = Housing ban

TownHall.com ^ | 8/06/02 | Thomas Sowell

[hedgetrimmer]

"Why would people who have inherited great wealth use that wealth in ways that make life harder for people who were not born rich, but who have to work for a living? "

Because they don't want competition for the resources. That's all.

[BenLurkin]

The problem isn't really exclusion of blacks. It is the systematic exclusion of all but the "elite" of the upper middle class. Not coincidentally these are mostly liberals.

[crazykatz]

You are so right...gentrification dislocates just as many poor whites, if NOT more, than Blacks or Hispanics. It is a purely economic issue.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

.

[Clemenza]

But there are some places, especially in parts of New York and California, where housing prices are out of sight, even for bungalows in mediocre condition. What is there about those particular places?

This New Yorker has asked the same question Dr. Sowell, as New York is the only place I know of where long-time residents talk about a neighborhood "going to hell" despite having row houses in said neighborhood going for 700K and up. Hell, Harlem hit its first million dollar brownstone about a year and a half ago.

[henderson field]

Immigration is the cause of higher land prices.

[absalom01]

You know, my experience is that land use issues cut right across ideological lines. I doubt that any local elected official (who wants to stay elected) could run on any more pro-development platform than "limited growth" or "controlled growth". The notion that property rights are worth defending has virtually disapeared, at least in California. At best, most otherwise conservative folks support property rights in the next town over, or on their own little parcel of land, but certainly not for their next-door neighbor.

[logician2u]

Immigration is the cause of higher land prices.

That's an interesting premise. I suppose you think these immigrants are bringing along their great wealth to bid up the price of housing.

From what I've seen, that's simply not the case.

Nice try anyhow.

[Restorer]

Skyrocketing housing prices have made it virtually impossible for most blacks to live in some communities, where even modest homes or apartments command huge prices.

The truly great Dr. Sowell blows it here, at least as far as the San Francisco peninsula goes. It IS a peninsula. There is only so much land. Many people want to live there because it is beautiful. Completely unrestricted landuse would only delay the advent of skyrocketing housing prices that would result whenever the last acre of space was built over.

In general, he is correct. but not for those few places that everybody would like to live if given the opportunity. By definition, the free market will drive prices in these places out of sight.

[logician2u]

Well said.

NIMBYs are not confined to one party or to one region.

A few politicians with a backbone and a basic understanding of private property could make all the difference in the world.

Just don't expect to find them in California.

[no-s]

The truly great Dr. Sowell blows it here, at least as far as the San Francisco peninsula goes. It IS a peninsula.

Have you ever compared the ratio of populated land to developable "open space" on the SF peninsula? There's plenty out there, even in the vicinity of San Jose. San Mateo County is barely populated. It's mostly poison oak. Housing prices here have never found an equilibrium that wasn't artificially maintained. If you own a house, even a hovel, it's a gravy train (as long as you can make the mortgage), so I'm not complaining.

[NYpeanut]

I think you nailed it. The liberals get to feel good about themselves as they practice their environmental religion, blithely ignoring the elitism of the end result.

The activist left in my hometown would be shocked to find out that their restrictive land use beliefs are shared by my apolitical, longtime resident neighbors, who are at least honest enough to admit they're scared of "trash." Most of the restrictionists in my town are latecomers who want to slam the door shut behind them while cloaking themselves in platitudes about green space and environmental impact.

[madfly]

ping

[absalom01]

"Completely unrestricted landuse would only delay the advent of skyrocketing housing prices that would result whenever the last acre of space was built over."

T'aint necessarily so. When you're done with building "out" you can build "up". And the choice is not between zero land planning and the current death-grip that planning has on development. A good start would be to return to a basic legal respect for the private-property rights of landowners, so that the full cost of zoning decisions is born by those benefiting from the regulation.

In the present case, California is looking at an annual housing deficit of (I think I recall correctly) something like 200,000 units per annum. Those people have to live somewhere, and the current approach to land use planning will result only in further polarization of land use and housing costs.

[sauropod]

I so hope you are correct. I wonder why folks on the left side of the spectrum cannot see how essential property rights are to all our other freedoms. You are correct about folks imposing their will on their neighbors. that's called zoning and community associations. Then, the little fascists who have never had power before become tyrants.

Rectitudine Sto. Sauropod

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[sauropod]

Le Ping!

[1Old Pro]

Related:

"OPEN SPACE" TAXES. Has your town taxed you yet to "preserve" open space-

"Smart Growth" is "Agenda 21"