The
Dangers of Smart Growth
by William L. Anderson
[Posted May 28, 2000]
One of the major issues for this
year's electoral season is "smart growth,"
which to its advocates is needed to combat current
suburban residential patterns. According to the
"smart growth" promoters, modern suburbia is
a nightmare from hell, with its congested traffic,
ugly strip malls, and "cookie cutter" homes.
Such willy-nilly development, they
say, not only destroys the American Dream, but also
creates pollution, despair, and even violence. It is
proof that unplanned private enterprise, if left to
its own devices, menaces the very well being of people
who originally had fled to suburbia ostensibly to
escape what now threatens them.
"Smart growth" advocates,
on the other hand, see a utopia on the horizon in
which communities will be close knit, people will use
public transportation (or bicycles) instead of private
automobiles, and population density will increase.
Instead of the bourgeois yards (mowed by polluting
power mowers), residents will congregate in the
numerous "green spaces" provided by the
government. Commercial development will be kept at a
minimum and large stores like Wal-Mart, along with
shopping malls, will either be prohibited or kept far
away.
Such are the dreams of modern urban
planners. The only problem is that the people they say
they are rescuing from "suburban hell"
really have no intention of living in these utopian
communities. Thus, the planners turn to coercion, but
disguise it in the name of "smart growth."
In the days before the automobile,
most Americans either lived on farms in rural areas or
they lived close to the center of towns and cities.
Commuter trains and trolleys in large cities allowed
for some people to live in suburban communities, but
the growth of modern suburbia did not occur until
after World War II, when economic growth exploded and
nearly every family owned an automobile.
Numerous "Levittowns"
sprang up as middle and upper class Americans fled
central cities. At the same time, government was
moving in the opposite direction. New Deal legislation
created public housing authorities predicated upon the
belief that private enterprise would not create
"decent and affordable" homes for Americans.
Modeled after Marxist housing developments in Europe
and the Soviet Union, blocks of government-owned
apartments sprang up in large and medium sized cities
across the country.
Urban planners, of course, saw these
developments as a solution to the needs of poor
workers. It was not long before it was obvious that
public housing was not a solution, but an even greater
problem. A case in point was the infamous Pruitt-Igoe
development in St. Louis.
Built in the 1950s, Pruitt-Igoe won
architectural awards and the praise of utopians
everywhere. However, as the welfare state grew, so did
the number of non-working residents and single-parent
families. Pruitt-Igoe became synonymous with crime in
St. Louis, as the place became nearly unlivable. In
1972, authorities finally dynamited the
rodent-infested structures to the ground.
The same government that brought us
Pruitt-Igoe and any number of public housing horrors
in this country now says that it knows how to make
suburbia more inhabitable. Of course, the advent of
urban public housing made the suburbs even more
desirable both to white and black residents. That
anyone even believes government will not botch up the
suburbs the way it did the inner city is testament to
the power of bad ideas – and powerful interest
groups.
Let us look, then, at the new
"smart growth" proposals to see if they meet
economic muster. At the top of the list is public
transportation. We also look at "green
spaces" and concentrated housing.
The left has always condemned the
private automobile. Most critics say that is because
the automobile creates "pollution" through
tailpipe emissions, but the real enemy is the personal
freedom the car allows. It allows individuals to shop
in bulk at supermarkets and other retail stores
(carrying home their goods in car trunks instead of
holding them on their laps in buses or trolleys), not
to mention perform numerous other errands that would
not be possible under a strict public transportation
regime.
For the most part, individuals have
shunned public transportation for the automobile
despite the fact that government-subsidized buses,
trolleys and trains have been available for decades.
There are many reasons for their choices, but suffice
it to say that the only way for urban planners to
incorporate their transportation "dream" is
to coerce people into doing what they would not do
otherwise.
Green spaces are modern euphemisms
for public parks. Many people enjoy walking, biking,
or relaxing in parks, but that does not mean they
would give them up for their own yards.
Government-sponsored green spaces
also restrict the number of houses that can be
constructed in an area, which forces up the prices of
existing dwellings. Therefore, in the name of helping
people, government drives up housing prices.
These parks are seen as hand in hand
development with concentrated housing. Again, most
individuals have already demonstrated that they prefer
to live elsewhere. It is one thing for people to live
in townhouses and apartment buildings voluntarily. It
is quite another to restrict the choices of everyone
to force them to live in conditions and situations
they would not choose otherwise.
Americans today have more housing
choices than ever before, thanks to the automobile and
modern communications. By its very nature, on the
other hand, government acts by restricting individual
choice.
That politicians can even appeal to
those concerned about their quality of life is a
testament to the cunning of the political classes.
From Pruitt-Igoe to the morass of rent control and
other municipal fiascos, government has made a mess of
everything. Even if their schemes are idiotic and
harebrained, one must admit that the modern politician
has been a master salesman.
--------
William Anderson teaches economics
at North Greenville College. Send him MAIL.
518 W. Magnolia Avenue
Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
(334) 321-2100 -- Phone
(334) 321-2119 -- Fax
mail@mises.org
