Comments on: There’s Nothing Libertarian About Sprawl

By: Urban sprawl truth « Past the future

Urban sprawl truth « Past the future — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:39:10 +0000

[...] lifestyle choices onto others “by limiting where they can build.” The fallacy of this view has beenpointed out about 100 times. For the 101st time: sprawl — an umbrella term for the pattern of [...]

By: Walmart is not the culprit, it is the symptom | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:26:21 +0000

[...] lifestyle choices onto others “by limiting where they can build.” The fallacy of this view has been pointed out about 100 times. For the 101st time: sprawl — an umbrella term for the pattern [...]

By: The American Conservative » Sprawling Misconceptions

The American Conservative » Sprawling Misconceptions — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:11:07 +0000

[...] choices onto others “by limiting where they can build.” The fallacy of this view has been pointed out about 100 times. For the 101st time: sprawl — an umbrella term for the [...]

By: Mat

Mat — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:31:38 +0000

It’s odd in one sense that libertarians see conspiracy in the smart growth movement, because part of the reason it came about was because of their concerns about what came before it. The predecessor of smart growth was exclusionary anti-growth regimes, which aimed to prevent the ills associated with growth by stopping growth. Think ultra large-lot zoning and building permit moratoria. This was the approach back in the 1970s and 80s. Smart growth at least tries to reach a compromise by letting housing supply and the rest of the built environment expand, with higher density in designated locations being the tradeoff. Then traditional urban design principles are applied to the greater density to make it as functional and appealing as possible.

On the other hand, it’s to be expected that libertarians would oppose smart growth too, because it doesn’t comport with their dogma of freedom to the max everywhere, always. Libertarians, like all utopians, are not very good at accepting compromise. But the reality is that urban development is always going to be regulated by the government to some degree. Vast majorities like it that way, when it comes down to brass tacks. We all like to do whatever we want but don’t like it when another guy doing whatever he wants does something that diminishes our ability to do what we want. Nothing demonstrates that principle more than land use.

If we are going to regulate land use (and we will), we ought to at least come up with a system that produces a built environment that is functional and enjoyable to live in. Smart growth is an attempt to do this, and it’s much better than the old way of trying to protect a community’s status quo by halting growth or only allowing in people from the same socioeconomic group.

Land use is a complex issue fraught with conflict and compromise (and I haven’t even mentioned the really thorny issues like infrastructure financing). Libertarians like the guy in the bookstore would serve themselves better by engaging in productive discussion rather than staking out ideologically pure positions and viewing as enemies those who are inclined to work with them in a spirit of reasonable compromise.

By: James

James — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:59:03 +0000

The arguments for harm in allowing sprawl are not hard to prove. Sprawl does create traffic problems because we do not put enough effort into mass transit. Sprawl does cause excess pollution because of too many vehicles on the road. Sprawl does eat up land that could be conserved. But the main argument to allow sprawl is quite clear — freedom of choice in the kind of lifestyle one may choose to live. That is a constitutional guarantee, and it is not up to liberals who believe everyone should live on top of each other like they do in Europe to exert a European standard that numerous polls show Americans do not want.

It is imperative that we provide ample diversity in housing styles and locations. If someone wants to live on the 35th floor of a high-rise apartment building that has offices and shops on the bottom floors where they can walk or take public transit everywhere they need to go, they should be able to do so. Similarly, if someone wants to live in a subdivision of 2,000-square-foot homes on half-acre plots of land 10 miles outside of town and drive to and from work everyday, they should have that right. Ordering people to live a certain way goes against the ideals this country was founded upon. Build mixed-use; there are people who want to live in that kind of development. But subdivisions have their supporters and its own market as well.

By: Dannty L. Newton

Dannty L. Newton — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:33:58 +0000

I think the problem with controlling sprawl is that the arguements for harm are too hard to prove. It is a fact that many city services can be made less expensive by dense populations but fewer connections per foot of pipe, mile of road and reel of wire has not turned into cheaper living in the city. It cost more to live in a city. Everything from garbage collection to police protection costs more, otherwise there would not be a city tax on top of what the couty and the state wants. So what are they doing with all of the savings? Some people will always be drawn to urban areas and some people, if they get enough money, will go to Wyoming or Utah. A quest to urbanize all will eventually be a quest to fix something random in our genetic makeup.
To make matters worse, the sprawl contrversy is made to look like a character disorder on the part of the non-participants. This rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Is it really the job of the people who would like to be left alone and with more choices to conform to the anal retentive fixations of those who want fewer choices? Fixation on sprawl means turning to the power of the government to bring what seems like order out of what seems like chaos. The sprawlophobes have a lot to prove before they should be given the keys to the kingdom and the power to transform everyone’s life into their brand of Utopia.