Stunted Growth

Vincent J. Curtis

31 May 21

RE: Five ways for smarter growth in Hamilton.  Hamilton Spectator 29 May 21.

Mr. Shaker and Mr. Premi have once again blessed the Spectator readers with concepts that are neither new nor smart.  The “smart” growth of which they speak was first tried out in the 1970s in California.

Oh, smart planning and green spacing was wildly supported by the existing home owners back then.  As Thomas Sowell documented, it led to skyrocketing home prices because the price of land is the primary cost of new development.  Having stifled new developments, the price of existing home stock skyrocketed due to rising demand and no new supply.  The idea spread throughout the United States, and the policy response to skyrocketing home prices ultimately led to the financial crisis of 2008.

So, we’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well.  The second obvious failing is the emphasis on central planning.  Private home builders have a better idea of what will sell in the market than remote central planners do, who have no stake in the outcome of the planning process.  (In fact, the planners who have no stake in success or failure could have private motivations for their choice of policy.)  If homebuilders want a plan of such and so, their insights ought to weigh heavily with the planners.  The theories and ideas of ideologues never turn out well because they lack crucial knowledge, and probably would reject evidence contrary to their pet theory.

If polling is to be done, the opinion of the developers ought to be decisive in the final outcome.

-30-