The unreality of “real choices”

Vincent J. Curtis

23 June 21

RE: The real choices facing Hamiltonians.  Op-ed article by don McLean Hamilton Spectator 23 June 21.

The critics of urban boundary expansion in Hamilton are allergic to data and actual experience.  That is why McLean’s article resorts to Malthusian theory, long discredited, to establish his case.  What happens when urban expansion is stopped by policy was thoroughly investigated by, among others, economist Thomas Sowell.  The genesis of the economic collapse of 2008 was when new development was banned starting in the 1970s in California.  The ban produced skyrocketing housing prices because of rising demand and no new supply.  Policy responses to unaffordable housing forced the issuance of mortgages to people who couldn’t afford the payments, and the farce collapsed in 2006.

Data that is significant to McLean’s case, but goes unmentioned, is: what is the total value of the crops grown on the land presently?  What is the value of the property as farmland?  What will it become after it is developed for housing? What will the tax revenues of the land fully developed as residential to the city versus what it is presently?

My guess is that the value of the crops is insignificant, and that the land will be much more valuable as residential property than as farmland, and contribute much more to city coffers than the farmland does presently.

In addition, housing prices will remain reasonable as new construction rises to meet growing demand.  All round smarter economics and a happier life for Hamiltonians in the future.

The problem with McLean and his ilk is that they want to force their vision of housing onto others.  He wants smaller houses, smaller lots, and living closer together, but people actually want the kind of housing that the builders will provide and that they can afford.

-30-