While I sympathize with the theme and agree with regards to roadway spending and “conservative” hypocrisy, a recent article in the progressive The American Prospect takes a narrow-minded view of politics and urbanism, while throwing around broad generalizations about evolution and global warming to support their assertions:
The Conservative Case for Urbanism
In fact, one doesn’t have to be concerned about climate change at all in order to support such policies; values of fiscal conservatism and localism, both key to Republican ideology, can be better realized through population-dense development than through sprawl.
Tom Darden, a developer of urban and close-in suburban properties, said Wednesday, “I’m a Republican and have been my whole life. I consider myself a very conservative person. But it never made sense to me why we would tax ordinary people in order to subsidize this form of development, sprawl.” Darden told the story of a road-paving project approved by North Carolina when he served on the state’s transportation board. A dirt road that handled just five trips per day was paved at taxpayer expense, with money that could have gone toward mass transit benefiting millions of people.
“Those were driveways, in my view, not roads,” Darden said.
I agree with Darden. However, so-called “progressives” fall into the same narrow minded trap when they support public transportation as a solution to global warming that “conservatives” fall into when they try to protect their auto-centric lifestyle. Many are really calling for more of the same top-down overspending on transportation infrastructure that will require a taxpayer bail out at some time in the distant future. Where is the rational voice trying to slow down overspending on all energy-reliant, sprawl-creating, redistribution of productive resources? While existing transit may be less bad environmentally in comparison to highways when looked at from a narrow point of view, it is a common mistake to assume that more spending on new infrastructure of any form will create denser living patterns. Yet we hear the top-down paternalistic rhetoric over and over:
“People don’t want to live 40 miles away from their workplaces,” Coleman said. “But we have to offer them options. If we can build a light rail line into the city of St. Paul and build the density of business around it that we are planning, we will be able to significantly alter people’s lifestyles.”
But in order to build public support for such policies, conservatives must join progressives in rethinking the United States’ geography. Density is cost effective, it fosters small business development at the local level, and it strengthens ties within communities. None of that should be anathema to either national party — unless they continue to put the interests of construction behemoths and automakers above the interests of ordinary Americans.
I would argue that “progressives” who wave the banner of environmentalism, while well-intentioned, are no friends to urbanism. I plan to dispel the myth that more spending on public transit will lead to denser living patterns in a future Urbanism Legends post. If these “progressives” really want denser living and a more environmentally friendly transportation network, they should rethink their love affair with top-down planning and spending, including on new transit. Afterall, progressivism brought us Euclidean Zoning in the first place.
Update:
rationalitate hits the nail one the head in response to the American Prospect article, and hits on some other points I didn’t get into:
But what it doesn’t mention is that the sort of sprawl that dots America’s (mostly suburban) landscape is enabled by zoning and minimum parking regulations, and that the suburbs might be a lot denser if people were allowed more complete property rights. I don’t know if it’s because the Republican party has strayed so far away from its limited government roots that this no longer qualifies as a “conservative” issue, or if the author mistakenly equates municipal government with individual choice, or if the author is just plain ignorant as to the root causes of sprawl. But in any case, she took what could have been an insightful topic, stripped away any persuasive arguments, and left readers with the impression that urbanism simply isn’t compatible with American conservatism. And that’s a shame.
I’ll go with: “the author is just plain ignorant as to the root causes of sprawl.”
[HT: The Bellows]
I wrote about this my own blog, and concluded that the American Prospect left out the most compelling conservative argument for urbanism: our current suburban form is driven mainly by zoning regulations and minimum parking requirements, both of which go against the traditional conservative stance on protecting property rights. Of course, the fact that they didn’t mention it could just be a sign of how far conservatism has strayed from its roots.
I wrote about this my own blog, and concluded that the American Prospect left out the most compelling conservative argument for urbanism: our current suburban form is driven mainly by zoning regulations and minimum parking requirements, both of which go against the traditional conservative stance on protecting property rights. Of course, the fact that they didn’t mention it could just be a sign of how far conservatism has strayed from its roots.
Thanks Stephen,
I regularly read your feed, but I somehow missed that. You make great points, and I’ll link to some of your thoughts on the article.
Thanks Stephen,
I regularly read your feed, but I somehow missed that. You make great points, and I’ll link to some of your thoughts on the article.
I still fail to understand why low densities are inherently a bad thing.
If it’s a matter of low densities being a drain on the taxpayer, then one could also say that education, sanitation, police, fire protection, and every other government-controlled activity is a drain on the taxpayer.
Ideally, private markets would dictate optimal levels of these services, as well as optimal densities — which would be a mix of very low densities, very high densities, and everything in between. But the claim of “sprawl = waste” (in addition to using that needlessly loaded word) is the same as “police guns = waste”.
Perhaps in a world of private urbanism, we would all be living in 75-story high rises like a hyper-Upper East Side (and without low-density Central Park nearby).
Or, perhaps we would live in a world of 20-lane highways and two-acre lots everywhere.
But most likely: When the government gets out of the way, the urban future might very well resemble today’s technology as seen from the 1960s; i.e., something that has not been invented yet, and which no single person alive today can even imagine.
Incidentally, if you think that “progressive environmentalists” are well-intentioned, then keep in mind that Green Party candidate for President is Cynthia “The-American-Govt-plotted-9/11-and-Jews-control-Congress” McKinney. Good thing the Greens are not evil-intentioned…
I still fail to understand why low densities are inherently a bad thing.
If it’s a matter of low densities being a drain on the taxpayer, then one could also say that education, sanitation, police, fire protection, and every other government-controlled activity is a drain on the taxpayer.
Ideally, private markets would dictate optimal levels of these services, as well as optimal densities — which would be a mix of very low densities, very high densities, and everything in between. But the claim of “sprawl = waste” (in addition to using that needlessly loaded word) is the same as “police guns = waste”.
Perhaps in a world of private urbanism, we would all be living in 75-story high rises like a hyper-Upper East Side (and without low-density Central Park nearby).
Or, perhaps we would live in a world of 20-lane highways and two-acre lots everywhere.
But most likely: When the government gets out of the way, the urban future might very well resemble today’s technology as seen from the 1960s; i.e., something that has not been invented yet, and which no single person alive today can even imagine.
Incidentally, if you think that “progressive environmentalists” are well-intentioned, then keep in mind that Green Party candidate for President is Cynthia “The-American-Govt-plotted-9/11-and-Jews-control-Congress” McKinney. Good thing the Greens are not evil-intentioned…
I don’t think low density is inherently a bad thing. I personally prefer density, but I don’t want to hamper one’s ability to live in low density. Low density makes perfect sense for many professions and lifestyles. However, I don’t want to subsidize that lifestyle, or any lifestyle for that matter.
You bring up interesting points: While on one hand subsidizing transportation and home ownership has encouraged sprawl, it has also discouraged innovation in transportation and housing. Innovations that may have sprung up from a free market may have resulted in hyper-efficient transportation choices that made travel distances negligible. In such a case, sprawl would probably be much broader. But, in balance, probably a good thing for affordability and efficiency.
Incidentally, if you think that “progressive environmentalists” are well-intentioned, then keep in mind that Green Party candidate for President is Cynthia “The-American-Govt-plotted-9/11-and-Jews-control-Congress” McKinney. Good thing the Greens are not evil-intentioned…
I truly think that parts of environmentalism is well intentioned. However, there are opportunists at the core. Some want power. Some want to sell books or movies. Some have a Marxist agenda and actually care little for the environment. They all fight to take advantage of the naive, big-hearted volunteers and activists who really just want to be part of something positive and make a difference in the world. That exploitation is the evil…
Much of mainstream environmentalism must be good intentioned – such as recycling, green buildings, and hybrid cars. Sure, some could argue those things are a silly waste of time or money. But, people must be “wasting” their money with good intentions, or why else would they do it?
I don’t think low density is inherently a bad thing. I personally prefer density, but I don’t want to hamper one’s ability to live in low density. Low density makes perfect sense for many professions and lifestyles. However, I don’t want to subsidize that lifestyle, or any lifestyle for that matter.
You bring up interesting points: While on one hand subsidizing transportation and home ownership has encouraged sprawl, it has also discouraged innovation in transportation and housing. Innovations that may have sprung up from a free market may have resulted in hyper-efficient transportation choices that made travel distances negligible. In such a case, sprawl would probably be much broader. But, in balance, probably a good thing for affordability and efficiency.
Incidentally, if you think that “progressive environmentalists” are well-intentioned, then keep in mind that Green Party candidate for President is Cynthia “The-American-Govt-plotted-9/11-and-Jews-control-Congress” McKinney. Good thing the Greens are not evil-intentioned…
I truly think that parts of environmentalism is well intentioned. However, there are opportunists at the core. Some want power. Some want to sell books or movies. Some have a Marxist agenda and actually care little for the environment. They all fight to take advantage of the naive, big-hearted volunteers and activists who really just want to be part of something positive and make a difference in the world. That exploitation is the evil…
Much of mainstream environmentalism must be good intentioned – such as recycling, green buildings, and hybrid cars. Sure, some could argue those things are a silly waste of time or money. But, people must be “wasting” their money with good intentions, or why else would they do it?