|
|
Read Randal
O'Toole on the danger from urban planning to the world economy! The Planned
Economy Development by
Democracy by Richard Fields
Green space, solar panels, community centers —
what more can voters possibly want?
When the gendarmes in Davis, California arrested a local
citizen for breaking a noise ordinance by snoring too loudly, we chuckled. When
the city council built a tunnel so that frogs could cross the newly constructed
Pole Line Road overpass to get to a pond called Toad Hollow, we built a miniature
Mr. Toad's village at one end of the tunnel. When former Mayor and city council
member Julie Partansky advocated planting fruit trees in vacant lots so homeless
people could "graze," limiting the output of streetlights to facilitate
stargazing, and preserving potholes because of the historical significance of the
building materials that used to be where the potholes are now, we just shrugged
and went about our business. We one-upped California's antismoking laws by
limiting smoking even outdoors. But in the special election on November 8, the
denizens of Davis showed an uglier side when they voted against the construction
of new housing.
| | Richard
Fields hosts a weekly cable access TV talk show in Sacramento called "The
Libertarian Counterpoint." |
|
The People's Republic of Davis, as it's known to its conservative detractors,
is a modern liberal bastion in an already blue state. The town's primary employer
is the University of California-Davis. Other employers include Moller
Inter-national, which has had personal vertical takeoff and landing aircraft
almost ready to go to market since 1983. Retail employment is pretty much limited
to mom-and-pop shops in our oh-so-cute downtown — Davis would never allow
construction of a Costco, Wal-Mart, or any other big-box retailer. If you aren't
employed by the university, you probably commute to a job in nearby Sacramento.
Davis elementary and primary schools are noted for producing students who score
well on standardized tests. It's an open question whether that is because of the
quality of the schools or because of the self-selecting pool of people attracted
to the community and able to afford the housing. Several years ago the
voters of Davis passed Proposition J, which subjected any new housing development
requiring annexation of land adjoining the city of Davis to a popular vote. The
first test was this year's Proposition X. The development that voters were
passing judgment on, Covell Village, was designed by Michael Corbett, who
previously designed Village Homes in Davis. Village Homes, with its solar panels,
organic community gardens, and street names from "The Lord of the Rings," is
beloved by Greens in Davis and beyond. Covell Village was designed to have solar
power installed on every home. It would have had ample green belts and parks. It
would have had bike paths, school sites, an outdoor amphitheater, a Rotary Hall,
a hospice, a nursery school, a fire station, a community recreation building, an
82-acre educational organic farm, a 124-acre wetland wildlife habitat, a 776-acre
farmland buffer, and affordable housing subsidized by the more expensive homes.
It got the endorsement of a who's who list of prominent local people in and out
of politics. It had the endorsement of the local newspaper. It even had retail
within walking distance, with the promise of a Trader Joe's, the only source of
Two Buck Chuck (drinkable wine for $2.00 a bottle, from the Charles Shaw winery).
In short, it had everything a politically correct community like Davis could ask
for.
|
| Property rights should
not be subject to the whim of voters, whose own economic interests can conflict
with the economic interests of others. |
|
Opposition to Prop X fell into two categories — environmental concerns,
and concerns about sprawl. Environ-mentalists argued that the solar panels were a
token measure, that part of the site lies in a flood plain, and that prime
agricultural land would be "paved over." The anti-sprawl camp complained that not
enough "affordable" housing was included, that traffic gridlock and air pollution
would ensue, that crime would go up, and that the development would not carry its
own weight in taxes versus services. Let's take those arguments one at a
time. First, that the proposed solar units are only a fraction of the size of the
average solar unit already in Davis. Clearly that's just looking a gift horse in
the mouth. Individual homeowners would be free to upgrade the size of the solar
units on their own homes. Second, that the site is on a flood plain. Davis is
essentially flat. The town is built in the flood plain of the Sacramento River.
Before levees and dams were built, the Sacramento River was known to have spring
floods a hundred miles wide, from the California coastal mountain range to the
Sierra foothills. Age and neglect have made the levees likely to give way; most
of the Central Valley has a flood risk greater than that of New Orleans right
now. But that's another story; with proper grading, the Covell Village site has
no more flood risk than anywhere else in Davis. Third, that agricultural land
will be paved over. Every structure in the Central Valley is built on
agricultural land. The market is a much better arbiter of the best use of land
than bureaucrats or voters.
| Age and neglect have made
the Sacramento River levees likely to give way; most of the Central Valley has a
flood risk greater than that of New Orleans right now.
|
|
Now to the anti-sprawl arguments. These are all essentially NIMBY (not in my
back yard) in nature. There is a shortage of "affordable" housing in Davis and
the rest of California, but that's thanks to the imbalance of supply and demand.
The number of people living in California is not going down anytime soon. Demand
for housing can only go up. Supply is restricted when new housing developments
like Covell Village are voted down, ergo prices for "affordable housing" or any
other kind of housing go up. Second, more people does mean more traffic,
everything else being equal. However, everything else is not equal in this case.
Many people who work or go to school in Davis commute from neighboring cities
five to 50 miles away. Covell Village would reduce total traffic by letting
people live closer to work and shopping. Third, that the development would lead
to more crime. This is incomprehensible. Covell Village is modeled after Village
Homes, which has lower crime rates than the rest of Davis. Finally, the argument
that infrastructure costs of the development would exceed its tax revenues is, at
best, speculation. The development's residents will certainly bring in more tax
revenue than the frog tunnel. I am not convinced that voters made their
decisions based on which arguments they found most persuasive. My guess is that
voters rejected Covell Village (60% to 40%) to maximize future price appreciation
of their own homes. I bought a new home in Davis in 1994 for $230,000. It is now
worth north of $700,000, due in part to the restrictions on new housing. I
believe a substantial number of Davis liberals were voting to promote their own
economic interests and rationalizing their vote with the standard slow-growth
green arguments. As a result, many of the "No on X" coalition's stated goals are,
in the big picture, negated. Traffic will increase as people drive farther to get
to work or college classes in Davis. Housing developments in other communities
will not be nearly as environmentally friendly as Covell Village would have been.
But property values in Davis will continue to go up, and people forced to commute
from afar to get to work or school will pay the price. This raises the
subject of the proper limits on majority rule. As the old saw puts it, pure
democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on who should be dinner. At the other
extreme, it is better to elect our president than have a tyrant foisted upon us.
The Bill of Rights is designed to limit what a majority can do, whether that
means censoring speech, dictating religious beliefs, or forcing us to testify
against ourselves in a criminal trial. It's unfortunate that the Bill of Rights
does not specifically limit majority assaults on property rights.
|
| | |
|
