Imposing Costs, Not Values

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Joel Kotkin writes a scathing
indictment of the New Urbanist movement, which he claims demonizes
decentralization and seeks to impose upon people and communities a
vision of high-density, mixed-use living. I agree with Mr. Kotkin
that "sprawl" has become a pejorative term, and would like to be in
the habit of using the word, "decentralization," in its place.

I also agree with him that it is not good for government to be in the
business of imposing upon people and communities a preferred way of
living. The beautiful thing about our country is its diversity, in so
many forms, including living preferences. Some like the city, some
the burbs, and some the countryside.

But some of those preferences are flavored by, and in some cases
completely dictated by, issues of cost and convenience. And here is
where the tilt for one type of residential or commercial development
over another comes into play. If people prefer low-density,
car-dominated living, I have no problem with that. There is nothing
inherently better or worse, from a value standpoint, about an
unattached house or a strip mall or a gated community.

What the government's role is in all of these private decisions is not
to impose a value judgment on one type of development or another, but
to impose the appropriate costs so that things that we all care about
but don't always factor into our individual decision-making – like
environmental stewardship and economic equity and long-term tax
burdens – can be better managed for the good of all.

Some in this country would pooh-pooh our insatiable appetite for open
space, as compared to other nations. Others would vilify cities as
dirty dens of iniquity. Still others mock the simpleness of country
folks and country living. There's nothing better or worse about
cities, suburbs, or countrysides. I tremble at the thought of a
government telling us that one is better than the other. But I also
bristle at the thought that the government can and does create
incentives and disincentives for one over the other, which skew the
recouping of the costs of living in one place over another.