Smart growth the enemy of affordable housing?

[nxylas]

This guy seems to think so. You can find plenty more where that came from on his website, www.demographia.com. Any comments beyond the obvious observation that economic growth is a lousy indication of overall well-being?

[Gormy Cuss]

1. Wendell Cox believes that any growth controls are unAmerican.

He's a darling of the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. His long CV has several other well known libertarian think tanks like the Heartland Institute and PRI.

I'd like to comment on the work posted on his website but I gave up after finding one page graphics and report indexes but little of substantive value. There may be something there worth comment but I didn't find it after 10 minutes of looking.

[nxylas]

2. University of Oregon economists disagree

Cox has really got it in for Portland, but research shows he's talking out his arse.

[Vogon_Glory]

6. Wendell Cox Also A Notorious Transit-Basher

Anyone who has even a slight acquaintance with efforts to expand mass transit in US cities knows that Wendell Cox is a notorious "hired gun" brought in by transit "anti-s" to argue against transit, whether it be subways, light rail, or commuter rail.

So Cox is "concerned" that smart growth might endanger public housing? Really? The thought of right-wingers suddenly taking a paternalistic interest in public housing is always good for merriment at the wingie-dingies' expense. Who do social darwinists like the ones at AEI think they're kidding?

I personally think that Cox is a member of that part of right-wing think-tank scholarship that writes reports around a pre-determined conclusion.

[ramapo]

3. Has smart growth been a reality anywhere?

Affordable housing today means driving far enough from the urban center to find a house that you can afford. That simple fact is the root of most of our growth problems.

Cox points to San Jose as a spectacular failure of smart growth while Houston is a success story brought about by open zoning.

I don't believe that smart growth has been a reality anywhere. To me smart growth would be a hard limit on sprawl, and a corresponding reconstruction of existing urban and suburban areas with a focus on increased density, mixed-use, and mass transit. True smart growth would be a radical change from the pattern of development that has been the norm in the United States since the end of WWII.

Smart growth is not something that occurs in isolated neighborhoods or as part of a limited rezoning. Smart growth would be the realization that the current growth pattern is not sustainable and that we have to be really smart about what takes place in the next couple of decades.

[TZ]

4. Idiot obviously never looked at places like DC...

where smart growth is needed badly, isn't implemented and yet has skyrocketing real estate. For example I bought my 2 bed 2 full bath condo in 2000 for $75,000. They now sell for about $230,000. And thats even with as slight slow down in house sales here. Many people here actually think that smart growth will help LOWER prices. All the new stuff is so expensive. For example a townhouse with a garage (which I want eventually) can no longer be had for less than about $400,000.

[nxylas]

5. Does America have an equivalent of Britain's green belts?

Green belts are areas around cities where development is tightly regulated, designed specifically to prevent urban sprawl. Is there any equivalent over here?

[TZ]

7. Development? Regulated? *snort*

Its been tried, but as far as I know, it hasn't really happened. I grew up in a planned community- planned to be no more than 10,000 people..last time I heard, its closing in on 40,000. The closest would be State and National Parks and Battlefields. They try to limit development around those to SOME extent. Sometimes it works. Disney wanted to build a History themepark near the Bull Run Battlefield (from the Civil War) in Virginia a few years ago and they were forced to drop the plans. But those are the few exceptions I am afraid.