One often gets the uncomfortable feeling in reading news accounts about property rights and land use that various advocacy groups' full agenda isn't on the table. Take an account in today's Washington Post , for example, entitled "Town vs. Gown in D.C."
George Washington University in Washington, DC, wants to make a quarter billion dollar investment in commercial properties it already owns in order to increase its ability to generate revenues for the school. Neighbors want to preserve a less intensive development plan. That much seems straightforward, though the neighborhood group is promoting its view in the context of GWU's adherence to its approved development plan.
Likewise, those who advocate restrictions on residential property development rights in the name of "smart growth" would have us set aside suburban visions of green lawns on generous lots with lots of blue sky and few tall buildings in favor of a more intense and vertical urban development clustered around mass transit, with sidewalk cafes and bustling nightlife. This, they say, will deliver a quality lifestyle and contribute to lowering environmental stress, particularly air pollution. The City of Portland, OR has established a pilot test of "smart growth" and its results include massive increases in property value since the city has ignored demand and constrained supply. In that regard, Robert Bruegmann's recent book, Sprawl: A Compact History, is well worth a read. But I digress.
My point is that accommodating growth in the U.S. necessitates development somewhere. Fifteen years ago, we had 250 million people living in the U.S. Today, we're over 295 million, up nearly 20% in that short time. If ours is to be a leafy surburan American Dream, okay. If it's to be a livable city (most would conjure up a European city like Paris), fine. But the anti-car, anti-highway argument of "smart growth" advocates requires urban growth as an alternative. Those who live in the central cities and those who live in the Inner Suburbs, as I do, are not immune to reflexive NIMBY myopia.
The gestation of our highway transportation network is the choices we each make on where to live, shop, work and recreate. If we don't want development, that's one thing and let's just say it. If we want to deny development in the Inner Suburbs or Central City to spike property values there, admit it. There has to be an option for development. If everyone cries NIMBY, we risk paralysis and gridlock. Let's keep in mind that congestion is the major source today of air pollution, not cars per se.
