Steve quotes from one of my very least favorite pundits, Cynthia Tucker, talking about cities/suburbs, sprawl, public transit, and gas prices, and says...
Doctor Fate wrote:To many liberals, the government should tell you where to live... Insane. Un-American.
I don't really disagree with your sentiments, but you are totally overlooking the fact that government
no matter what plays a huge role in determining land use patterns and has since Ur. They set zoning regs, construction standards, and review development plans. They have a big say in where sewers and water supply pipes will be laid. They decide where the main streets, if not each and every one, will be built. They very often set minimum acreage limits for detached dwellings, sometimes justifying them by citing traffic loads. And when it comes to public transit - meaning anything from city subways to suburban bus lines to intercity rail - they often run the things as public services or determine the routes and schedules. All of this has an enormous influence on density patterns and forward-looking city and regional planners have for many decades been fighting to have the use of all these governmental powers (and more) shifted so as to encourage higher densities and greater efficiencies in not just transport but also construction, heating/cooling, and the provision of public services. Many - irrespective of partisan affiliation - have also bemoaned the way residential building patterns have eroded all sense of "neighborhood" and with it a large degree of neighborliness.
I suppose the radical libertarians among us would argue that a zero role for government in this process would be an improvement. If so, their arguments would be entirely speculative since there's no example in history of
any city being built without some degree of centralized "planning". In ancient times that might have meant the building of the "city walls" or at least the drawing of an imaginary line (i.e. a border) within which one enjoys the protection of the collective city defenses. Wanna' bet that had an influence on population density patterns?
On the other hand, there are no real examples of a true city being built 100% by centralized planners, even in the most centralized economies. Land development is always a dynamic process with private and public entities/interests often in conflict.
Is it un-American to use the powers of city/town government to encourage rational land use? LOL. Yes and no. IMHO one of the least rational uses of land is the American single-family detached dwelling as found in the typical suburban subdivision. Some lawn and a white fence, a garage, and 2.3 children. The meme has a strange origin and history, as does the USA itself. (The concept of the frontier spirit is part of the story.) There's nothing quite like the prototypical American suburb anywhere else in the world. (Canada comes closest.) You may love the idea or hate it, but there's no question that 1) public authority has encouraged its spread (intentionally or not), and 2) it results in sprawl, low densities, long commutes, and higher per capita fuel use.
I didn't even click on your link to see what Tucker had to say in detail. Don't care. I'm simply saying that to the extent you think it's un-American and insane to have government influence where people live you couldn't be more wrong. Land use has always been influenced by governments and always will be; they can use that influence wisely or not; they can try to maximize their influence or not. In America there's been very
little effort to minimize government influence.