There’s always something to howl about.

Want to stop sprawl? Stop subsidizing it . . .

There’s an article in today’s Arizona Republic documenting, at least subject to inference, how the sprawl machine works.

First, developers put up houses on remote farmland, because the land is cheap. There are no roads, schools, libraries, fire stations, etc., but the developers know that the new residents will clamor for those things as soon as they move in. Politicians, scared to death of negative opinion, build all these missing amenities, adding value to all the remaining unbuilt homes and undeveloped land.

The politicians finally get about half wise and impose “impact fees” — taxes assessed in advance, per new rooftop, to pay for the amenities that will be built as the new homes are built. The developers argue that this makes the homes less affordable, which is true. The politicians argue that the new residents are bearing the costs of the new burdens they occasion, which is also at least somewhat true.

But here are two more true statements which you will never hear uttered aloud:

1. In our current mixed-economy, if the politicians said, “Sorry, folks, you moved where you shouldn’t have,” eventually developers would stop trying to build in places where municipalities don’t provide services. Those who didn’t learn better — developers and their customers — could stew in their own juice.

2. In a truly free market, developers would build all the amenities we’re talking about (and then some) at a particular project — or they wouldn’t build the project at all. The current mess is occasioned by government intrusion into real estate, On the one hand, developers can build where they shouldn’t. On the other, they can sucker the taxpayers — again and again — into adding immense value to what was once essentially worthless land.

Want to stop sprawl in its tracks? Get governments out of the real estate business…

Technorati Tags: , , , ,