I am certainly not an expert on the creation and expansion of American suburbia, and Mark Aveyard sounds like he knows what he's talking about. However, I disagree with some of his implications.

You wouldn't have the suburbs if the federal government hadn't provided guaranteed loans en masse to people who otherwise could not have afforded them.
Very likely, but as I've written before, popular capitalism is an essential building block of democracy; the development of the modern mortgage system and the creation of tax breaks for home owners are two of the major factors contributing to the popular capitalism we Americans take for granted.
The expansion of roads is, of course, part of zoning policy, so it's meaningless to say that smart growth proponents want to "use zoning" for their ends, as if the expansion of roads over the shouts of property owners doesn't constitute a zoning practice or something powerfully analogous to it.
It's similar, but municipalities pay for property when they seize it to build a road, as is required by the 5th Amendment. On the other hand, many courts have ruled mere "re-zoning" of property is not a legal "taking", and any property value lost to the owner does not need to be paid for by society -- as long as the property in question retains some economic use.

Suburbs may be aesthetically unpleasing (although I like them, personally), but they also greatly lower the price of admission for the American dream. In the process, they serve to strengthen democracy and facilitate cooperation and coexistence among an ever-increasing population.

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Brief Defense of Suburbia.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.mwilliams.info/mt5/tb-confess.cgi/2509

The interblog road debate continues, as Owen Courreges responds to my response to his response on my original response to Read More



Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Site Info