Smart growth has been recently criticized by Cato Institute scholar Randall O’Toole in his book The Best Laid Plans. In his book, he asserts that smart growth leads to more congestion and higher housing prices.  He also further asserts that its anti-suburban sprawl anti-automobile emphasis is not reflected in most people’s desire for large houses with large backyards and the mobility advantages associated with the automobile.

There is no doubt a market for these kind of smart growth communities.  Eighteen percent of the U.S. population like to live in high density mixed used urban areas.  If these kinds of development are driven by market forces, there is no problem with the smart growth concept for most people.  However, if it is driven by coercive government policy such as zoning and subsidies, then this could become an issue for libertarian and other small government minded individuals.  However, this issue is largely outside of the Concerned Taxpayers’ focus on fiscal responsibility.

What is a concern for Concerned Taxpayers is smart growth’s impact on local transportation policy.  The purpose of local transportation policy is to get people from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time.  Is smart growth, light rail and the riderless skyway the answer to reducing congestion or does it make more sense to build more roads?  With limited dollars to be devoted to any mix of mass transit and road building, what spending priorities provide us with the greatest bang for the buck?  More about this in future blog posts.

Add to your social network: