Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Here's your eviction notice, Justice Souter
This is very funny -- if you haven't seen it, a libertarian in New Hampshire has proposed to his town council that they take Justice David Souter's house by eminent domain and give it to the libertarian to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel" complete with the "Just Desserts Restaurant." Souter, of course, sided with the majority in the Kelo v. New London case. The libertarian points out that the town could collect higher taxes from the hotel than from Souter, seemingly justifying the taking.
However, this misses an important point in the Supreme Court decision: As pointed out in the American Planning Association press release endorsing the Kelo decision, the court allowed the taking not because it boosted the town's tax revenues but because (to quote the decision), "the City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community."
Although they managed to fool five members of the Supreme Court, and numerous elected officials around the country, the truth is that cities are not capable of formulating a careful economic development plan because cities are simply too complicated to plan. The decentralized free market is the only institution we have developed that can handle the complexities of urban life. As demonstrated by East Germany, not to mention numerous American examples, any attempt to centrally plan a region, city, or part of a city will end in disaster.
Urban planners as represented by the American Planning Association claim they have the tools to do such planning. But most of them don't even understand basic economics, much less know how to deal with the needs and desires of hundreds of thousands or millions of people. As a result, they rely on fads such as urban renewal, smart growth, and traffic calming.
Adding insult to the injury of lost property rights, the Supreme Court has turned these planners into witch doctors, capable of rattling a magic gourd and justifying the taking of private property for other private interests so that cities can increase their revenues. The most important thing we have to do in the coming battle over property rights is discredit the planners and let everyone, including members of the Supreme Court, know that their plans are far from scientific but are based on the same sorts of prejudices and economic interests that motivate any interest group.
However, this misses an important point in the Supreme Court decision: As pointed out in the American Planning Association press release endorsing the Kelo decision, the court allowed the taking not because it boosted the town's tax revenues but because (to quote the decision), "the City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community."
Although they managed to fool five members of the Supreme Court, and numerous elected officials around the country, the truth is that cities are not capable of formulating a careful economic development plan because cities are simply too complicated to plan. The decentralized free market is the only institution we have developed that can handle the complexities of urban life. As demonstrated by East Germany, not to mention numerous American examples, any attempt to centrally plan a region, city, or part of a city will end in disaster.
Urban planners as represented by the American Planning Association claim they have the tools to do such planning. But most of them don't even understand basic economics, much less know how to deal with the needs and desires of hundreds of thousands or millions of people. As a result, they rely on fads such as urban renewal, smart growth, and traffic calming.
Adding insult to the injury of lost property rights, the Supreme Court has turned these planners into witch doctors, capable of rattling a magic gourd and justifying the taking of private property for other private interests so that cities can increase their revenues. The most important thing we have to do in the coming battle over property rights is discredit the planners and let everyone, including members of the Supreme Court, know that their plans are far from scientific but are based on the same sorts of prejudices and economic interests that motivate any interest group.
Comments:
Post a Comment
