> Development interests play the argument both ways. If proponents
> of controlled growth argue for limiting growth, they are labeled
> socialist, leftist,etc. for interefering with the free market
> system. However, if controlled growth advocates favor letting the
> market regulate growth through higher prices, they are labeled as
> elitist because certain individuals get priced out of the market.
> I suppose growth control advocates could be both socialist and
elitist. :-)
That can be exactly right, your little dachau on the black sea.
> We must remember that housing and rental prices are a function
>of both supply and demand. Simply controlling supply alone
> may not lead to any viable long-term solution. Perhaps we need
> to increase our crime rate, bring in gangs, and get some
Pricing the low income out of an area may make economically rational
sense but it shouldn't necessarily be a value we in this community
should espouse. Increasing the financial stress on low income and
forcing them to move out is what causes gangs, crime, congestion, etc.
And we pay for anyway. Look at California. There are plenty of examples of
areas where housing prices rise and these comfortable middle class people
end up having to make fortresses out of their development. Without considering
all the people in a community we invite the same sort of thing to one extent
or another. Just like you can't consider supply without demand, you cannot
accomodate the priviledged without dealing with the poor.