vision2020
Re: "to" or "from"
- To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
- Subject: Re: "to" or "from"
- From: "Priscilla Salant" <psalant@moscow.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:24:19 -0700
- Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"n6RHK.A.3uC._6q-3"@whale.fsr.net>
- Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
Evan Holmes makes me glad I haven't unsubscribed. He raises several good
points, and looks at them from an unusual angle. A few reactions:
I agree that whether Moscow grows has much more to do with big picture
economic and demographic trends than with whether we have a more
restrictive development policy or not. In fact, Moscow's growth rate in
the last few decades has paralleled that of other rural counties
nationwide. (Whitman County is more of an exception. Its almost stable
population numbers are unusual.) We grow when other rural counties grow
and vice versa.
As I understand Evan, he is saying that when we lose amenities (probably
small town quality of life, however defined?), more people leave than move
in. Then why does Seattle continue to grow despite sky high real estate
prices and unspeakably long commutes? Sorry to be devil's advocate, but
doesn't that suggest people have a very high tolerance for the problems
that growth brings? And that many move for economic reasons rather than
amenities?
Last, I don't think it's useful to view private property rights as
"inviolate." In fact, our interpretation of private property is
ever-changing and fluid. It was once legal to own slaves in this country,
but now the idea is abhorrent. People can't do whatever they want with
their land (it's illegal to grow marijuana on your land, right?). And
there are many examples of courts' upholding local ordinances that restrict
use of private property. I don't think it is helpful to make the
assumption that private property rights are so cut and dry.
--Priscilla Salant
Back to TOC