The Idiocy of "Smart Growth"


One of the more obnoxious (and, frankly, dangerous) trends here on Long Island is the growing number of “grassroots” activists who’ve taken it upon themselves to inform the “less socially aware” — meaning everyone else — that our fair isle is suffering (yes, suffering) from “too much development”: too many warehouses and office buildings, too many cars and highways, too many golf courses, too many strip malls (a particularly favorite target, for some reason), too many new neighborhoods, and — the root of all this evil — too many people. We are sacrificing “the environment” — our trees, trails, ponds, blueberries, warblers, and tanagers (I had to look that last one up) — to this “too much development,” to the “urbanization of the suburbs.” Pledging themselves to “act locally,” these self-styled “progressives” are petitioning their county legislature (Big Brother’s little brother) to step in and—as if normal community growth were a felony offense — put a stop to any further development, an agenda that is ridiculously dubbed “Smart Growth.”

Now it seems to me that this arrogant presumption suggests its own modest proposal: If we are already> suffering from “too much development,” which implies that these activists know (and have the right to determine) exactly how much development the rest of us should have, then shouldn’t we demolish some of this development in order to descend to that specific (though as-yet unspecified) level? Why not send in the wrecking crews to raze the strip malls and even the major ones — and then attempt to reforest the area? Why not turn the Roosevelt Field Mall into blueberry fields forever? Let’s bulldoze all that new housing and allow Mother Nature to reclaim the land for the warblers and the tanagers. Instead of merely opposing expansion of Route 25A, why not go ahead and close it off to everyone? Those who wish to travel can bike the trails or, even better, walk.

But the really great thing about all this destruction is how it will solve the people problem (“population congestion”) by necessarily forcing the flight of Long Islanders of every stripe, from Mexican day laborers to the “quality of life” protest groups that routinely demand their deportation.

Those on the left look at development the same way their right-wing counterparts look at immigration: It was fine before, but not anymore. Both scramble to close the gates behind them — and to hell with those on the other side. Incredibly, they imagine that they can freeze time or even turn back the clock to a “more preferable” period (for them, that is). The fact is, property — and freedom — will always attract new people, which means new development, which in turn attracts more people. It is the history of human civilization, and it will be the history of the human future. We cannot sacrifice that future to a conception of “the environment” that, too obviously, signifies only all that is not human.


April 2003

comments powered by Disqus


* indicates required
Sign me up for...


July/August 2014

The United States' corporate tax burden is the highest in the world, but innovators will always find a way to duck away from Uncle Sam's reach. Doug Bandow explains how those with the means are renouncing their citizenship in increasing numbers, while J. Dayne Girard describes the innovative use of freeports to shield wealth from the myriad taxes and duties imposed on it as it moves around the world. Of course the politicians brand all of these people unpatriotic, hoping you won't think too hard about the difference between the usual crony-capitalist suspects and the global creative elite that have done so much to improve our lives. In a special tech section, Joseph Diedrich, Thomas Bogle, and Matthew McCaffrey look at various ways these innovators add value to our lives--even in ways they probably never expected.
Download Free PDF