Why compact development/Smart Growth/New Urbanism isn't coercion

Parking lots are one of the externalities generated by the requirements of a transportation paradigm focused on the automobile.

In response to an e-list discussion about SG/NU as coercion, I wrote:

There is a book review, "Parasites, not philanthropists," in the Washington Times about piracy. From the article:

"The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates" is aptly taken from the "invisible hand" metaphor employed by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations." "Smith's invisible hand," the author writes, "is as true for criminals as it is for anyone else."

Mr. Leeson found that pirates establish their own governments, relying on the three essential criteria:

- Establish rules and a means to enforce them.
- Regulate behaviors that generate significant externalities.
- Provide important public goods for crew members.

Point 2 is what land use planning should be about, addressing imperfections in the system, imperfections that impose significant costs to large groups of people, instead of enabling benefits--be they transfer of wealth or other externalities--to the privileged (on whatever criteria this may be) rather than the less privileged.

I remember reading a volume of "World's Best Science Fiction" in college, and one of the stories was "The Wasters." In that story, spaceships needed water as ballast and they took it from the seas (maybe in the context of Global Warming that could be a solution rather than a problem) and dumped it as they left orbit or something. Earthlings/politicians got really pissed about this, so they wanted to charge for the water. Instead, the spacers reacted by figuring out they could mine asteroids for ice. When they presented this fait accompli to the Earthlings, the spacers joked that if water supply was a real problem, they'd be happy to sell them asteroidal ice.

Now that reflects the typical libertarian type thread in scifi, but the reality is that in the story, Earth's water supply wasn't unlimited and it was being wasted. And the people taking the water weren't paying for it. While the story showed the triumph of the spacers, the reality is that the spacers started making better economic and environmental decisions because they were being asked to pay for their externalities.

Most people don't like others benefiting disproportionately from gaming the system (cf. the populist response to the bank bailout, the Republican populist response wrt UAW treatment in the auto company bailouts).

If people can get it through their heads how sprawl costs us all (and it was this argument that made former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening such a proponent of SG), then the argument has been turned around.

As long as SG/NU is made out to be more about expanding choice, it is a failing effort, because the prevailing planning and financing and development systems favor massive transfer of wealth to fund the continued expansion of sprawl. As long as sprawl is made out to be about freedom and not people stealing wealth from current and future generations, things won't change much...