Posted on 12/07/2003 7:12:45 AM PST by Mean Daddy
Is this supposed to make sense. He has not a clue.
He can look at micro issues, but the reality is that in the big picture, people are making the free choice to live in CA and chosing to live under the land use rules versus states that have lesser resrtictions. He would have all states offer the same rules - how is that the 'free market'?
All I am saying is that different rules in different places is not a bad thing. I have family in Los Angeles, CA and Cottonwood, AZ . . . you could not find two more different areas. I love them both, because of that. To try and have the same limitations in different places is a little idealistic.
Example, I live in Iowa and in the last 2-3 years, the state has proposed and will be building two new power plants in the next 2-4 years. How long has it been since Kalifornia has built or will build such a plant?
I live in Santa Monica, my rent would be a mortgage on a home in AZ, and I live in a grandfathered rent control apartment (which is a concept I am glad they got rid of, and which I am happy to benefit from). If my electric bill gets to high (and it was huge this month) I will consider moving. To me, is how it should work.
Second example, Sowell had an article several years ago about the red tape necessary to put a deck on his house. I went to the court house and was able to do it in a matter of hours.
Was it in Chicago that that overcrowded, un permitted, balcony deck fell and killed a bucnh of people? There are different rules needed for the dense city and Iowa, I think that is appropriate.
Third, Sowell talks about property values in San Francisco being comparable to those in other parts of the country and now they are astronomical due to restrictions on development in "green areas." You purchase a $300,000 home in certain parts of Kalifornia and you're buying a hole. A $300,000 home in Iowa/Nebraska will buy you a mansion.
I think the choice of what your $300,000 will get you is the greatest part of America. I can choose if I want to live 9 blocks from the ocean in an apartment with all kinds of regulations and rules. Knowing I will now be able to but a house around here....unless I get a big raise. But that is a choice. Do I want to see huge highrises go up at the ocean and block every view so there is cheap housing? No. I like the rules and restrictions on building around here. And for those like Sowell who don't, he can choose to live somewhere else.
Not that it should matter.
Once "compassion" is institutionalized, it becomes the worst sort of slavery, for it not only makes it permanent, but makes clear that the yoke of the state and all its weaponry is at the disposal of enforcement.
Never mind that the "infrastructure" is where most of the money goes.
It's just a variant of the some animals are more equal than others classic analysis of communism.
Someone does not have a clue.
And it isn't Dr. Sowell.
I could have documented this in painful detail, had I known where it was headed at the time.
Many of us have lived it from the inside, and his analysis not only makes sense, it is a perfect summary of the results of the process.
I will not bore everyone with the process, but I can say this: in one of the most expensive counties in the country, one could buy a comfortable 3 bedroom home for $13k. Thirty years later, when the "compassionate controllers" had taken over, the fees alone, for the "privilege" of building a home was twice that.
This is the dumbest statement I have ever heard, even allowing for some serious comprehension problems.
Nowhere in the article does Dr. Sowell suggest no rules.
As knowledgeable people are aware, rules were already in place when the busibodies took over, and if he criticized those I would be grateful if you would point them out for me.
It is the phony, artificial, laws, rules and sophistry controlling the development of a basic human need that he is addressing, including the Orwellian contention that the "ultimate" planning to accomodate future fellow human beings is not to plan for them at all.
If that makes sense to you, I would be interested in hearing any rational explanation for it.
I suspect this is all expanded to everyone's satisfaction in his new book, Applied Economics.
I suspect this is all expanded to everyone's satisfaction in his new book, Applied Economics.
Except for those who need to understand it the most, namely the above mentioned busybodies!!!
Of course, many native Californians have chosen to escape the high taxation and regulation, including the celebrated Tiger Woods. Las Vegas, Reno, Santa Fe and many other places are filled with transplanted Californians who voted with their pocketbooks as you suggest. You are left with an out-of-control state deficit and a state that has become a defacto third world country.
I myself left my native California in 1993 and it was the smartest thing I ever did. I came to the realization that, like all socialist societies, California had become a good place to BE rich, but an impossible place to BECOME rich.
When I've finished amassing my wealth, maybe I'll move to Palm Springs and play golf everyday as the poor working shlubs fight the freeways for 3 hours a day to pay $5,000 a month for a little matchstick house in San Bernardino.
Makes sense to me. And many other chose to live here. If I were Tiger, made his money and travelled most of the year, I am pretty sure my legal state of residence would be one with no income tax.
I doubt that's Dr. Sowell's position. I'm sure if a group wants to get together and declare they want that land used for this purpose AND purchased the land, he'd have no problem. It's when the group requires that others pay for their desires that a problem occurs.
A beautiful example of the substantive difference that Sowell is addressing.
I can give you another.
Before the "controllers" took over, the Sacramento area, in the traditional way, planned for the inevitable increase in human beings, and resulting traffic, by acquiring the necessary land to reroute future traffic around Sacramento, thus satisfying and accomodating both local residents and through travelers. Quite similar to the "ring " around DC or the peripherique in Paris. A rational solution to a clear future potential problem.
The "controlling twits" took over after all the necessary right of way was acquired.
They, in their infinite wisdom decided that it was "inviting" future growth, and therefore undesireable.
They decided, in their infinite wisdom, to sell off portions of the right of way to make any future solution impossible, and thus discourage those pesky newcomers.
The result? Predictable. The newcomers came anyway, but now they must suffer the price of their stubborness. Long commutes in horrendous traffic. Serves them right.
That it also victimizes local traffic, the people who have been there for generations, is a well-overlooked fact.
The mental process of little people, controlling to the end, is a sight to behold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.