Sowell doesn't know what he's talking about. He's discounting that the reason the land would be cheap if the restrictions were lifted on development is that environmental laws have socialized so many assets on the land as to have depressed its value for anything but development. The distortions are everywhere, and politicians run around plugging them with yet more dirty deals.
“environmental laws have socialized so many assets on the land as to have depressed its value for anything but development. “
I can see that. I also think it may make it valuable for set aside requirements, which I see as a variant of development, and little more. But how can you say if such restrictions make it too costly for anything other than development that it is not a supply and demand issue? Doesn’t the restriction distort or limit supply? Wouldn’t loosening restriction increase supply? When supply meets or exceeds demand doesn’t price adjust? I think you and Sowell say the same thing but slightly differently.
“The distortions are everywhere, and politicians run around plugging them with yet more dirty deals.”
This I can buy 100%. It is no mistake that local city councils and county board are comprised largely of realtors or property investors. The result is they stack the deck in their favor. No one ever seems to wonder how many of our public officials earning tens of thousands to hundred of thousands a year are often millionaires. How can a president who make $400 K a year be worth $1.3 million in 2007 and in excess of $7 mill today? The same is true for senators, representatives, and our local officials. It is dirty and crooked. Sowell does not address this as he is an economist not a reporter.
I do not think Sowell says land would be cheap if there were no regulation and I do not think you can quote him on saying so. I think he implies that it would reflect a truer market value if it wasn’t warped by the distortions you note.
I am sorry Carry, but I too am an Economist and Sowell DOES know what he is talking about. It looks like your book has little to do with economics but more to do with the Environmental movement pressures. . . but those are economic too. Just because choices place ENVIRONMENTAL economies over other economic choices. . . doesn't mean that Sowell doesn't understand those choices.
Liberals are making those choices that are placing the pressures on the people least able to afford the economic costs of those decisions. Those liberals don't think of those choices as being economic at all. . . or even as having economic costs attached to them. It just makes them feel good and they think they can afford such nice things off in the distance as open space down there or over there or even in "my neighborhood", as in their minds, everyone else can.
I think you probably have an intuitive handle on the same issues that Sowell is pointing out Economically, and if you were to discuss it with him, you, he and I would wind up on the same page, just from different approaches. The environmentalists have a hammer, and everything the see is a nail. . . bang! There is a mix which would take into account the environment, housing demands, water, AG, power, etc., but the environmentalists use their hammer to BANG everything and nothing can happen as long as they use their hammer on everything in sight.
Your book sounds interesting. . .