This week’s whopper is found in a column titled “The High Cost of Liberalism” by Thomas Sowell that is dated 4/22/14 and included in the Real Clear Politics website. Sowell argues that among these high costs is the exorbitant price of housing in Palo Alto and San Francisco. Liberalism is the culprit because that ideology prohibits development of “vast amounts of open land” and treats “open space” as virtually a religion.
Let’s start with San Francisco. An initial observation is that the city by the bay with a population density of 17,246/square mile is not exactly a poster child for low density development. By comparison Chicago has a density of 11,864/square mile and Dallas is only a fourth as dense at 3,645. Moreover, there is a bit of a problem applying the open space preservation accusation to San Francisco. It is true that if one stands on the west or east boundaries of the city one can see for miles without noticing another residence. But those vast open spaces are over the water – not exactly sites for construction.
Now many people in San Francisco have opposed increased housing development. Their reasons include
the desire to maintain or increase property values, the wish to avoid traffic or other impacts of higher density, opposition to the gentrification effects of replacing old low priced housing with new market rate units, and the loss of public services (because it is feared under Proposition 13 that housing generates inadequate tax revenues over the long term). All of these rationales can be described as manifestations of self-interest; they have nothing to do with worshipping open space, and they are hardly characteristics of only those individuals who are politically liberal.
This latter point is reinforced with the example of Palo Alto. Palo Alto doesn’t allow major increases in its housing stock, and its housing prices are extraordinarily high. Also, it is probably true that among the other reasons for opposition to housing noted above, many Palo Alto residents desire to protect open space in the area.
However, are these attitudes connected to the city’s liberal voting patterns? To test that hypothesis, we need to compare Palo Alto with those communities in the Bay Area that are more Republican and conservative – places like Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, Atherton, Hillsborough, Danville, and Woodside. If liberalism is the culprit, these non-liberal communities should reveal intense housing development and declining prices. The table below compares these cities in terms of population and median housing prices (1):
The data tells the story. Both liberal and conservative communities are guilty of NIMBYism – the Not In My Back Yard approach to housing. Sowell’s claim that liberal philosophy is the source of high housing prices is a Mega-Whopper. Interestingly enough, in this same column Sowell states that conservatives would probably like to live in the world envisioned by liberals. Alas, he laments, they must live in the world that actually exists. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Sowell didn’t heed his own writing. The world that actually exists is one in which self-interest and a lack of altruism can be found on both sides of the political aisle.
(1) City data is primarily from USA.com website.
Bob Brownstein is Director of Policy and Research for Working Partnerships USA.
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments