What’s a group’s underlying philosophy? On the City of Whitewater’s new website, there’s a link to a page for Community Development Authority. That page describes the CDA, and touts its accomplishments. Here’s part of what it says, as of October 1st:
The Whitewater Community Development Authority is the economic development organization for the City of Whitewater. We exist to encourage and help people and businesses to invest in the city, creating jobs, increasing the tax base and improving the community’s quality of life….
The CDA has declined to attract businesses which might have a negative impact on the area’s quality of life due to such things as heavy truck traffic or potential odors. It has turned down loans to businesses which do not offer good-paying jobs with benefits. The restrictions it places on land it develops exceed those that the city imposes through its zoning, and the CDA has been instrumental in securing and restoring land for parks and conservation. In fact, the Whitewater CDA has been nationally recognized for its “Smart Growth” practices.
Turning aside businesses that don’t seem adequate doesn’t mean that workers will be better paid; it means that there will be that many fewer jobs for workers in Whitewater.
I know that some members of the CDA disagree about matters with others — my point here is the perspective of the CDA’s own description.
You know, I’ve been concerned about several things, but after reading the CDA link of the City of Whitewater website, I realize that the real problem here is that we don’t have enough green space next to all these pastures, fields, forests, groves, meadows, etc. Thanks, CDA — what a lovely vista we have.
Heavy truck traffic? A single roundabout won’t make this L.A. In fact, ten roundabouts won’t make this L.A. Odors? Thanks, you’ve saved me from a life of Febreze.
When a group prides itself on demanding restrictions that “exceed those that the city imposes through its zoning” in a city that’s too restrictive anyway, that’s a recipe for troublesome results.
Readers know that I’m ill-disposed toward planning, generally, other than planning to compete. I am convinced that it seldom works well, and when it works, the free, private exchange of goods and services likely would have worked better. I dislike planning because I think it produces mediocre results, and restricts individual liberty and opportunity. Finally, planning enlarges the state, and I am convinced that’s a power temptingly wielded to the detriment of rivals, and small, ordinary people.
Picking business prospects this way — deciding on some directions of growth other than market growth — is to decide on less than optimal use of labor and capital. The CDA, or any other organization of planners (voluntary or paid doesn’t matter), will never pick so well as the free combinations of experienced buyers and sellers in the market. Each mistake limits future ‘best possibilities.’ If you’re empowered to decide, you’re disposed to feel justified in your judgment. One might be right about a dozen, dozen things, but one will never be so right or good — ultimately — for the community as the private parties in countless voluntary, unpredictable transactions.
I know — and you know, too — that not all government restrictions, regulations, and interference is the same. Economic regulation may not seem as threatening as a police use of force. The former softens the ground, though, for the deep pit the latter represents.
Now, that’s a libertarian perspective. It’s an economic perspective, but underlying it all is a general preference for individual liberty (over egalitarian schemes), and freedom from state coercion. I think that it’s a model for a great way to live, one that both respects the rights of the individual, and unleashes free markets to advance prosperity (and lift people from poverty). It’s far more than a way to better allocate labor and capital — libertarians believe that it’s a way to protect individual dignity at the same time.
Better, actually, than ‘smart growth’ schemes.