by Eric Miller
I often find myself in an awkward political position with my two feet set in two different camps. In my view though, my feet are in the same camp. In my mind it’s the prevailing paradigms that are wrongly split. There are quite a few examples of this, but none comes up quite as often as my being both a free-market advocate and an opponent of "suburban sprawl."
My more liberal-leaning friends find it hard to understand my affinity for capitalism. They see capitalism as creating the sprawling mess I despise. Even more perplexing is the look on the face of conservatives or libertarian-leaning folks when I tell them that sprawl, strip malls and highways are bad.
No matter which end of the Wal-mart parking lot you stand on, you may be equally confused. The contradiction isn’t visible from here. Wal-mart is after-all a greedy corporation that puts small local stores out of business--capitalism at its best, or worst, you might say. But behind every suburban super saver special is a big government handout that allows the mega-mart to be there. Feeding off public projects like the highways that allow all the cars to get to Wal-mart is not capitalism, and there is no freer, more competitive market anywhere else than in the hearts of our cities, where the first-day entrepreneur is free and able to compete with the established corporation.
Preserving History
I’ve met some other libertarian or free-market thinkers that love and live in the city. I have enjoyed many explanations created to justify things that seem to make it a better place, but aren’t easily justified by their political philosophies. Historic preservation is one of these areas.One theory offered an economic justification. While it may seem like a violation of property rights on the surface, a restored, historic house in a certified historic district is worth more than a re-muddled one that doesn’t look quite right. Further, the value of one property affects the value of those beside it. If I purchase a house in a historic district, "modernizing" or otherwise changing it to be out of context with the district could have a negative economic impact on the other properties on the street the same way a blighted house would. As my friend said, your plastic awning lowers the value of my house.
While the right of private property is important, in any society an action must be weighed against the effect it will have on others. The aesthetic restrictions can be logically compared to other restrictions we would never deny for the sake of property rights, such as that prevent you from keeping a cow on your lawn or playing loud music on your own property in the wee hours of the morning.
But suppose we are not talking about a house in a historic district...just an old building some organization decides has historic value.
Restrictions are placed on what the building can be used for, how it can be altered, etc. Do these restrictions constitute a violation of property rights? To many the obvious answer is yes. But a more detailed analysis of what is included in "property" may sway many to conclude no.
If the property in question were not a building, but a famous artwork, an original manuscript of The Fountainhead or a draft of the Declaration of Independence, would the owner have a right to destroy or alter it? Few would answer yes. Why? Because it has significant value to the community and society as a whole.
Purchasing property of any kind means not only purchasing the material property, but purchasing the social value that has been given to it over the years. The right to own property doesn’t always include the right to destroy or alter it.
Onto The Road Again
Most free-marketers love cars, strip malls and suburbia. The car is a symbol of personal freedom, akin to the horse a pioneer into the sunset. Likewise to many, the ranch house placed on a half-acre of lawn is the supreme symbol of a nation of individuals immersed in the seclusion of driveways and television, "homesteading" far away from the masses of humanity,.Did the free market make all this possible? The government built the highways that made getting to suburbia possible; provided publicly-financed loans to build many of the houses; picked up the tab for miles of infrastructure needed when everything is so spaced apart; and "gave" millions to private individuals when they benefited from increases in the value of their land after an interchange was placed near or on it.
Pure unrestricted capitalism? I think not. When you really look at it you see suburbia is a plush garden retreat for the middle-class. A product of one of Democracy’s little flaws--people can vote themselves presents from the public coffers.
Before there were highways, autos and suburbia, many of the public streets were maintained by private transit and streetcar companies, which provided transportation on a fee-for-service basis without subsidies. In fact, many even contributed to the public treasury in exchange for a right to use the streets.
Private Parts, Public Parks
Undeniably some of the amenities that make a city great to live in, from Central Park to a town square, are built at public expense. And its hard for a city to grow in any cohesive manner without some sort of top-down physical government plan or map to provide a guide for placement of streets and lots.I have met few people who believe we don’t need any government. There are proper roles for government and ways for government to exist without interfering too much with the market. Even libertarians say the government should provide a military, police and courts. Not many free-marketers will insist City Hall must come down because it wasn’t publicly financed.
Social reformers of the 19th Century like Fredrick Law Olmsted believed that in a nation of many peoples, a public park provided a valuable civic service. Without a Central Park stretching through blocks of diverse immigrant neighborhoods, different people may never come together. Parks were both an escape from the pollution and commotion of city life, and a way to bring people together on an equal field in a non-threatening atmosphere.
Yes, it could be argued that those with property near the park benefitted from an increase in property value, but there’s no reason a park couldn’t be funded in part by those who benefit from it most. This could be done through some kind of creative taxation like the modern eqivelent of the Business Improvement District tax, or just plain old fashioned philanthropic donations.
Too often when we begin arguing the public or private support of urban amenities we forget that capitalists built many of them, from Carnegie Libraries to the National Gallery. But in modern days, with everyone so spread apart in suburbs, its not as easy for a rich capitalist to donate a monument as accessible and useful to the community as the James J. Hills Library in St. Paul or Carnegie’s libraries in any one of many cities.
And sadly, without the city we have forgotten what it means to come together as a community. To be together in a common or town square rather than at opposite ends of the shopping aisle. Lacking a sense of camaraderie with fellow citizens, and isolated in a government-enabled gated community, rich capitalists don’t see the obvious need to contribute.
When Marshall Field and George Pullman lived blocks from some of the poorest residents and newest immigrants, a public spirit--one that spurs private investment and involvement--was undoubtedly more important.
From the new Wal-mart to the highway interchange to the diminishing amount of farmland, the government had something to do with it. From the corner store and the sidewalk merchant to the department store and office high-rise, the market created the city and the city is the natural home for it.