Reurbanism rears its ugly head. Don’t be fooled by the pie-in-the-sky pictures painted by this dangerous cause. It is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering through government regulations that drive up costs of real estate and consumer goods. The urban decline and poor economy in this area is a result of government policies and regulations, the cure is less, not more. One of the main causes of urban flight was the forced busing to achieve racial integration in the school system. On the surface, the cause sounds noble, but as we know now, the results have been disastrous. The same can be said about “reubanism” (new urbanism).

Now, the new urbanists could have simply become cheerleaders for urban development. They could have engaged in public campaigns, encouraging others to join the fold and live like San Franciscans. The effort might have been futile, but it would have been unquestionably legitimate. Instead, they have sought to enforce their preferences through coercion. They love their flavor of living so much, they intend to make it dominate under pain of law.

Occasionally, the new urbanists will allow their draconian intentions to slip out. For example, last year during a city council meeting on the subject of transit ridership in Madison , Wisconsin , project manager David Townbridge remarked that “lots of people on the council … would like to use parking rates as a mechanism to force mass transit.” He then gravely predicted that ” people will think about whether they really want to pay at least $100 a month just to park.”

“Force mass transit?” That’s a key tenet of the new urbanist agenda. If people won’t choose the “correct” path on their own, the new urbanists aim to force them to.

Similarly, in both San Diego and Los Angeles efforts are currently underway to ban the construction of the so-called “big box” stores. This would include popular chains such as Wal-Mart and Costco. According to the new urbanists, such bans are desirable because large retail stores foster the development of “sprawl.” Whether or not shoppers like or dislike these stores is irrelevant; it’s enough that they post a threat to new urbanist designs.

Of course, big box stores are better for consumers because they offer a superior selection at lower prices. This reveals an objective problem with new urbanism; it’s simply more expensive. Since it imposes densification, real estate costs invariably increase, and higher real estate costs lead to higher prices at the register. On top of that, lot sizes are often regulated, which limits store selection and likewise increases costs.

This, I’m afraid, is not a matter of preference. It’s one of economics. The new urbanists are costing us money.

Yet in the mind of new urbanists, this is completely justified. Who cares if vanilla costs less if chocolate is better? Under their philosophy, they’re doing society a favor by enforcing a better way of living. In their view, we should be thanking them for saving us from ourselves.

Therein lies the problem with the new urbanists. They don’t trust people making their own choices with their own money. They want to make the decisions for us on how and where we should live our lives, and no matter how pure their motivations may be, their methods are simply atrocious. Only I know what’s best for me. They only know what’s best for themselves.

Ultimately, it comes down to this simple principle: I don’t want to be forced to eat chocolate if I happen to prefer vanilla. And neither should you.

(read the whole article)