responses to criticisms of growth controls

[CRCP]

Members' comments follow.

This thread is intended as a resource for the many people in Kelowna and other communities who oppose further growth, and who are subjected to the typical urban growth machine verbal attacks.

[Rick Shea]

People who propose growth controls are often verbally attacked in ways that have nothing to do with the issues. One of the most common personal attacks is the old "If you hate it here that much, then why don't you move away." This is just another of the many attempts to silence proponents of growth controls.

This comment denies the concern for others and for the environment shown by the person proposing growth controls, and the work that this person is prepared to do to improve things.

My own personal response to that particular attack is a reflection of how I feel about the issues: "I'm not that lazy or apathetic that I would cut and run when there is work to do. As long as I have the energy, I'll keep on working."

[Rick Shea]

Another common attack is the statement that people living in one area have no right to comment on growth in another area. Of course, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically guarantees us the right to do so. But more to the point, growth in other areas can have a direct impact on us.

For example, as Penticton and other communities along Okanagan Lake grow, more demands are placed on water supplies, and more treated effluent is dumped into Okanagan Lake and its outflow. More air pollution is created in the Okanagan airshed, more traffic uses our highway to travel to and from those communities, and a host of other impacts occur. I believe that that gives us an ethical right, and even a moral obligation, to monitor and comment on that growth.

[Rick Shea]

Those who oppose highrises, box stores, major subdivisions, cell phone towers, electrical substations, and other projects are typically labelled as NIMBYs, and called "special interest groups." What goes unsaid is that the developers themselves are a special interest group. The residents who oppose development are interested in preserving neighbourhoods, quality of life, the environment, social equity, and other issues. As a bottom line, developers are interested in profits, period, or they wouldn't be in business.

So, rather than listen to the concerns of current residents, we just go blindly ahead with development, dividing and destroying neighbourhoods and communities.

NIMBYs? No, it's the DAMBY-PAMBYs of the world who are the real problem: Develop All My Back Yard - Pave All My Back Yard.

[John Zeger]

A criticism that I have heard regarding Kelowna's implementing population growth controls is that surrounding communities will continue to grow and people living there will commute to the city and aggravate our traffic congestion. I have always responded by saying that surrounding communities would be free to follow Kelowna's example and implement growth controls themselves, and that I would encourage them to do so. This is, in fact, what is happening surrounding some growth-controlled cities in the U.S. such as Boulder, Colorado and Santa Barbara, California where nearby cities Westminster and Goleta are considering or have implemented growth controls, respectively.

[Rick Shea]

Another response is that the current wide-open speculation surrounding house prices is already causing the very situation that growth fanatics claim will happen. House prices in Kelowna are already unaffordable for most, and people are looking to Westbank, Lake Country, Vernon, and Penticton right now. That is fact, as opposed to the ungrounded theory that controls might cause the same to happen.

So, I find it surprising that people in general are not proposing growth controls for the entire valley in order to prevent the very situation that is happening right now. Stop the speculation, and the concentration of real estate in the hands of the wealthy outsider.

[John Zeger]

Another criticism that I have often heard in regard to growth controls is that by restricting the supply of housing, home prices will go up. I have responded before by citing a study conducted in the 1990's which showed that California growth controlled cities that also had inclusionary housing bylaws which increased the supply of affordable housing did not experience a greater increase in housing prices than nearby cities without any growth controls.

Some more recent data are interesting in what they might instruct us on the affect of growth controls, urban form and free markets on housing prices. In the five year period ending in 2006 Boulder, CO, a city that has controlled its population growth to less than one percent per year experienced a 20% increase in housing costs. Portland, OR, a city that has followed the "smart growth" model of not controlling population growth but rather channeling that growth into high density areas has experienced a 62% increase in house prices. Finally, Kelowna, a city that has basically allowed the free market to determine the location of new home construction, experienced an 89% increase in house prices over that period.