I read Gwnn Dyer’s “Climate Wars” over the last weekend and will be posting on some of its sustainability themes over the coming weeks. In the meantime, I wanted to share a quick thought on “density.”
In a sustainability context, density means increasing the number of people living & working in a given space. Density has a number of benefits that are consistent with Conservative ideology:
- Lower taxes: Increase the tax base for a given area’s infrastructure, and the per capita share drops. Fiscal conservatism has a chance.
- Smaller government: Smaller, denser cities require on a per capita basis less administration, less maintenance, etc.
- Minimal regulation: Density can be increased with relatively simple changes to tax codes to increase the attractiveness of building up and on infill lots.
Just a thought. I wish municipalities touchstoned their policy-making against an ideology. Perhaps the party system should extend to the municipal level.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Are you sure you are a Conservative?
I agree with your tenets. The problem is that municipalities are set up for growth. Mayors (a thick lot), developers and other, for the most part see expansion as desirable for a city. They cite increasing the tax base and other nonsense.
I’ve tried to get a saner zoning legislation where I live only to be set back by stupidity at all levels. Citizens themselves are stupid.
You have to understand that people want their “goodies” or what they perceive to be their due. You won’t find much altruistic behaviour in people.
Of course, you may loose other people when it’s pointed out that the David Suziki foundation seems to be online with what you are saying…
Citizens may not always act in ways that make sense. That being said, simple, progressive legislation has been shown to effectively shape behaviour – i.e.: catalytic converters, low flow showerheads, etc.
As to growth: by all means, grow. I would argue that a conservative approach to growth means smart growth, which means dense growth – making the most of sunk investments in infrastructure. That’s as fiscally conservative as it gets.
Its funny: these values are not traditional “C” conservative values, but examination under an ideological lens shows them to be entirely complementary. I would argue that new conservatism needs to incorporate them – for purely moral reasons (sustainability is a good thing), and to expand the Conservative ideological base…
Of course our governments could stick to their mandates rather than offer expensive and useless programs and learn to live within their means, but hey the cram us all in boxes idea sounds loverly too, not.
Who’s talking about cramming anyone into boxes? Got any specific expensive and useless programs to point us too?
No one said “cram into boxes”.
Cities have zoning by-laws. This means that “x”% of land is used for this, “y”% for that… With proper urban planning and a change in attitude, towns could be better designed for improved living conditions. At the moment, planning is done to maximize short term profits for the developer at the expensive of the city. Which should taxpayers subsidize developers? Why do Conservatives, as a rule what to privatize the gains and socialize the loses?
It’s easier for citizens to make changes at the municipal level, that’s why I encourage people to get involved there.
You’d be surprised at the stupidity and waste by mayor and city councillors… Of course citizens don’t seem to mind…
I’m not against the government getting involved at times because the “for profit” motive does not always work in favour of taxpayers. What I don’t like if corporate welfare. I don’t think we should have done the auto-bailout….
I don’t like Harper’s cut in GST, his 100$/month bribe for kids, or the fact that you get money having kids in certain sports – those are all a waste…