Sowell's "Busybodies"

In recent columns, Thomas Sowell is playing the role of the curmudgeon, bitterly complaining about "busybodies" who are supposedly unduly interfering with our freedoms. His first column laments that people aren't permitted to sell their organs:

I happen to know a lady who was born with three kidneys -- and in poverty. Do you think she would have minded parting with a spare kidney, in order to have a better life for herself and her children?

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the "spare kidney" would be viable, what makes Sowell think that an open market for kidneys would permit this woman's sale to provide a "better life" for her family? Particularly given his subsequent statement,

Three economists have estimated the cost of buying an organ in a free market at a price well within most people's budgets.

More to the point, kidneys are already available for sale (in some cases in violation of laws nobody seems interested in enforcing) in places like India and the Philippines, with questionable economic benefit for many of the "donors". The necessary safety net to provide for any complications to U.S.-based donors, such as providing for health insurance to cover any associated short-term and long-term complications - costs Sowell would surely want to be borne by the purchaser and not the state - would push the cost of domestic organs significantly above the cost of "imports".

Please note that compelling arguments can and have been made for creating greater social rewards for organ donation, for removing the "ick" factor which makes families uncomfortable with approving donations even where their loved ones have completed organ donor cards, and even for providing some financial return in certain situations. But, even given that reality, Sowell's analysis is uncharacteristically shallow.

In his next column, Sowell complains about regulations aimed at "preserving farmland", which apparently prevented the father of one of his readers from selling his farmland to developers. Sowell argues that this means the farmer "cannot get anywhere near the land's market value", meaning of course that he cannot get the value he would have received if the use of the land were changed. Obviously, he can sell it for the same purpose as he used it - as farmland.

Sowell argued that restrictions meant to "preserve" farmland are unnecessary as we have an agricultural surplus, and that this type of restriction constitutes an unconstitutional taking. He rails that "busybodies" have no more rights under the Constitution than anybody else:

In other words, people who want to wring their hands about farmlands or wetlands, or about some obscure toad or snake, have no more rights than people who don't care two cents about such things. It is hard for those who have presumptions of being the morally anointed to accept that, but that is what the Constitution says.

Again, I grant that there is some basis to Sowell's complaints - but there is also great merit in preserving open spaces and arable farmland, and even in preventing excess urban sprawl. It's a classic battle of the rights of the individual versus the rights of the collective. Sowell prefers a libertarian position, where it is every man for himself, whatever the long- or short-term consequence for the community or the environment. And, perhaps unaware of the costs, he ignores the burdens on local governments of providing and maintaining roads, water and power lines, fire and police services, and other support for the communities he desires to be built on what is presently farmland. Sowell may benefit from a review of the Federalist Papers, as his argument exemplifies the reasons why our Founding Fathers chose representative government over direct democracy.

Sowell also presents what I consider to be an absurd claim:

The real reason for preventing farmland from being sold to those who might build housing on it is that the people who live in that housing might not be as upscale as those already living nearby. Developers -- heaven forbid -- might build apartments or townhouses in a community where people live in single-family homes.

For many years, I would drive to Plainfield, Illinois on an annual basis. In the 1980's, after leaving the highway for Plainfield Road, this involved driving past mile after mile of cornfields. Through the 1990's much of that farmland was developed - and I don't recall seeing a single residence that could be characterized as less "upscale" than that of Plainfield. Meanwhile, the people of Plainfield faced additional pressure on their schools and public services, while likely often seeing their own home values decline in comparison to the new development.

While I will grant that sometimes farmland is acquired for the development of "manufactured home communities", and that there is often fierce local resistance to such development due to concerns about the low tax income from such development, and the high cost to area communities for policing and serving a high-density, low income population, that's the exception, not the rule. Most developers have no interest in building low income housing, as it is not where they can expect to maximize the return on their investments.They are buying the land to build what you will see if you drive down Plainfield Road - large houses on relatively small lots, designed for people who want to "live in the country" (or at least outside of the city) in a big house while also having a reasonable commute into work. Sowell has to know this.

In his third essay, which rails about "liberals" who demand that developers produce "affordable housing":

One of the staples of liberal hand-wringing is a need for "affordable housing." Last year, the standard liberal solution -- more government spending -- was proposed in a televised speech at the National Press Club in Washington, in a report billed as a "new vision."

Presumably, this means that the "busybodies" of his former essay were "conservatives" - as he was then arguing that "busybodies" were trying to prevent affordable housing.

Sowell observes that there is a glut of rental units in much of the country, and that housing cost is primarily a problem "confined to a relatively few places along the east and west coasts". He goes on to complain that this would be resolved if local governments woud lift restrictions on the development of land surrounding these major urban areas.

The New York Times story refers gingerly to "many cities on the coasts, where new construction is more difficult" than in the rest of the country. To put it more bluntly, liberals have driven housing prices sky high by forbidding, restricting, and harassing the building of housing.

In turn, this has meant driving people of modest incomes out of the communities where they work. Nurses, teachers and policemen, for example, typically live far away from places like San Francisco or Silicon Valley, and have to commute long distances to and from work.

Now, granted, if you allow for completely unrestricted development, the odds are that eventually you will get a housing surplus which will result in lower rents and housing values. But it is more than fair to ask, "at what cost"?

Sowell again resorts to the thesis that if more housing is built, it will be affordable housing. (As my friends in California have pointed out, there are neighborhoods even in the population centers which are comparatively quite affordable - it's just that most people don't want to live there.) If prime open spaces and parklands are opened to developers in areas with some of the highest housing costs in the nation, Sowell asks us to presuppose that developers will prefer to take a hit in the pocketbook in order to provide low income and moderately priced housing, as opposed to building upscale developments and McMansions so as to maximize their profits. Sowell seems to believe that the market should govern land prices and uses, but that developers will ignore the market when choosing what to build on their land. It's a nice dream, but it isn't likely to be the reality.

Comments