From: Ben Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: the justification for urban planning
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:18:23 -0700
Markets do very well at allocating goods like coffee or gasoline or clothes
in the short term because of their flexibility
and coerce otherwise sane people to do something that
they would rather not, then there is no justification for ANY government
intervention in the housing market, including urban planning. From my
knowledge of urban planning, it is all about solving problems stemming from
government planning - not market
--- Ben Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Markets ... don't do well in things like supplying housing in
proper configurations and locations because housing is a durable
good that once sold is relatively permanent (30-100 years or more).
It depends on the particular market. If a housing
Markets do very well at allocating goods like coffee or gasoline or
clothes
in the short term because of their flexibility in response to short term
preferences. They don't do well in things like supplying housing in proper
configurations and locations because housing is a durable good that
Brian,
The first idea that Since they won't be living in the places more
than 5 or 10 years they don't care if the place is ugly to most people
or shoddily constructed. This leaves the rest of the population with
only ugly and shoddy houses to choose from when they eventually need to
move.
I'm a student of Urban Planning at the University of Southern California. I
find myself increasingly skeptical about nearly all of the interventionist
policies they present to us as good ideas (smart growth, zoning, etc.). I
think given the right institutions, externality and public goods
On Thursday, October 25, 2001 9:18 PM Ben Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Markets do very well at allocating goods like coffee or gasoline or
clothes
in the short term because of their flexibility in response to short term
preferences. They don't do well in things like supplying housing in
