In the last post, we briefly examined the contradictory goals of some opponents of Austin’s proposed new land-use regulations. The opponents support regulations that limit density and impose other controls on developers that add as much as 40 percent to the cost of new housing. In this post, we will examine the moral component of their argument.
One group opposing CodeNext is Community Not Commodity (CNC). Their website states:
Community Not Commodity is a diverse group of grassroots leaders from across Austin who want the city’s land development code to reflect the wishes of our residents, not the financial motives of land developers and real estate speculators. We want a land development code that keeps Austin affordable and diverse, protects the character of our neighborhoods and communities, reflects neighborhood plans, and safeguards the natural environment.
This groups wishes for affordable housing, and it expects the law to reflect that wish. But what if developers can’t satisfy their wish? Will builders become criminals because they can’t build inexpensive housing and remain in business? CNC doesn’t seem to be concerned about builders–businessmen must simply fulfill the wishes of CNC and their supporters.
But the real moral issue is that CNC wants the wishes of some resident to be imposed upon all residents. They want “developers and real estate speculators” to be subservient to the demands and dictates of “a diverse group of grassroots leaders from across Austin.” CNC wants to make it illegal for those who build housing to act on their own judgment to build affordable housing. CNC believes that its wishes are commandments for builders.
As an example, CNC wants to stop gentrification. But what is gentrification? Dictionary.com defines gentrification as
the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, raising property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses.
In other words, gentrification is a process of turning slums into economically productive areas. This, CNC would like us to believe, is a bad thing. It is bad to to turn deteriorated neighborhoods into desirable neighborhoods.
CNC purports to represent the residents of Austin and presents developers and real estate speculators as enemies of the people. But developers are in business to make money, and they can only make money by providing the housing that residents want in the areas that residents want to live. Developers depend on the voluntary decisions of consumers for their success. Developers are the true representatives of the people.
Morally, the issue is one of force versus consent. CNC wants to use force to prevent developers and consumers from engaging in consensual economic exchanges. Economically, CNC’s position will only drive those who attempt to build affordable housing into bankruptcy. But that isn’t a surprise. CNC’s argument is morally bankrupt. When persuasion fails, they are eager to embrace force.