5 ms·
That article comes so close to defeating its own argument it's painful. If that land wasn't protected with zoning, it would have been built up long ago into a t
by raquo 7y ago
That article comes so close to defeating its own argument it's painful. If that land wasn't protected with zoning, it would have been built up long ago into a typical sprawling suburbia – the opposite of what they propose. So if it had been unprotected in the past, that would have been bad. And if it stays protected that's bad because it's underused.
It is only this short sliver of time that is today that this land should be developed into their dream city. That will somehow miraculously withstand the test of time.
No, it won't, that's just greed and narcissism – thinking that we're so special today that we deserve to have that land unprotected for us but doing that for either future or past generations is a mistake.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoPerhaps I shouldn't speak for Scott Sumner, but I feel pretty sure he wouldn't recognize your opinion of what he supposedly thinks. If you make your comment at econlib, he's not unlikely to respond.
- raquo 7y agoMy comment is a critique of the content of his article, not an "opinion of what he supposedly thinks" in need of his recognition. If "thinking that" are trigger words now, replace it with "acting as if" to same effect.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoYour comment is a critique of a lot of content you read into his article without the formality of it actually being there.