Economic "growth" is no way to rate the health of a city

just sent this to the local paper and ward councilor in response to this article http://www.yourkanata.com/StittsvilleNews/article/10022

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 22:46
Subject: Economic "growth" is no way to rate the health of a city


Re: What cost development? Feb 4 2008

I believe that pushing the urban boundary for new developments is extremely shortsighted, and plain wrong on all other levels.
We have lived in a time when growth was considered good - as long as there were more people coming, more consumers in the market, more agricultural land to deplete, more forests to clear-cut, more oil to burn, more credit to stretch - things were supposed to be good. However, "measuring economic growth – as the current crisis proves – is no way to rate the health of the planet" (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/02/climatechange-economicgrowth for details).

What exactly does building more homes achieve? Canadians have already outpaced our American neighbors in terms of spending on credit (a very bad habit of overconfidence fueled by recent political statements like "ours is the most robust banking system in the world" and "we are sheltered from this storm"). Is this really the time to encourage people to buy new homes and stretch their mortgages even more? Is it really beneficial for the city to increase the new areas it has to service while the infrastructure in older neighborhoods is on the verge of collapse? From what I've heard the construction trades in Ottawa were already over-stretched, with houses taking 16 months to build rather than the normal 9. It sure is fun and exciting for people to obsess over new homes, but what does that do for us in the long term? For example, what are we going to do in fifteen years, when the existing neighborhoods currently bedlocked by the babyboomer bulge are finally available, but all the new families have moved ever further out?

I profoundly disagree with the comment that "growth" - at least in the sense of construction - is "good" for us, even if it generates "profit" for the lucky few, who then spend much of it offshore for electronic gadgets that our own labour force is too expensive to manufacture here, because too many people are tied to construction... Just moving money around simply does not create wealth. You can't export homes. You can't really export residential construction expertise to other parts of the world. All you can do is increase demand for natural resources best left untapped and artificially boost wage expectations due to false labour shortages (because people are working on the wrong things). How is that supposed to be good for us in the long run?

Let's focus on ruban renewal instead - better services, better quality of life. The charm of old cities like Montreal and Boston arose directly from the intensities of their populations. Rather than obsessing over manicuring their 5,000 square feet of grass and driveway with pesticides and oil products, and filling their homes with ephemeral gadgets, residents should be able to gather in cafes, markets, theaters, pubs and parks, and focus on the finer qualities of life.

It's easy, and politically convenient to focus attention on shiny new things, especially when the old things aren't turning out as well as we had hoped. It's simple and simple sells. But praising expansion is also cheap politics, and poor public policy.

Never taken such a public stance before; we'll see where this goes. I wonder if it'll even be published. At least my local councilor is already a strong proponent for intensification.