- The Washington Times - Monday, May 31, 2004

A dispute about height restrictions on buildings in San Mateo, Calif., may seem a completely local problem no one outside San Mateo should care about. But the principle involved touches everyone from coast to coast, on issues having nothing to do with buildings, much less San Mateo.

Like most liberal and affluent California communities, San Mateo has a severe restriction on how high you can build, supposedly to prevent the community from looking like Manhattan. How is there anything wrong with that? Let me count the ways.

What is fundamentally wrong with this and a whole range of other government decisions at all levels is that no one is forced to count the costs.

If people want to build 10-story buildings but the law limits them to building five-story buildings, there will be twice as many buildings required to house the same number of people. That means twice as much land on which to put the buildings.

In places where the land can cost more than the building itself — as in much of coastal California — that can mean tenants living in the shorter buildings will pay twice as much rent to cover the higher costs created by height restrictions.

It doesn’t stop there. When a community cannot expand vertically, it expands horizontally, creating “urban sprawl.” That means more highway commuting and more highway fatalities.

One of the biggest arguments against tall buildings is that they generate heavier traffic. But spreading out the population generates more commuter traffic on the highways — and when that highway traffic reaches the city, it becomes street traffic.

Anyone who has driven in San Francisco during the rush hour will find little difference between the traffic jams in this city, with its height restrictions, and the traffic jams in Manhattan with its skyscrapers. If anything, people are probably commuting longer distances into San Francisco, where even the surrounding counties have astronomical housing prices.

The point is not that a particular policy in San Mateo or San Francisco is wrong. The point is that those who make such policies are not forced to count all the costs they create.

Most decisionmakers, in government or in the private marketplace, have no idea how their particular preferences add to the costs. But, in the marketplace, the price conveys the end result — which is what matters for making decisions.

When you want to buy a car with a certain added feature, you may not have a clue how that affects the way the car is built, or the additional time, effort and materials required. But you can depend on the additional price telling you the end result.

When I wanted to buy a telephoto lens for my camera, the local camera store had two available. Both had the same magnification as 300mm lenses and both were made by the same manufacturer. But one lens cost $900 and the other cost more than $2,000. Why? Because one lens lets in more light.

I am not an optics expert, so I don’t know all the ins and outs of making lenses that let in different amounts of light. But I know the difference between $900 and $2,000 — and that is all I needed to know to choose the cheaper lens.

Government restrictions are attractive to people who want to impose their pet notions without having to count the costs. There may be estimated costs — often disputed estimates — but there is nothing to force those estimates to include all the things that will become more costly because of a given policy.

Nor does anything force the original estimates to at all resemble the actual costs finally paid by taxpayers and others.

In the marketplace, you can believe every additional cost your decision creates is likely to show up in the price tag. If the 300mm lens that lets in more light must have more and larger elements made with more expensive glass, and requires a larger carrying case, you can believe the manufacturer will not overlook those things when he sets the price.

The government can overlook all sorts of costs — but those costs do not go away. There is no free lunch.

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide