Monday night: Today I received an anonymous email from someone who disagrees with some of my views on the site. Well, probably all of them. :roll: First, I want to mention that I’m not much interested in private debate with anonymous emailers as it does nothing to bring information to the citizens of our communities. I have therefore made additions to the “contact the author” form and the comment policy to minimize this sort of thing.

With that in mind, I invite the emailer to comment under this article. Can you support your position with logic or data? Let’s discuss it.

Now, because this person’s argument is a standard one among those in the growth industry here, and should be evaluated publicly, I’ll summarize it and offer a response. Subsequently I may write a more detailed article debunking it as another growth myth, though it is perhaps better characterized as a red herring.

The person’s basic argument, summarized and paraphrased, was this:

Iowa is losing population. Other towns in Iowa would love to have a growth problem! We’re building a new high school while other towns are closing theirs.

Growth and the new school are related. That’s why the MV school board is pro-growth.

Your use of the term “growth machine” is immature and offensive.

I’ve lived in MV all my life and welcome growth, as do the majority here!

Do you smell smoke?
I think this is the third time I’ve heard the “Other towns would love to have this problem” argument. The problem with it is that it’s no argument at all. It’s merely a red herring, a smoke screen with little bearing on the issues at hand. Yes, other towns are losing population. Some of those towns would probably trade that problem for a growth problem. (Others would be wise enough to reason, “Why trade? The town as we know it dies in either case.”) Obviously, however, they could not stop their population loss by building more subdivisions.

Similarly, if for some reason people feared the possibility of future population loss in MV, they would likely realize building subdivisions now could not logically prevent it. Population loss has nothing to do with low housing supply. Nor is there some magic population number we need to shoot for to immunize our towns against population loss. Large cities experience population loss too.

Likewise, if people want to move to a town, refraining from building subdivisions does not eliminate that desire. In fact, if anything, keeping housing supply low is more likely to increase demand as the opportunity to live in the town is then seen as more special. Just look at Bolinas, California. They’ve allowed zero residential development since 1971. Their population has stayed at about 1,600 all along. People want to move there, and do when the opportunity arises.

MV has vibrant arts and academic communities, a relatively healthy main street, an active small business community, and a level of small town charm seen in few other towns today. We’re at no risk of population loss in the foreseeable future. But if wet were, trying to address the problem by building subdivisions would be mind-bogglingly nonsensical. At the risk of repeating myself, if people are not attracted to living in a town, adding to its housing supply isn’t going to change that. Clearly the “population loss” argument is nothing but a distraction from the real issues.

What would help protect against potential population loss?
That said, if someone wants to do something to ensure that we avoid any future problem of population loss, they need to focus on our business community, and our community as a whole with an emphasis on those things which make this town unique. They need to study the reasons for the “brain drain” in Iowa, whereby young people move away, and strive to eliminate its causes in our town. (Hint: It has nothing to do with housing supply.) A focus on sustainable development would be a great place to start.

School board members are cordially invited…
I touched elsewhere on the issue of population growth and the need to build schools. Here I’ll add that I welcome any school board members coming to this site and posting their reasons for being pro-growth. Perhaps there are other reasons, but I believe they’ve taken that stance primarily because the schools receive a certain sum of money for each pupil enrolled. Up to a point, therefore, it’s nice to have more students. For instance, if you have 9 students per classroom, and know you can effectively teach classes of up to 18 students, then it’s nice to add some students as the money they bring will be of help to the school with only moderate harm done to the quality of education. But when your class size is already in the 20s, every additional student only adds to a now severe degredation in the educational process as the teacher-student ratio moves ever farther from optimum. That’s the situation we’re in today.

Shame on the school board for promoting growth here to get more money for the schools when they know they’re inviting a reduction in the quality of education. Fewer students and a little less money is preferable.

Let’s give the people a little credit
So why does this irrelevant argument keep popping up? I believe it’s a use of scare tactics (We must build or we’ll lose population and die!), based on an assumption that our towns’ residents will not be able to see its illogic. Well, I believe people here can see that it’s irrelevant to our problem of needless growth, and can see it for what it is.

So the word “machine” is offensive??
Now, what about my use of the term “growth machine”? Should anyone be offended by it? I don’t think so. And I’m not going to sacrifice candor to walk on eggshells for anyone who might so easily be offended. Here are two definitions of “machine” that approximate how I used it: (1) an efficient and well-organized group of powerful people. (2) a group of people who control and organize something. The second definition gives the example of “Churchill’s war machine.” Would Churchill have been offended by that? Gimme a break.

I’m actually surprised the anonymous emailer singled out my use of “growth machine” as offensive. S/he could have picked “propaganda” for instance. That would seem a bit more offensive, I’d think. And I’d kind of like to get credit for being “edgy” once in a while. ;) In either case, I think I used the accurate term. I’ll continue to try to be civil, but candid.

Anyway, I’m glad to know some who disagree with me are reading the site! We need to discuss the issues here in public view. For too long the people of our towns have heard only what the growth machine wants them to hear. On the Small Town Project they have a chance to hear another view, a view from people such as myself with no financial interest in the matter, who are therefore less biased, more objective, guided not by potential huge profits, but purely by a love of these towns. Let’s talk! :D