This week I attended the League of Women Voters candidates’ nights in both MV and Lisbon. In MV, residential growth quickly emerged (with no prompting from me!) as the central issue of discussion. Our city government has a good deal of progress to make in recognizing the difference between improvement and mere physical expansion. But I see hints of progress. There are a few officials and candidates who are at least thinking about some of the right questions. Ivan Vonk and Carine Klein, for instance, are capable of a degree of independent thought which has been scarce in recent city government decisions. You might get a sense of this simply by reading in the latest Sun the candidates’ answers to questions posed by the paper. As a telling example, compare the four candidates’ answers to the question concerning the relationship between the city and Cornell College. With Vonk and Klein, there’s reason for optimism.

My impression of the Lisbon mayor and council was not as positive. In their forum too, growth, particularly residential growth, was a dominant topic. I listened carefully to the views of mayor Mike Williams and council members Randy Roberts, Luan Yarbrough, and John Bardsley. Almost to a person, these candidates (running unopposed) talked as if they’d never considered the possibility that the standard growth industry arguments might not be the only way to think about residential growth, and could in fact be wrong. Only Bardsley showed a smidgen of ambivalence in his answers, suggesting that on some level he might believe the other candidates’ pat answers concerning questions of residential growth might not be easily supportable.

Before I go on, I have to mention that the only problem I have with the format of these League of Women Voters functions is the limitation of having to submit all questions in writing. This makes for a complete inability to ask follow up questions. Candidates often provide incomplete or illogical answers which demand quick follow up questions to force them to back up their assertion with evidence or logic. But you have to sit there and let the opportunity go by as you can’t ask questions verbally. Candidates who don’t want the flaws in their arguments exposed must love this format. That said, I’m not suggesting I have some great alternative in mind. The format is clearly in place in the interest of efficiency, and is probably better than a free-for-all. Still, I think allowing verbal questions, and perhaps one follow up question each time should merit serious consideration.

Spreading the standard myths
With that in mind, here, as best I can recall, were some of the question and answer highlights with regard to issues of residential growth:

Q: What are your views on residential development in Lisbon?

A: All four candidates support ongoing residential growth. They believe Lisbon “needs” it. One candidate (I don’t recall which) suggested that a town has to grow or it will shrink in population. We’ve addressed this here, but there was no chance at the forum for anyone to point out the illogic of this supposition, or to point out that there is no reason a town can’t maintain its population within a rough range. Other towns do it, and so could ours.

Bardsley offered a slightly more muddled, but at the same time more thoughtful answer than the others. He mentioned having been to seminars in which the attendees learned that a town was “lucky to break even” economically on residential development. (Lucky indeed. We’ve discussed this here in some detail, and have presented data and links to data to show how such development nearly always costs more to service than the revenues it generates. The deficit has to be made up somehow, and ultimately it’s the taxpayers who pay the price. John, check out the links here on that topic.) Nevertheless, he’s for it, believing, I think, that a town needs it for some broader reason than economics alone, perhaps the “population loss” reason.

Q: Concerning residential development, why must Lisbon or any other town grow forever? (This was my question, submitted as a follow up to the question above after the candidates made it clear they felt a town must continually grow or risk some sort of financial or population downturn. A better question would have been, “How can Lisbon or any other town grow forever?” Maybe next time. There was a second part to the question: “Have you read the Cost of Community Services literature which shows that residential development virtually always costs more to service than the revenues it brings in?” The moderator skipped that part.)

A: Yarbrough seemed at a loss with this question, saying she just couldn’t imagine Lisbon not growing.

Williams addressed the question from an economic point of view, offering the usual bit of developer propaganda which states that if we cease residential growth we’ll lose tax revenues we need for the town to survive. Given that these candidates seemed motivated to agree with one another on nearly everything else, I guess he missed, as mentioned above, that Bardsley had already contradicted this argument. What Bardsely had learned at those seminars was correct, if understated. Almost no town is lucky enough to break even on residential development, and over time continued development just puts a town further and further in the hole.

Williams also said something to the effect that Lisbon should keep growing at least until it hits the city limits one day. We’ve already examined this here. It’s a statement that paints its speaker squarely into a corner. As quickly as I could, I submitted a follow up question to try to highlight that corner. I asked, “Will Lisbon die when it’s residential development reaches the city limits? If not, why don’t we do now whatever we would do then to help the town thrive?” Alas, the moderator didn’t get to that question.

In reality, one of the best economic moves a typical mature town can make for its economic survival is to cease further residential development. Thus, if Lisbon stops residential expansion when it reaches he city limits ( a big “if”), it will, at that time, at least stop adding to the economic drain such expansion creates. The real question is whether Lisbon can survive that drain until it does stop the expansion and focuses instead on effective and sustainable ways of nourishing its economy and community as a whole.

Williams added a point suggesting that a town can’t stop growing as long as the nation’s population is growing. While it’s true that national (and world) population growth is one of the root causes of the growth of cities and towns, there is no reason a given town has to shoulder that burden as though it’s responsible for it. Moreover, while world population growth is one factor enabling rampant residential development, it isn’t the only one. In the United States our per capita consumption of homes has risen alarmingly. According to the 1995 U.S. Census, the average house size (in square feet) rose 39% between 1970 and 1990, while the average number of persons per home dropped 16%. We’re using more and bigger homes per individual! This can be stopped regardless of world population growth. Governments around the world will be grappling with issues of overpopulation with increasing intensity in the years to come. In the meantime, there are plenty of things individual localities can do to limit residential growth. Some are doing so successfully right now.

Recall the question: Concerning residential development, why must Lisbon or any other town grow forever? The amazing thing about this question was simply that every candidate answered as though he or she assumed a town could continue growing forever! They didn’t recognize the obvious — that it’s an impossibility!

A financial stake in growth industry disinformation
Though all the candidates expressed an anti-sustainability, pro-physical-expansion point of view, Williams seemed the most adamant. It turns out he works in sales for a company selling doors and windows. Unless I misunderstand something (feel free to post a correction if I’m wrong!), this means he’s employed in the growth industry. So his stance is not surprising. Clearly, almost no one is going to take a stand against something he sees as necessary for his own livelihood. Completely understandable. Yet you can’t hold him blameless either. Life is complicated.

We’ll run into this over and over as we work to bring out the truth concerning growth industry assertions. It’s hard for anyone involved in the growth machine to believe there could be other ways for them to do well in their jobs without promoting needless residential expansion.

I don’t know which of the other candidates might have loose ties to the growth industry. But it’s clear they’ve all accepted the growth machine’s claims as fact. The disinformation is pervasive all over the country, so this is understandable. It’s what most of us have heard for many years. It’s time, though, to step back and really look at the claims, to ask for proof, and to look at contrary information. When you do, you find a great deal more evidence to support the latter. And you find the anti-sustainablility, pro-expansion arguments originate mostly from those with financial ties to residential growth.

Though it was frustrating to be unable to ask follow up questions, the basic views of these candidates on residential development were clear. In the words of Roberts, they’re “all for it.” About a week before the forum all these candidates were directly invited to visit and participate on this site. I hope they begin soon. They owe it to Lisbon.