Homeowner voices may not ensure best decision

TO THE EDITOR:

In her recent column, Zaina Alsous questions the process by which the proposed Shortbread Lofts project was green-lighted.

Her concern about inclusion of current local residents in the decision process fails to recognize the pitfalls of doing so.

Land use regulation is one of the true bipartisan issues: Liberals and conservatives alike enjoy being local tyrants. This is a theme in the latest work by, of all people, the left-leaning blogger Matt Yglesias in “The Rent is Too Damn High.”

Inclusion of current local homeowners in planning sounds laudable and scratches the egalitarian itch of many liberal-minded people.

It also allows local property owners to capture the regulatory system and limit new housing.

It also discourages downtown density, which encourages longer commutes into urban centers and is less green.

We must at least consider these potential effects here. If supply doesn’t meet demand, students will find housing in existing structures, many in Northside.

Rents will inflate and likely accrue to a few local property owners — not the outcome most want.

Alsous is right that many students will continue to rent in Northside anyway. This will be true at least as long as rents remain lower than downtown apartments.

Yet restricting the supply of housing may ensure less sustainable density, property and rent inflation, and hasten gentrification in Northside.

There are still important aesthetic and equity concerns at play. But the issue is more complex than our sympathies often portray at first glance.

I don’t have all the answers, but I’m less critical of the Town Council for limiting the influence of local interests. There can be good reasons for doing so.

Cameron Parker ’12
Economics