Well said Matthew. The only problem is that enviro whacks like Brummitt are not interested in facts since they do not appeal to their feelings. Thank goodness that Sowell has more intelligence in his pinky than the entire Sierra Club membership.

Come on, Burcham ... you REALLY think the cost of real estate in Manhattan has ANYTHING to do with the Sierra Club?

Sowell's an inflammatory ass.

Yes I do James since the whacks like the Sierra Clubbers are the ones pushing legislation to keep people from building in green spaces and thus staying in the "city". They are not the only ones obviously, but I do think they are representative.

Of course Sowell is inflammatory to you James. He believes in something and has not trouble admitting it. Being the non-committed moderate that you are I know that is anathema.

non·com·mit·ted - adj.
1 - Not swayed by the crap regularly spewed by Ken Mehlman or John Kerry or any of those other bastards in DC that lie for power.
2 - Not swayed by the crap regularly spewed by Rush, Hannity, Ken Mehlman, Shore, Franken, or all the other partisan asses, including Sowell.

... and on a personal note, Mr. Burcham, may you live and die in a polluted world. If I had a Paper factory, I'd build it up wind of your house just to piss you off. Ever been near one of those?

Frankly the only reason for contamination, befoulment, and poisoning of our air, water, and land is to enrich the bastards that don't live near the factories that taint. It is all cleanable, but it might cost a few percent to do so .. that's one reason why I hate Corporations.

Interesting phenon', huh? Those that make the most live the furtherst away from the sources.

... and Sowell's still an ass - a barefaced liar. I'll say that to his face, if ever given the chance.

Lie:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Burcham - I appreciate the complement.
Burcham & Rockefeller - In my letter you can see that I avoided "subjective interpretation." I simply felt the need to point out to Mr. Brummit that he was incorrect in stating that Sowell's column was based on "unsubstatiated assertions." Mr. Rockefeller seems to have also failed to read my letter and the journal article! I am willing to provide at least 30 other journal articles that show that certain land use restrictions raise housing prices. Is this good or bad? It's not the job of economists to make this distinction. That's the job of policy-makers. These articles, along with Gyourko and Glaeser's, are reviewed by editors with varying political and environmental opinions. They get published because they are sound empirical pieces with policy implications, not becuase some Sierra Club-hating editors think it's a good piece. You will not find any judgements, only evidence. Rockefeller - Your first post, stating "you really think the cost of real estate in manhattan has anything to do with the Sierra Club?" is exactly the type of thinking that I am referring to in the last statement of my letter. obviously real estate is more expensive in manhattan for many reasons. But here you are comparing apples to oranges. You have to look at the price of housing before the land-use restriction (or open space protection) and the price after. A home in Greensboro might sell for $200,000, but after the enactment of a land use restriction, growth boundary or impact fee, that house may become valued at $203,000. This is apples to apples. I acknowledge that this is a generlaization and is what you might call an unsubstantiatied assertion, but again, the evidence is there for you to read - and this is merely an example of a proper approach.
At this point, we are all being more inflamatory than Mr. Sowell.

Mr. Tarleton:

First, thanks for being here; it is rare to have the actual letter writer join in the blog.

Second: I have read the referenced Sowell piece, and commented on it here:

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2006/01/sowell_landuse.html#comments

I stated that Sowell use of the term "Green Liars" was at best inflamatory.

Neo offered an alternative "proof" of Sowells claims, and I read his link and summarized: " ... housing prices are higher because local officials are requiring higher minimum lot sizes, holding down local population densities, and telling folks they can't build in wetlands."

I finshed with " ... this is a very complex issue - and that Sowell is an ass for oversimplifying and trying to place blame on "green" thinkers."

Third: My original post in this thread was directed more at Burcham than at your letter. You letter simply stated that Sowell was an educated man and other educated men agree with him. No dispute, but I did find the title "Why Is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in Housing Prices ... " to be an funny tool for the argument, especially how Burcham tied Manhattan Housing to the Sierra Clubber.

Further on, Burcham calling me Non-Comitted clearly indicates he doesn't know me very well. I'm not a tree hugger per-se, but I was raised on a farm (seen first hand the loss of land and animal diversity), am an experience engineer that deals regularly with industrial pollution, and while not as well read as you, am not a total idiot.

OBVIOUSLY "... certain land use restrictions raise housing prices .." I happen to think most (not all) of these restrictions add value to our lives, for example making sure when your neighbor flushes his toilet it does not seep up into your kid's sand box - that alone is worth the $3,000 added by your generalization.

I confess to often taking giant steps. My first post, " ... you really think the cost of real estate in manhattan has anything to do with the Sierra Club?" ... jumped from the last sentence in your letter to Burchams belittling of the Sierra Club members. For the record, I'm not a Sierra Club member.

I apologize in advance for sounding angry - I probably am a bit. It is born of strong emotion for the fair exchange of ideas and against the an incendiary speech often found in today's media - including this blog.

Frankly, I'd LOVE to have examples of proper approach .. tell it to Burcham .. and Wormer if he ever dares to show his typing skills in this blog again.

I read your comment. I like to reference to Schumpeter. I'd like to think that his quote refers to the capitalist spirit and does not apply to scholarly research. However, we did recently discover that Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk fabricated his evidence of stem cell extraction. That was just horrible. But I digress...

I am certainly sympathetic to the farming community when it comes to development pressures. My grandfather worked in the North Carolina Department of Agriculture his entire life, and I have the fondest memories of picking blackberries on their property.

I agree that placing blame on the "green" community is a simplification. In this regard his piece was misleading. I try to take most editorials with a grain of salt, recognizing that the authors are conveying their opinions about facts. I can see that we looked at this issue in different ways. I was supporting the facts he cited and wanted to avoid the interpretation in my letter, while you disagreed with the interpretation (which is undoubtedly the most effective rhetoric within an editorial) I can't blame you at all for disagreeing with his emphasis on the green community.

I also agree that certain land use restrictions provide tremendous value and support the public interest. This is a much larger discussion, and I tried to avoid this in my letter by stating my caution to provide "subjective interpretation." My education is in applied economics and urban planning. Given the latter, I support restrictions that do further the public interest (provided they are constitutional and have the necessary public input). I didn't want to enter this debate in my letter - just support the notion that there are price effects. As I mentioned before - "Is this good or bad?" There are so many viewpoints. New homebuyers will view it differently than existing homeowners, undeveloped landowners will have their opinions...and further, how is the tax base affected? Do the higher values bring in additional property tax that would fiscally compensate for the loss of tax on restricted development? Again, I am diverging.

I also apologize if I have come across in a poor manner, and I certainly did not intend to be demeaning. Your participation in this blog signifies that you are a critical thinker - and While I have read a lot in this area, I doubt that I am more "well-read" than you (come see the many books of which I have only read the first chapter) "It is born of strong emotion for the fair exchange of ideas and against the an incendiary speech often found in today's media - including this blog." You have said it perfectly. Perfectly.

Peace