“Many creative writers keep journals; the sociologist’s need for systematic reflection demands it.” -C. Wright Mills

The American Enterprise online magazine has published a special issue called “Attack of the Snobs”, which includes an article by Robert Bruegmann of UIC called How sprawl got a bad name. Bruegmann argues that sprawl increases choice for ordinary citizens, that they like the options suburban development offers, and that anti-sprawl activists are wealthy snobs who oppose change. And I don’t think I’m going to argue with him. He’s right. Suburban development does increase options. People generally prefer a private, single-family home with its own yard. And many anti-sprawl activists really are motivated by maintaining or increasing their property values.

He recognizes that sprawl causes some problems, but he confines his discussion of them to congestion. He does not discuss environmental impacts. He mentions potential symbioses between the city center and the suburbs, but he does not mention tax revenue sharing. And he certainly does not address resultant economic or racial segregation.

So two points: (1) Yes, let’s increase options for people…all people. (2) Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that people’s individual preferences and welfare reflect or lead to social welfare. The selfish desires of individuals when aggregated do not necessarily make everyone better off. Bruegmann makes some fair claims that should be carefully considered, but he only presents one side of the story.