Odds are good that thanks to all the “liberty” we got this past session in the wake of a slew of zoning bills, my prediction will come to pass. An increase in housing (notice I did not use the word affordable) will have limited practical improvement for some, but a significant net loss for liberty long term.
As I ruminated on the Substack, back in May,
One of the less common questions surrounding the solution to the housing crisis is what happens when density is increased. Anyone who can see red and blue and looks at a map after an election might get the idea that the more dense the housing is, the more Democrat the voters are. Rural areas tend to be red every election, while urban areas vote blue.
What if more alleged liberty on paper is bad for freedom in practice? And does it matter that ‘Real Estate’ is the number one generator of GDP in New Hampshire. That’s according to Jenna Ross at Visual Capitalist. Defined as “rent paid by renters, property taxes, construction, remodeling, and brokers’ fees.”
The Real Estate oligarchs, and there are a few potential benefactors in elected office, are also the zoning Oligarchs. More property, more inventory, more total value, and with plenty of land to develop, you’d be right to ask what happens next.
They donate to candidates who change zoning laws, making it harder for towns to fight unwanted development.
Advocates suggest nothing bad, but if you ask people who grew up in small towns being occupied by democrats who then take over local boards and property taxes them out of their homes so more wealthy libs can move in, don’t be surprised if you get more of that.
Increased density does lead to more Democrat voting, which leads to “workforce housing” of the taxpayer-propped-up variety. The culture spreads like a virus, breeding liberal ghettoes that add to the number of seats in government occupied by Democrats. Before you know it, you’ve got sales and income taxes, and are a sanctuary state for illegals and gender “transition.”
And for the record, most of the damage will come from cities. Washington, Oregon, California, and New Mexico will eventually gain Arizona and Texas, while Maine is well on its way to never coming back. New Hampshire will be easy. Manchester, Nashua, Portsmouth, Rochester, Lebanon, Keene, you know the roll call. It’s why we can’t get Republicans elected to Congress. Soon to include the Governor’s office and the State Senate and Executive Council.
Unbridled zoning in cities will make that a reality, and before long, the only advantage New Hampshire will have is being a few steps behind Vermont and Maine on the road to becoming Massachusetts.
Poverty and welfare rates will rise along with crime (we’ve watched Vermont swirl around this drain in real time, so let’s not pretend it won’t happen here).
I guess the question e need to ask is what else the state intends to take over that it thinks will slow or stop that inevitbality?
Developers and gaming don’t care about liberty; they care about profit, and they already buy plenty of access and privilege on both sides of the aisle in Concord that extends across the entire state. How will making them more wealthy result in less of that?
I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to do things on your property; I think property taxes based on assessed (guessed value) are illegal speculative takings. I’m saying that this approach will inevitably result in less liberty elsewhere. If I can see that, so can they, and they don’t seem to care.
