Goodsizetown

Mr. Bishop: Hey there, rook. Have you made a decision whether to walk away from your home mortgage?

Mr. Rookie: No. Indeed, additional developments have come about that have complicated the situation, and they are not good.

Mr. Bishop: Oh no. What's happened?

Mr. Rookie: The worst kind of happenings have happened: political happenings.

Mr. Bishop: Oh no!

Mr. Rookie: No, indeed! As you know, the municipality in which in I live, Goodsizetown, is a good-sized town.

Mr. Bishop: Yes, I know. Goodsizetown is a marvel of urban development that achieves the convenience, diversification, and excitement of a larger city while avoiding many of the pitfalls, such as traffic, pollution, and crime.

Mr. Rookie: Aye. We residents of Goodsizetown are happy with our state of affairs, but change is coming, and it is a bad form of change. The Goodsizetown City Council is seeking to make changes to its long-standing urban development policies to promote rapid growth.

Mr. Bishop: I didn't realize that Goodsizetown had a urban development policy.

Mr. Rookie: Yes, it does. The policy is—or, was—to remain a good-sized town.

Mr. Bishop: By what means does—or, did—it aim to remain a good-sized town?

Mr. Rookie: Mainly through urban growth boundaries; strict zoning laws; and adequate funding for parks, libraries, and other public spaces—all to keep the city compact, pristine, and desirable. The urban growth boundaries are the chief means, though; they forcibly prevent Goodsizetown from growing too large and thereby acquiring the same problems that afflict every too-large city in the country, such as traffic, pollution, and crime.

Mr. Bishop: And I suppose it is these urban growth boundaries that are targeted in the policy changes?

Mr. Rookie: Yes, though not only are the boundaries to be expanded or nullified, but the Council is proposing to pass legislation that will actively encourage growth and development beyond the current boundaries.

Mr. Bishop: Through what means will growth be encouraged?

Mr. Rookie: The worst kind: lower taxes.

Mr. Bishop: How are lower taxes a bad thing?

Mr. Rookie: Well, lower taxes aren't a bad thing—

Mr. Bishop: —Then why did you say they are a bad thing if they aren't a bad thing?

Mr. Rookie: Because you didn't let me finish. I was going to say that lower taxes aren't a bad thing—

Mr. Bishop: —But you already said that.

Mr. Rookie: Because I'm trying to reestablish continuity within the dialog. And aren't you falling out of character by interrupting?

Mr. Bishop: Sorry. Please continue.

Mr. Rookie: Ahem. I was going to say (and have already partially said) that taxes aren't a bad thing if you're the one benefiting from them. But the tax decreases being proposed aren't for us regular hard-working Goodsizetowners; instead, they're incentives being offered to businesses to move in and help grow the city.

Mr. Bishop: I see. It's too bad that Goodsizetown's growth boundaries are abstractions—mere lines on paper—and that the city is not surrounded by tangible, physical boundaries such as mountains and Indian reservations, in which case only the most obtuse of city councils and urban planners would grow the city past the point of happy repletion and to the point of having predictable problems such as traffic, pollution, and crime.

Mr. Rookie: Yes, I struggle to imagine even naive politicians and greedy developers despoiling the natural boundaries of such an obviously hypothetical cityscape. However, here in Goodsizetown we play the cards we were dealt.

Mr. Bishop: Why is Goodsizetown's City Council making these changes?

Mr. Rookie: It appears that two Council members, one the principal mover and the other the principal shaker, are pushing for the change. Their motives are clear enough, at least to me! The principal mover, Mr. Knight, happens to own huge tracts of land just outside the current urban growth boundaries and is seeking to profit handsomely by developing that land after the boundaries are expanded or nullified.

Mr. Bishop: And the principal shaker?

Mr. Rookie: The principal shaker is Mr. King, who owns the two biggest car dealerships in Goodsizetown. He expects to profit handsomely as well after the boundaries are lifted. After all, with more people living in Goodsizetown, he should be able to sell more cars.

Mr. Bishop: Yes, how else will Goodsizetown achieve the traffic problems indicative of a respectable metropolis but by putting more cars on the road?

Mr. Rookie: It saddens me to think of it. They say that Goodsizedtown could double in size within the decade. Double! Imagine the traffic! Imagine the pollution! Imagine the crime!

Mr. Bishop: Yes, so sad. But how can a mere two council members push through such groundbreaking policy changes? Why aren't other members who don't stand to profit personally opposing the changes?

Mr. Rookie: Mr. Knight and Mr. King have managed to cajole a majority of the remaining members, as well as the Board of Planners and the mayor himself, Mr. Pawn, that growth is indeed in their interest.

Mr. Bishop: What a coup! How did they manage to do that?

Mr. Rookie: It seems that, like me, many council members, planners, and even the mayor himself have done poorly in the recent housing downturn, and Mr. Knight and Mr. King need only point out that a rapid influx of new residents will surely cause a rebound in home prices—especially with homes that are centrally located, as all current homes are sure to remain as Goodsizetown spreads outward in all directions like a middle-aged couch potato.

Mr. Bishop: Well, at least your home value will rise too.

Mr. Rookie: Yes, but at the cost of Goodsizetown no longer being a good-sized town. We home owners gain a few tens of thousands of dollars in home equity while the Mr. Knight and Mr. King make millions. It seems so unfair.

Mr. Bishop: Is there not sufficient opposition to these policy changes to prevent them from occurring?

Mr. Rookie: Possibly. An alliance has formed consisting of mom-and-pop shop owners, school teachers, and tree-huggers. They perceive the growth-seeking policies as being dangerous and counter to their own interests. But their alliance is not a prosperous one, and they cannot afford to spend as much advertising their position as Mr. Knight and Mr. King can afford. Besides, it appears that there may be a flaw in their anti-growth position anyway.

Mr. Bishop: What do you mean, “flaw”? I thought it was agreed that growth would lead to increases in traffic, pollution, and crime and that therefore growth should be avoided.

Mr. Rookie: It is agreed, but it turns out that, as deftly pointed out by Mr. Knight and Mr. King, that a lack of growth has its own risks.

Mr. Bishop: How so? Are the people afraid of a lack of traffic, a lack of pollution, or a lack of crime?

Mr. Rookie: No, but it turns out that two of our neighboring cities, Sprawlville and Yuppyburg, have already grown very big by pushing for these sorts of growth-seeking policy changes two decades ago. The result is that Goodsizetown is poised to be overrun with Sprawlvillers and Yuppyburgers who made a killing in the recent real estate run-up, despite the ensuing popping of that bubble, and are seeking a good-sized town to which to escape traffic, pollution, and crime. They're moving to Goodsizetown and running up prices and making the economic standard cost-prohibitive for us native Goodsizetowners. Mr. Knight and Mr. King say we must grow if we are to maintain our way of life.

Mr. Bishop: But growing is surely going to ruin your way of life.

Mr. Rookie: Yes. Either we grow, in which case we bring about the problems of the larger city, or we don't grow, in which case we get swallowed by larger cities and they bring their problems to us.

Mr. Bishop: So what are you going to do?

Mr. Rookie: I don't know. If only I weren't underwater on my home mortgage then I could cash out now and move to our third neighboring municipality, Quietcomfyhamlet. I hear there's no traffic, pollution, or crime there and that prices are quite reasonable!