Trees Good. Houses Bad.

Candace Page in the Freeps writes about a $1.8 million federal grant to purchase 5,272 acres of land in Eden and Johnson.  The U.S. Forest Service Chief was here and

They walked part of the way on a carpet of bluets where — without Forest Legacy — a golf course and suburban subdivision might stand.

Probably not a golf course.  No developer would build one today.  There are too many of them and demand for golf is lower than expected so most courses are losing money.

Have we been protected from that other blight:  houses?  If the Forest Legacy program has protected the land from having houses built on it, then one of three alternatives had to occur: 
1.  The houses were built somewhere else.
2.   It became more difficult and costly to build houses and house prices are higher than they would have been if houses had been built on the land.
3.  Houses were not built anywhere.

If (1) is true, then there's not much that has changed, except that people who would have preferred to live where the land is protected cannot live there.  They're worse off.
If (2), then home prices for the buyers of those new homes are more expensive, and that pulls up the price of housing all over the area, making them less affordable than they otherwise would be.
If (3), then Family A who would have been able to buy a house can't find one.  They either stay where they are, which means that Family B who would have bought Family A's original house or rented their now-vacated apartment can't find a place to live.  That makes housing less affordable and drives people and economic activity away from the area.

Remember that houses and housing developments are not a problem.  People live in houses.  I think that's a good thing.

Comments

[Lazarus Long]

Leahy's Forest Legacy program has outlived its usefulness and the FS Chiefs are now nothing more than political hacks (since Clinton).

[Timothy Diette]

I agree with most of what you said. The only exception is that there is good reason for the government to play a role in coordinating the preservation of large tracts of land. All wilderness is not created equal. (The need for corridors for migration, etc).

That said, I doubt that Eden, VT was going to suddenly have 5,000 homes thrown up along a golf course (or that by definition that it would be a bad thing).

[Dennis Lukas]

The more land preserved, the less the state receives in taxes.

[Jim Howrigan]

As taxes increase, so does the rent I charge my blue collar working and subsidized single mother tenants. I am free to jack the rent up as high as I want, because there is nowhere to run for these folks - except out of state. The more housing is discouraged, the higher rents can be increased. The only thing preventing my tenants from paying higher and higher rents each year is our family's decision to maintain low rents as an act of charity. But there is no more room for us to absorb the increasing costs. This year's property tax increase will be borne on the backs of the working poor.

[GreggB]

Say it isn't so Jim. Montpelier meant to tax you not them.