NYT: No One Can Be Allowed To Escape Boulder Diversity By Calling It Growth
As Steve Sailer has repeatedly pointed out, “liberal” regulations such as zoning, environmental and anti-development laws have the effect, intended or not, of preventing mostly white communities from being overwhelmed by mass immigration. In contrast, “conservative” policies focused on “growth” enable communities to be easily destroyed with cheap developments, massive population transfers, and the destruction of rural land. As the push for more immigration is driven by the desire for cheap labor and an increase in GDP in the name of “growth,” you simply can’t talk about these problems without discussing the refusal of our government to enforce immigration laws.
But now the New York Times is pointing out that certain people have managed to escape the consequences of mass immigration. And The Grey Lady isn’t happy about it.
The small city of Boulder, home to the University of Colorado’s flagship campus, has a booming local economy and a pleasantly compact downtown with mountain views. Not surprisingly, a lot of people want to move here.
Something else is also not surprising: Many of the people who already live in Boulder would prefer that the newcomers settle somewhere else.
“The quality of the experience of being in Boulder, part of it has to do with being able to go to this meadow and it isn’t just littered with human beings,” said Steve Pomerance, a former city councilman who moved here from Connecticut in the 1960s.
All of Boulder’s charms are under threat, Mr. Pomerance said as he concluded an hourlong tour. Rush-hour traffic has become horrendous. Quaint, two-story storefronts are being dwarfed by glass and steel. Cars park along the road to the meadow.
These days, you can find a Steve Pomerance in cities across the country — people who moved somewhere before it exploded and now worry that growth is killing the place they love.
But a growing body of economic literature suggests that anti-growth sentiment, when multiplied across countless unheralded local development battles, is a major factor in creating a stagnant and less equal American economy.
[How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality, by Conor Dougherty, July 3, 2016]
It’s interesting how the story is set up. There’s no contention that “Boulder’s charms” are undesirable. It’s simply that these “charms” stand in the way of equality, and should therefore be destroyed...
The upside of this campaign is Boulder is a famously leftist city and overwhelmingly White. The former may change if the federal government starts making noise about the changing the latter situation.
Of course, an easier way to preserve self-government, increase wages, decrease housing costs, and decrease pressures for development would be to stop immigration. But as you’ve probably guessed, the word “immigration” was not even mentioned in the article.
CAIRCO Research