Suburban sprawl is NOT simply a response to market desires: More on conservatives and sprawl

A continuation of Thursday's post on Conservatives and sprawl, because this excellent distillation from E.D. Kain at True/Slant of the four corners of the suburban sprawl situation deserves it's own space:

Sprawl is a result of massive statist interventions into our culture and society, and its symptoms are equally enormous.  Everything that conservatism has historically stood for is undermined by sprawl.  It is not only the physical manifestation of our decline, it is a poison which continues to contribute to that decline.  Its repercussions can be felt in our discourse, in our speech, in our way of thinking.  This is not merely a matter of aesthetically pleasing communities, but of communities which allow individuals to be a part of the whole.  I doubt this is sustainable, this suburban maze – in any way: fiscally, socially, spiritually.  It is, as James Howard Kunstler called it, “a peculiar blip in human experience.”

Comments

[David]

I'm pretty conservative, and I also hate sprawl. More importantly, I love traditional neighborhoods and mixed-use urban cores that promote walkable, livable communities. These are not antithetical in any way to core conservative values or the free market.

[John Michlig]

I believe most thoughtful conservatives would agree with you, David.