In John McCarron’s Oct. 16 commentary, he says ” . . . an opinion poll will be released showing that Americans overwhelmingly want smarter growth and less sprawl.”
That is increasingly true of those Americans who have already situated themselves in the area of their choice but now want to shut down the migration to their communities and beyond.
A lot of criticism is directed at developers whose major fault is wanting to make money. But there can be no development without a supply of buyers. A piece of land and home ownership is the central part of the American dream. People don’t necessarily want to live farther out, but in the majority of cases, that’s what they have to do to find the home they want at a price they can afford.
What we call “sprawl” started with the acute housing shortage at the end of World War II when some innovative developers built tract homes in what was then the boondocks, and average people, for the first time, could afford their own home in an area away from the congestion and dirt and noise of the city. A little space and some greenery were now a realistic goal.
Due to job transfers we have bought several houses. We nearly always had to go to the newest construction, least convenient (at the time), farthest out super-boondocks to find a house we could afford that fit our needs. The alternative was less house in an established neighborhood. That has not changed. Housing is more affordable west of the Fox River than in the older, established communities to the east. Without demand, there would be no development.
There should be better planning and better control of growth, but how can people say, “We’re here and that’s it. No one else need come”?
