More of the same Cato Institute anti-planning rhetoric. Last week the Institute released a policy analysis by Randy O'toole called, The Planning Tax: The Case against Regional Growth-Management Planning, in which he claims the following:
"Growth-management tools such as urban-growth boundaries, adequate-public-facilities ordinances, and growth limits all drive up the cost of housing by artificially restricting the amount of land available or the number of permits granted for home construction. On average, homebuyers in 2006 had to pay $130,000 more for every home sold in states with mandatory growth-management planning than they would have had to pay if home price-to-income ratios were less than 3. This is, in effect, a planning tax that increases the costs of retail, commercial, and industrial developments as well as housing."
I just think O'toole way off base in his assumptions and I find his data suspect. When I have more time to read the policy paper in full I'll report back. You can read the executive summary at the link above.