Recently, there's been news about corrupt loans and bailouts, and it's
important. But, from a sustainability standpoint, the true housing
crisis is that more homes are BUILT all the time, far beyond
replacement levels. This is happening daily at the expense of
wilderness, farmland and general elbow room. Who decided this constant
blight upon the land was natural or desirable? It's not just a matter
of NIMBY, it's about respecting physical limits.
NIMBY is a term used to distract from what's really going on. Nobody
should be forced to endure constant crowding, especially of the type
occurring in the American West. Many realize that the shrinkage of
prime land has driven up housing costs, but they still act like it can
go on forever. Money is treated as a resource unto itself, and
literally being cloned in certain professions. See:
The Earth is a finite mass and its surface gets more jammed each day.
A lot of people are making money by charging for land that was once
owned by nobody. The concept of permanent land ownership is purely a
human one. Most species use what they need and pass on, rarely leaving
Some will tell you that the "wasted" American desert should be filled
with people; just because it might be feasible if enough water was
diverted. The blight of Phoenix, Vegas and L.A. isn't enough for
growth addicts seeking easy cash from land that was once free. A
little smooth talking and they're loaded with false wealth, able to
buy their own mansion in a transaction cycle that keeps on taking from
nature. To hell with frontiers and unbroken vistas. A price tag must
be placed on every piece of usable land that's not spoken for.
Getting to the main point: the big reason these homes get built by the
thousands each day is POPULATION GROWTH. In the U.S. this amounts to
about 3 million more people annually. Worldwide it exceeds 70 million
per year (net gain). If any other species tried to multiply at that
rate, we'd declare a lock-down. But Man doesn't have to play by the
rules of nature; so say the "conservatives."
For comparison, deer are generally considered overpopulated (for
hunting's sake) but they number only about 20 million in America vs.
300 million people, headed toward a possible 500 million by the end of
the century. Each deer also has a much smaller "ecological footprint"
compared to a person. You can barely tell that deer (or most other
animals) exist in satellite views, while human habitation creates
endless scars. Which species is truly overpopulated?
Instead of harping on money and treating land as infinite, people
should question the economic growthism and lack of global birth
control that makes all these structures necessary. It seems that's too
much to ask of the average person, though. They'd rather keep it
shallow, ignore the root cause and whine about mortgages over
Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless population growth.