Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a wierd sort of paradox/logic loop in his article...
Liberal planners cause sprawl by restricting development and forcing people to move out further... therefore we should repeal restrictions so that people can move out into more areas?
I ask this because he gives the example of San Francisco and nearby vacan San Mateo County. He says frisco people are pushed out into sprawling development because no one can afford frisco living. Yet, the solution would then be to allow development in San Mateo County. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't sprawl still sprawl, whether its out towards the east or south into san mateo county? And isn't development naturally restricted by geography anyway in san mateo county (i don't have a topographical map or anything, but it doesn't seem to be easily buildable land).
But anyway, in short, he says as a solution to the sprawl that apprently is all the liberals' fault (wow, how simple life must be once you reduce things to absolutes), we should make it easier to sprawl... and this will apparently solve the issue of sprawl?
And alas, he recieved a phD in economics from uchicago... and in uchicago, economics is all about neo-liberalism, ie almost-anarcho-capitalism...