One very expensive water meter. Image source: The New York Times

In Bolinas, California (pop. 1,600) the “urge to remain pristine has led to one of the most extreme anti-growth policies in the nation.” In 1971, Bolinas simply quit issuing new water meters, without which new houses could not be built. Their moratorium on new meters has been in effect ever since, effectively preventing all new development.

In 1982, the “Pacific Legal Foundation,” a group of attorneys who fight for business interests’ “rights” to seek profit without interference from pesky government regulations, challenged the moratorium.
The report shows their past work included a case which “opposed increased protection from agribusiness pesticides for farm workers.” A lengthy legal action brought against he Bolinas Community Public Utility Districts (BCPUD) ensued.

It was a classic victory for the “little guy.” Arguing that the moratorium was necessitated by a water shortage, the BCPUD prevailed on every point, and the moratorium remains today.

Bolinas does have a problem of water availability. But their case also reminds us of the potential for a small, unlikely point to become the one on which a serious growth control policy hinges. It all depends on the needs of the particular community.

What would harm what we love most about our community?
Notice the developers were all too eager to build in Bolinas despite the water problem. That’s what developers do. What measures they would have taken, I don’t know. But they could taste the profits, the effects on the town be damned. I suspect the entire character of the community was at stake in that legal action.

MV and Lisbon are prime examples of a dying tradition of small, compact American towns with intact, charming main streets and neighborhoods designed to create an intimate, walkable community. This, in fact, is what brings most of our visitors here, yet is more than worth preserving on the basis of heritage alone. What would damage the character of our towns?

Expensive homes on the Northern Calfornia coastline? This is surprising?
By the way, the NYT article mentions the very high housing prices in Bolinas. They quote one resident who attributes it to the low supply of homes stemming from the inability to develop. I would submit, though, that the resident is likely wrong, at least in part. Sure, low supply is a factor in housing prices, but we must weigh other factors. First, Bolinas is 20 miles North of San Fransisco. Every house in that area is amazingly expensive! Put homes right on the ocean’s edge, as they are in Bolinas, and they’re even more pricey. Much more. Second, studies have actually compared housing prices in comparable communities with and without growth controls. They’ve found no difference. In fact, communities with growth controls often have the more affordable housing, possibly due to their having in place more affordable housing incentives. Bear in mind, as well, that high and increasing housing prices go hand in hand with rapid residential expansion. See Fodor and Kinsely for discussion of such studies.

(Note: To read the NYT article, you may have to register on their site. It’s quick and painless though, and they won’t send you spam. Thanks to the mysterious reader who brought this item to my attention!)