The Lone Mountain Compact

Published March 1, 2001

The phenomenon of urban sprawl has become a major controversy throughout the United States. The Political Economy Research Center (PERC) recently brought a number of scholars and writers to the Lone Mountain Ranch in Big Sky, Montana to address the issue.

At the meeting’s close, participants distilled their conclusions into the following brief statement of principles. The authors have called this statement the “Lone Mountain Compact,” and invite other writers and scholars to join them in endorsing its principles. ? Preamble The unprecedented increase in prosperity over the last 25 years has created a large and growing upper middle class in America. New modes of work and leisure combined with population growth have fueled successive waves of suburban expansion in the 20th century.

Technological progress is likely to increase housing choice and community diversity even further in the 21st century, enabling more people to live and work outside the conventional urban forms of our time. These choices will likely include low-density, medium-density, and high-density urban forms.

This growth brings rapid change to our communities, often with negative side effects, such as traffic congestion, crowded public schools, and the loss of familiar open space. All of these factors are bound up in the controversy that goes by the term “sprawl.”

The heightened public concern over the character of our cities and suburbs is a healthy expression of citizen demand for solutions that are responsive to our changing needs and wants. Yet tradeoffs between different policy options for addressing these concerns are poorly understood. Productive solutions to public concerns will adhere to the following fundamental principles.

Principles for livable cities

1. The most fundamental principle is that, absent a material threat to other individuals or the community, people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.

2. Prescriptive, centralized plans that attempt to determine the detailed outcome of community form and function should be avoided. Such “comprehensive” plans interfere with the dynamic, adaptive, and evolutionary nature of neighborhoods and cities.

3. Densities and land uses should be market driven, not plan driven. Proposals to supercede market-driven land use decisions by centrally directed decisions are vulnerable to the same kind of perverse consequences as any other kind of centrally planned resource allocation decisions, and show little awareness of what such a system would have to accomplish even to equal the market in effectiveness.

4. Communities should allow a diversity in neighborhood design, as desired by the market. Planning and zoning codes and building regulations should allow for neotraditional neighborhood design, historic neighborhood renovation and conversion, and other mixed-use development and the more decentralized development forms of recent years.

5. Decisions about neighborhood development should be decentralized as far as possible. Local neighborhood associations and private covenants are superior to centralized or regional government planning agencies.

6. Local planning procedures and tools should incorporate private property rights as a fundamental element of development control. Problems of incompatible or conflicting land uses will be better resolved through the revival of common law principles of nuisance than through zoning regulations, which tend to be rigid and inefficient.

7. All growth management policies should be evaluated according to their cost of living and “burden-shifting” effects. Urban growth boundaries, minimum lot sizes, restrictions on housing development, restrictions on commercial development, and other limits on freely functioning land markets that increase the burdens on lower income groups must be rejected. 8. Market-oriented transportation strategies–such as peak period road pricing, HOT lanes, toll roads, and de-monopolized mass transit–should be employed. Monopoly public transit schemes, especially fixed rail transit that lacks the flexibility to adapt to the changing destinations of a dynamic, decentralized metropolis, should be viewed skeptically.

9. The rights of present residents should not supercede those of future residents. Planners, citizens, and local officials should recognize that “efficient” land use must include consideration for household and consumer wants, preferences, and desires. Thus, growth controls and land-use planning must consider the desires of future residents and generations, not solely current residents.

10. Planning decisions should be based upon facts, not perceptions. A number of the concerns raised in the “sprawl” debate are based upon false perceptions. The use of good data in public policy is crucial to the continued progress of American cities and the social advance of all its citizens.

The Lone Mountain Coalition*
Jonathan Adler
Arlington, Virginia

Ryan Amacher, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
University of Texas
Arlington, Texas

Terry Anderson, Ph.D.
PERC/Hoover Institution
Bozeman, Montana

Angela Antonelli
The Heritage Foundation
Washington, DC

John A. Baden, Ph.D.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)
Bozeman, Montana

Michael B. Barkey
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Bruce Benson
Department of Economics
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida

John Berthoud
National Taxpayers Union
Alexandria, Virginia

Robert Bish
School of Public Administration
University of Victoria
British Columbia, Canada

Clint Bolick
Institute for Justice
Washington, DC

Samuel Bostaph
Department of Economics
University of Dallas
Irving, Texas

J. C. Bowman
Children First Tennessee
Chattanooga, Tennessee

Jerry Bowyer
Allegheny Institute for Public Policy
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Gordon L. Brady, Ph.D.
Center for the Study of Public Choice
George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia

James Burling
Pacific Legal Foundation
Sacramento, California

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.
National Center for Policy Analysis
Dallas, Texas

Henry N. Butler
School of Business
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas

William N. Butos
Department of Economics
Trinity College
Hartford, Connecticut

Jon Caldara
Independence Institute
Denver, Colorado

F. Patricia Callahan
American Association of Small Property Owners
Washington, DC

Jim Cardle
Lone Star Foundation and Report
Austin, Texas

Anthony T. Caso
Pacific Legal Foundation
Sacramento, California

John Charles
Cascade Policy Institute
Portland, Oregon

Kenneth W. Chilton, Ph.D.
Center for the Study of American Business
Washington University
St. Louis, Missouri

J. R. Clark
Center for Economic Education
University of Tennessee
Chattanooga, Tennessee

Daniel Coldwell
Department of Economics
University of Memphis
Memphis, Tennessee

Michael Coulter
Shenango Institute for Public Policy
Grove City, Pennsylvania

Wendell Cox
Wendell Cox Consultancy
Belleville, Illinois

Louis De Alessi, Ph.D.
Coral Gables, Florida

Robert de Posada
Hispanic Business Roundtable
Washington, DC

Sean Duffy
Commonwealth Foundation
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Becky Norton Dunlop
The Heritage Foundation
Washington, DC

Jefferson G. Edgens, Ph.D.
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky

William A. Fischel
Department of Economics
Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire

B. Delworth Gardner
Department of Economics
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah

Michael Gilstrap
Tennessee Institute for Public Policy
Nashville, Tennessee

Peter Gordon, Ph.D.
School of Policy, Planning and Development
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California

Grant Gulibon
Commonwealth Foundation
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Paul Guppy
Washington Institute Foundation
Seattle, Washington

Robert L. Hale
Northwest Legal Foundation
Minot, North Dakota

Rick Harrison
Harrison Site Designs
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Jake Haulk, Ph.D.
Allegheny Institute for Public Policy
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Steven Hayward, Ph.D.
Pacific Research Institute
San Francisco, California

Andy Herr
Department of Economics
St. Vincent College
Latrobe, Pennsylvania

P. J. Hill
Department of Business and Economics
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois

Randall Holcombe, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida

John Hood
The John Locke Foundation
Raleigh, North Carolina

Stephen L. Jackstadt
College of Business and Public Policy
University of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska

Jeff Judson
Texas Public Policy Foundation
San Antonio, Texas

Jo Kwong, Ph.D.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Fairfax, Virginia

George Landrith, III
Frontiers of Freedom
Arlington, Virginia

Robert A. Lawson
School of Business and Economics
Capital University
Columbus, Ohio

Donald Leal
PERC
Bozeman, Montana

Dwight Lee
Department of Economics
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia

Stanley Liebowitz
School of Management
University of Texas
Dallas, Texas

Edward Lopez
Department of Economics
University of North Texas
Denton, Texas

John Lunn
Department of Economics and Business
Hope College
Holland, Michigan

J. Stanley Marshall
James Madison Institute
Tallahassee, Florida

Nancie G. Marzulla
Defenders of Property Rights
Washington, DC

Roger J. Marzulla
Defenders of Property Rights
Washington, DC

Ken Masugi, Ph.D.
Claremont Institute
Claremont, California

John McClaughry
Ethan Allen Institute
Concord, Vermont

Robert McCormick
Department of Economics
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

Kelly McCutcheon
Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Atlanta, Georgia

Ed McMullen
South Carolina Policy Council
Columbia, South Carolina

Roger Meiners, Ph.D.
Professor of Law and Economics
University of Texas
Arlington, Texas

William H. Mellor
Institute for Justice
Washington, DC

John Merrifield
Department of Economics
University of Texas
San Antonio, Texas

Edward Moore
James Madison Institute
Tallahassee, Florida

John C. Moorhouse
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Lucas Morel, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Politics
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, Virginia

Andrew Morriss
School of Law
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio

Henry Olsen
Manhattan Institute
New York City, New York

C. Kenneth Orski
Innovation Briefs
Washington, DC

Randal O’Toole
The Thoreau Institute
Bandon, Oregon

Daniel C. Palm, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science
Azusa Pacific University
Azusa, California

Gary Palmer
Alabama Policy Institute
Birmingham, Alabama

E. C. Pasour
Department of Economics and Business
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina

Mitchell B. Pearlstein, Ph.D.
Center of the American Experiment
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Steve Pejovich
Department of Economics
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas

Roger Pilon, Ph.D., J.D.
Cato Institute
Washington, DC

Dennis Polhill
Independence Institute
Golden, Colorado

Lawrence W. Reed
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Midland, Michigan

David W. Riggs, Ph.D.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC

Thomas A. Rubin
Thomas A. Rubin Consultancy
Oakland, California

Peter Samuel
Toll Roads Newsletter
Frederick, Maryland

E. S. Savas, Ph.D.
Baruch College
City University of New York
New York, New York

Peter W. Schramm, Ph.D.
John Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs
Ashland University
Ashland, Ohio

Jane S. Shaw
PERC
Bozeman, Montana

Daniel R. Simmons
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC

Randy T. Simmons, Ph.D.
Institute of Political Economy
Utah State University
Logan, Utah

Fred L. Smith, Jr.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC

Vernon L. Smith
Economics Science Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

Sam Staley, Ph.D.
Reason Public Policy Institute
Los Angeles, California

Richard Stroup, Ph.D.
PERC
Bozeman, Montana

David J. Theroux
The Independent Institute
Oakland, California

Gordon Tullock
Law and Economics Center
George Mason University
Arlington, Virginia

Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
The Heritage Foundation
Washington, DC

Malcolm Wallop
Frontiers of Freedom
Arlington, Virginia

John Weicher
Hudson Institute
Washington, DC

Bob Williams
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Olympia, Washington

Robert Whaples
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Bruce Yandle
Department of Economics
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

 

*The Lone Mountain Coalition is an ad hoc, informal consortium of individuals committed to the principles contained in the Lone Mountain Compact. Endorsement of the Lone Mountain Compact does not necessarily imply unanimous agreement with every principle. Organizational names are for identification purposes only, and do not necessarily imply any organizational endorsement of either the Lone Mountain Compact or the Lone Mountain Coalition.


For more information . . .

on these principles, see A Guide to Smart Growth: Shattering Myths, Providing Solutions, edited by Jane S. Shaw and Ronald D. Utt (PERC/Heritage Foundation, 2000). The book is available for $11.50 (a 10 percent discount!) from Heartland’s online store at www.heartland.org, or call Cheryl Parker at 312/377-4000.

To register your support for the Lone Mountain Compact, visit The Heartland Institute’s Web site at www.heartland.org and click on the “I support the Lone Mountain Compact” button.