There seems to a growing sentiment expressed in many letters to the editors in the local daily newspapers of late that development on Oahu is running rampant and that there are too many people here ruining the “Hawaii experience.” There are too many tourists, too many new residents from the mainland and other places. Limits should be placed on any new immigration and tourists should keep their place by staying in Waikiki.

In other words, “I got mine, now you go away.”

There are also nearly constant laments about the lack of affordable housing but the suggestion of building more housing is immediately denigrated as more urban sprawl and opposed. One of the major arguments made for rail transit is that it will induce higher density housing along the rail route, thus containing sprawl. Meanwhile those that live in “the country” want to “keep the country, country” which means, in effect, preventing anyone else from moving or building there. If you don’t already live in the country go live along the rail line.

There was a curious sentence in a letter to the editor that began as follows “As long as we continue to have a local and national government that supports unbridled development for the benefit of a few. ...” First the idea that local and national government supports unbridled development blithely ignores the endless smart growth plans, urban densification, transit oriented development, zoning laws and urban growth boundaries imposed around the nation. In other words, what unbridled development?

Second is the idea that development only “benefits the few.” What about the many who buy and live in houses that developers build? A major factor driving record high housing prices is all those above mentioned programs that seek to “bridle” development. When the argument is couched in terms of only benefiting a few it is making the mistake of the Zero Sum Fallacy -- if some are to gain then others must lose.

This attitude comes from a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of economics and capitalism. Capitalism is the system by which everyone gains in a voluntary transaction, as long as it is a voluntary transaction on both sides. It is a matter of trading value for value. Each ends up with what is he or she values more and it is only when third parties who have nothing to do with it object to the transaction taking place at all, that problems arise.

Third is the question is “which few?” The few that live in Kailua and want their beaches sparsely populated so they can enjoy their vision of the Hawaii experience? The few that live on the North Shore and want to keep the country, country so they can preserve their vision of the Hawaii experience? Who decides which few gets what benefits?

The problem is that there isn’t some way to freeze everything right where it is and this isn’t going to happen. That is the attitude behind, “no more newcomers -- no more tourists.” In fact, it is more a desire to turn back the clock. To return to a time that is long gone.

The only way out of this dilemma is to accept the future and plan for it. There will be more growth with an attendant growing need for more roadways and housing. Wishing it were otherwise and attempting to hold Hawaii crystallized in the past will not work in the long run. That would only mean that all those problems will have to be faced by others in the future. And they will be much worse by then.

Don Newman, senior policy analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii can be reached at: mailto:don@grassrootinstitute.org