It’s not news that Gallatin County, like much of the West, is growing rapidly. Planners, politicians, and preservationists worry about the shape of our future. Restricting growth to preserve agriculture and open space increases housing costs (think Boulder, CO). Unchecked growth keeps home prices down but consumes land and other qualities that make this place attractive. Some problems have no solutions, only tradeoffs.

A popular approach to growth, New Urbanism, promotes high-density, mixed-use, transit-friendly developments that claim to discourage automobile use and preserve open space. The Congress for the New Urbanism defines its movement this way: “New Urbanists aim to reform all aspects of real estate development.... In all cases, New Urbanist neighborhoods are walkable, and contain a diverse range of housing and jobs. New Urbanists support regional planning for open space, appropriate architecture and planning, and the balanced development of jobs and housing.”

This raises several questions. For example, who defines and enforces “walkability”? What is “appropriate architecture” -- and by whose standard? Who chooses the proper “balance” of jobs and housing and ensures its outcome? Unfortunately, such comprehensive “reform” and planning will likely lead to greater government intervention.

New Urbanists tend to blame the supposed free market in real estate, our “auto-oriented culture,” and a lack of civic-mindedness -- that is, wanting the wrong things -- for the current state of affairs. But in many, if not most, cases, local zoning regulations preclude the realization of New Urbanist ideals.

For example, a June 2nd Wall Street Journal article on “The Suburbs Under Siege” noted, “As a trade-off for limiting [cul-de-sacs], cities like Nashville, Tenn., are letting developers put more homes, including townhouses and apartments, on less land.” Note that higher densities require an exception to the rules.

Closer to home, allowing high-density development along the foothills of the Bridgers could accommodate population growth while reducing pressure on farmland in the valley. But the Bozeman Daily Chronicle reported how a recent proposal for just such a development was vetoed by Bozeman’s liberal city commissioners “because they felt it was too dense.” Yet it would have put 300 homes on 315 acres, more than an acre per home. This is less dense than the average suburban sprawl. Apparently, vistas outweigh agriculture or open space.

Bozeman’s Unified Development Ordinance includes no fewer than seven different residential zoning districts. Within these it specifies minimum lot sizes; maximum lot coverage by buildings; minimum and maximum floor area; maximum building height; minimum front, side, and back yard sizes; and design and placement of garages. Such micromanagement leaves little room for flexibility, innovation, or New Urbanist neighborhoods.

What if we were to replace these residential zoning districts, and at least two of the three commercial districts, with a single “mixed use” district? It would allow, but not specify, housing of varying densities combined, or not, with various non-industrial, non-manufacturing business uses. This lets the market respond to the diversity of consumers’ housing preferences -- whether they be low, medium, or high density, mixed-use or strictly residential -- while removing barriers to New Urbanist development. It also facilitates responses to changing preferences and economic conditions, avoiding fixed development patterns that may become obsolete or unpopular.

Approval or rejection of projects could be handled on a “nuisance” basis. Developers would be expected to minimize tangible and measurable negative impacts on neighbors and the community. Those directly affected would have a means to alter or stop a project.

Obviously, there are all kinds of people who like all kinds of living arrangements. No planning board can know what people prefer and how they weigh open space, commute times, privacy, aesthetics, and home prices. The greater control government has over land use, the more likely decisions will be politicized and subject to interest group influence. Deregulating development promotes innovative responses to the diversity of housing demands, while reducing the costs of construction.

Fads in urban planning come and go, and subjective aesthetics play a central role in most of them. Perhaps, then, the best way to handle growth is not to plan the ideal outcome according to the tastes of the day, but to allow a greater variety of experiments through entrepreneurial activity in a liberated land market.