Of Debt and Planning

Can a society lay claim to a moral high ground when using debt to finance planning agendas for future generations?   Our nation's founders were well aware of the dangers of the burdens of public debt, the hazards of awarding bounties ,  and their impact on the prosperity of our nation.  Yet despite these warnings and lessons from history, we have become passive in our convictions.  We have allowed our representatives to continue to pile debt upon the backs of our children and our grandchildren under the guise of investment while exceeding budgetary limitations.  The federal debt has now risen to $17.5 trillion dollars and our state debt has climbed to over $40 billion with both budgets continuing to run deficits.


The state of Connecticut is currently investing an unprecedented amount of the state capital budget  (over $1 billion a year and more than 1/3 of the capital budget) on Conservation and Development.  These funds are driving a restructuring of land use and economic development while the state is running a nearly $1 billion budget deficit.  Transit oriented development is the mode that Connecticut legislators and planners have chosen for land use planning and economic investments in much of  the of the state.  Master developers of large mixed use developments including affordable housing are among the primary recipients of these funds.  In fact, on March 28th, the State Bonding Commission bonded $1 million dollars to establish a new special fund specifically designated for such projects.

But what of the desires of taxpayers to live in such communities?  A recent poll from the National Association of Realtors has determined that less than 15% of Americans would prefer living in an apartment or condominium with 86 percent listing "privacy from neighbors" as an important factor in choosing residency.  We as a society should consider the will of the generations carrying these debt burdens.  Will they find such accommodations any more inviting than the current generation? Perhaps one might ask their children or grandchildren if they might like to live in a transit oriented, "walkable" community.  It is they who will be paying for it for decades to come.  Is it moral to bind them to this future with debt without their consent?