Protectionism Is a Shortsighted Approach

Gerald and Myrna Silver’s condemnation of planned densification in the Valley (Commentary, May 9) unabashedly reflects the narrow world view of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard).

Deferring to the planning practice of a Swiss town they visited, the Silvers suggest a solution: “They have made it impossible for an outsider to buy a piece of land in the village and develop it, it is simply not allowed.” If development is barred in existing communities, it follows that it must occur on the city’s peripheries.

Widespread NIMBY protectionism, and the resistance to aborting wasteful and shortsighted detached housing developments, will ultimately create an endless metropolis of “walled-off” housing ghettos (each with its own socioeconomic condition) and will eliminate the remaining wilderness areas of the Southland. However imperfect the new planning proposals may be, this alternative is unacceptable.

However, this unacceptable condition is still the driving force behind Southland development. We can choose to continue the sprawl and live with all the well-known dire consequences, or we can choose to consolidate within the city’s perimeters and discover ways to finally rejuvenate the existing city. Ironically the Silvers profess that increasing density within the city serves few at the expense of many. A broader study of the issues will show exactly the opposite to be the case.

JANEK BIELSKI

Los Angeles