Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) was an economist with a dark view of the future. In his 1798 Essay on the Principles of Population he suggested that while population would increase geometrically, production of food and other necessities would increase only arithmetically, eventually leading to civil unrest and societal breakdown.

As we know, this theory had a number of fatal flaws. The Malthusian doom and gloom scenario was firmly discredited when it became evident that population growth and the growth of economic resources were not on the catastrophic collision course he had predicted. At the dawn of the 21st century, while there is still hunger in many parts of the world, we produce more food than we can consume. We have a distribution problem, not a production problem.

Now a new brand of Malthusianism is on the rise, in our own back yard. Its proponents do not identify food as the scarce resource, but rather water, open space and land in general. The new disciples of Malthus are not economists, but people who consider themselves environmentalists. At first quietly and in private and now increasingly in public, we are being told that New Jersey is approaching “build-out” and therefore we should be preparing for a society with no further growth. Build-out is a static concept that takes existing land use patterns and current zoning at face value. So if a parcel, regardless of size, has a structure on it, it is considered developed. Build-out can be helpful in tracking the limits to greenfield development, but irrelevant when considering redevelopment. By this definition, Rome reached build-out 2,000 years ago and Manhattan around 1860.

The theory relies on another murky concept – “carrying capacity” – that suggests New Jersey can only sustain a certain population, and that we have reached (or are about to reach) that level. To cross this threshold will mean not famine and civil unrest, but environmental degradation and a deteriorating quality of life. The implication is that with the exception of depopulated neighborhoods in Camden and Newark, the rest of the state should be off limits to further development.

This idea is enthusiastically endorsed by every NIMBY in the state – often self-portrayed recent refugees from Staten Island and Brooklyn, anxious to pull up the drawbridge and prevent ex-neighbors or anyone else from moving to our state. It is unwittingly supported by local officials who have zoned out density and family housing in their singleminded quest to keep down property taxes. And it is condoned by a state and local development review process that create a bewildering array of roadblocks even to the most virtuous smart growth projects.

Ironically, this attitude is the very antithesis of sustainability. Just look around! New Jersey has a profoundly dysfunctional land use pattern. We have incredibly distorted housing and job markets, a largely autodependent transportation system, a legacy of contaminated industrial and commercial sites, waterfronts that are mostly inaccessible to the public and a lack of functional civic spaces in our population centers. Our economic health is at risk, with industry unable to attract a suitable labor force. We face increasing competition from city regions all over the world, which unafraid of growth, are busy making enormous investments in public infrastructure, matching high-speed, high capacity public transportation systems to new high - density population and employment centers, while improving environmental conditions in the process.

The complacent, defeatist attitude of the neo-Malthusians does not bode well for the future of our state. The reality is that none of NJ’s current deficiencies will be corrected without significant development and redevelopment. We want a vibrant, lively state, not a state of arrested development. The solution to our problems is not stopping growth, but rather encouraging it in the right locations and with the right attributes. As always, I welcome your thoughts. Please contact me at pres@njapa.org.

The President’s Corner reflects the President’s opinion and not necessarily that of the NJAPA Executive Committee or membership.