To the editor:

After Joshua Rosenbloom said the main beneficiaries of Lawrence growth were homeowners (Journal-World, June 20), George Lippencott called it unsubstantiated, unsupported and unscientific (J-W, June 26). I’d say instead that it was not fully explained. Also, being an economist is much like being a doctor: while you must draw on extensive background research, each individual diagnosis is more art than science. (Full disclosure: As Rosenbloom’s former colleague, I tend to rely on the same research.)

I take Lippencott at his word: As a homeowner he has received little tangible benefit from growth. However, the value of his home has appreciated, which will be a benefit when he sells or bequeaths it. Lippencott doesn’t see how that appreciation is linked to growth. What Rosenbloom’s data show is that rapid appreciation occurred in rapidly growing places like Lawrence and Overland Park, and not elsewhere in Kansas. Given extensive background research linking growth to appreciation (not to mention the usual workings of supply and demand) that was enough to convince me.

Aren’t there any other major beneficiaries? Rosenbloom showed that ordinary workers didn’t noticeably benefit. Wage rate growth didn’t outperform Kansas as a whole and unemployment rates didn’t improve. Nevertheless, Lippencott did score some points: increased city taxes quite likely were driven by new housing. But who benefited? Mainly, landowners (land values went up even faster than housing values.) Also, businesses in growth-related industries probably benefited, but that wouldn’t show up in Rosenbloom’s aggregate data.

Bottom line: Real estate owners probably were the largest beneficiaries of growth.

David Burress,

Lawrence