Abstract
We have in Charles Bohls response the construction of a straw man. He portrays my argument as thinly veiled apologism for sprawla charge also levied at a range of authors described as marketists. The latter term, used in a somewhat derogatory manner, reveals Bohls communitarian suspicion of the market and his commitment to wholesale regulation in order to protect American values. Bohl could have saved himself and this author some time and effort if he had made this position immediately apparent rather than to claim the intent to educate marketist opinion to the compatibility of New Urbanism with the free economy. I do not intend, in this short response, to defend the other authors whom Bohl puts in the marketist campthey are more than capable of doing that for themselves. I shall focus instead on the deficiencies in Bohls response and his commitment to political communitarianism.