Ride an SUB not an SUV

Amy Blankenship wrote:

So in other words the previous plan is not being adhered to. I think you're
off base about the reason why, though. In our area, the rezoning requests
are usually granted because they will result in an increase of tax revenue,
at least short term.

All taxes are not the same. The rezoning will usually result in
increased property tax revenue, but less long term revenue than if the
land was used for retail, commercial, and industrial. There may be a
short term gain, especially if the landowner has gotten rid of all their
tenants in an effort to get the rezoning, effectively reducing the
sales and use taxes to zero. Just the realization that they have a good
chance at rezoning will get them started evicting businesses, which has
a negative tax consequence. If the rezoning attempt fails, then they
have to renovate the commercial space and try to lease it out again.

I would think that what actually hurts the tax base is the practice of
intentionally allowing structures to deteriorate. This is the opposite of
Smart Growth.

They let the structures deteriorate because of the promise of being able
to tear them down and get the land rezoned for a more profitable use.
In that sense, "Smart Growth" is driving the deterioration. This isn't
fantasy, we see this tactic being used in my area. It's safe to say that
the landowners, the developers, and the city planners were astounded
that their rezoning attempt could be derailed by the citizens, nothing
like that had ever happened before, the developers had always been able
to spend enough money to soundly defeat any citizens group.

You continually point to your own town as the be-all and end-all of what
Smart Growth has the potential to be,

If I look one city over, their "Smart Growth" approach is different, but
equally bad. They've decided to slowly evict all lower income residents,
by allowing relatively inexpensive apartment complexes to be converted
to high cost condominiums (called mixed use, but it's essentially condos
with a couple of stores, that never are successful, on the bottom),
either by renovation or by remove and replace. So they're systematically
driving out the working class (mainly Hispanic) and replacing them with
higher income Asians and Caucasians. They've also allowed major rezoning
of commercial and industrial to residential, adding tens of thousands of
new housing units.

They have a relatively bad school system, so no one with kids wants to
move to that city, they even tore down the only high school to build
more condos, and bussed the few remaining kids over to the school in the
next city. The same company that tried to sell their land in my city,
successfully sold an old mall that they had converted to offices, and
got the property rezoned for "mixed use," so a high density housing
development will go in there as well. One difference, however, is that
this neighboring city does have mass transit, both commuter rail and
light rail, so at least there is an option for transit other than driving.

while everything you say about what
happened indicates that they used the "Smart Growth" label without actually
employing any Smart Growth principles.

Of course they claim to adhere to the "Smart Growth" principles. The
problem is you can't live in a vacuum. The loss of retail, industry,
jobs, and the increase in traffic and decrease in walkability are going
to be the fallout of "Smart Growth."

In article ,
SMS wrote:

Amy Blankenship wrote:

So in other words the previous plan is not being adhered to. I
think you're off base about the reason why, though. In our area,
the rezoning requests are usually granted because they will result
in an increase of tax revenue, at least short term.

All taxes are not the same. The rezoning will usually result in
increased property tax revenue, but less long term revenue than if
the land was used for retail, commercial, and industrial. There may
be a short term gain, especially if the landowner has gotten rid of
all their tenants in an effort to get the rezoning, effectively
reducing the sales and use taxes to zero. Just the realization that
they have a good chance at rezoning will get them started evicting
businesses, which has a negative tax consequence. If the rezoning
attempt fails, then they have to renovate the commercial space and
try to lease it out again.

I would think that what actually hurts the tax base is the practice
of intentionally allowing structures to deteriorate. This is the
opposite of Smart Growth.

They let the structures deteriorate because of the promise of being
able to tear them down and get the land rezoned for a more profitable
use. In that sense, "Smart Growth" is driving the deterioration. This
isn't fantasy, we see this tactic being used in my area. It's safe to
say that the landowners, the developers, and the city planners were
astounded that their rezoning attempt could be derailed by the
citizens, nothing like that had ever happened before, the developers
had always been able to spend enough money to soundly defeat any
citizens group.

You continually point to your own town as the be-all and end-all of
what Smart Growth has the potential to be,

If I look one city over, their "Smart Growth" approach is different,
but equally bad. They've decided to slowly evict all lower income
residents, by allowing relatively inexpensive apartment complexes to
be converted to high cost condominiums (called mixed use, but it's
essentially condos with a couple of stores, that never are
successful, on the bottom), either by renovation or by remove and
replace. So they're systematically driving out the working class
(mainly Hispanic) and replacing them with higher income Asians and
Caucasians. They've also allowed major rezoning of commercial and
industrial to residential, adding tens of thousands of new housing
units.

In cities that's called "gentrification" and it is happening apace here.
The newly-childless boomers are moving into the city out of the suburbs,
selling their 7000 square foot McMansions on an acre of lawn to buy a
condo, townhouse or loft. Benefits include not having a 90 minute
commute, not having to spend an entire Saturday mowing the lawn, close
access to the amenities of the city, etc. But the lower middle class
and lower class are displaced.

They have a relatively bad school system, so no one with kids wants
to move to that city, they even tore down the only high school to
build more condos, and bussed the few remaining kids over to the
school in the next city. The same company that tried to sell their
land in my city, successfully sold an old mall that they had
converted to offices, and got the property rezoned for "mixed use,"
so a high density housing development will go in there as well. One
difference, however, is that this neighboring city does have mass
transit, both commuter rail and light rail, so at least there is an
option for transit other than driving.

while everything you say about what happened indicates that they
used the "Smart Growth" label without actually employing any Smart
Growth principles.

Of course they claim to adhere to the "Smart Growth" principles. The
problem is you can't live in a vacuum. The loss of retail, industry,
jobs, and the increase in traffic and decrease in walkability are
going to be the fallout of "Smart Growth."

Our suburbs and exurbs are already unwalkable. In many cases there are
no sidewalks and you would have to walk in the street with all the
distracted soccer parents in SUVs talking on their cell phones and
eating fast food while driving. Neighborhoods are generally blocks upon
curvy blocks of nearly identical ticky-tacky houses that look more like
barns than homes. Businesses are generally in unpleasant strip malls
with cretinously designed parking lots and anonymous, homogenized
franchises. Bleccch. I'll live in town in my 100 year old house with
dozens of locally owned businesses within 10 blocks, thanks. 'Taint
perfect but it beats the hell out of the suburbs.

The forecast in our area is for a 25-40% increase in population by 2050.
Current trends (large lot suburbs) will result in an outer ring of
suburbs nearly 50 miles out from the center (it's already a 30 mile
radius). A 50 mile commute in an area that has no practical public
transit infrastructure and incredibly bad highway design is not my idea
of quality of life.

Tim McNamara wrote:

In cities that's called "gentrification" and it is happening apace here.
The newly-childless boomers are moving into the city out of the suburbs,
selling their 7000 square foot McMansions on an acre of lawn to buy a
condo, townhouse or loft. Benefits include not having a 90 minute
commute, not having to spend an entire Saturday mowing the lawn, close
access to the amenities of the city, etc. But the lower middle class
and lower class are displaced.

In an old Doonesbury comic, the question is asked, What happens to the
poor people displaced by gentrification? The answer more or less: Oh,
they move on to devalue other property making that ripe for subsequent
renewal.

Our suburbs and exurbs are already unwalkable. In many cases there are
no sidewalks and you would have to walk in the street with all the
distracted soccer parents in SUVs talking on their cell phones and
eating fast food while driving. Neighborhoods are generally blocks upon
curvy blocks of nearly identical ticky-tacky houses that look more like
barns than homes. Businesses are generally in unpleasant strip malls
with cretinously designed parking lots and anonymous, homogenized
franchises. Bleccch. I'll live in town in my 100 year old house with
dozens of locally owned businesses within 10 blocks, thanks. 'Taint
perfect but it beats the hell out of the suburbs.

Both the relatively old suburbs, and the very new suburbs are usually
walkable and bicycleable. I.e., from my 44 year old house I can walk to
about 50 restaurants in 20 minutes, and there are numerous biking
opportunities close by. It's the suburbs built in the seventies to the
nineties, far from the city center, that are usually not so walkable,
though if they were planned well there is local shopping and other
amenities nearby.

The forecast in our area is for a 25-40% increase in population by 2050.
Current trends (large lot suburbs) will result in an outer ring of
suburbs nearly 50 miles out from the center (it's already a 30 mile
radius). A 50 mile commute in an area that has no practical public
transit infrastructure and incredibly bad highway design is not my idea
of quality of life.

You're right, that commute distance is insane. But the solution is not
to make our current communities even more unwalkable and more
uncycleable by increasing congestion.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

In cities that's called "gentrification" and it is happening apace
here. The newly-childless boomers are moving into the city out of
the suburbs, selling their 7000 square foot McMansions on an acre
of lawn to buy a condo, townhouse or loft. Benefits include not
having a 90 minute commute, not having to spend an entire Saturday
mowing the lawn, close access to the amenities of the city, etc.
But the lower middle class and lower class are displaced.

In an old Doonesbury comic, the question is asked, What happens to
the poor people displaced by gentrification? The answer more or less:
Oh, they move on to devalue other property making that ripe for
subsequent renewal.

I hadn't seen that strip, but there are some grains of truth there.

Our suburbs and exurbs are already unwalkable. In many cases there
are no sidewalks and you would have to walk in the street with all
the distracted soccer parents in SUVs talking on their cell phones
and eating fast food while driving. Neighborhoods are generally
blocks upon curvy blocks of nearly identical ticky-tacky houses
that look more like barns than homes. Businesses are generally in
unpleasant strip malls with cretinously designed parking lots and
anonymous, homogenized franchises. Bleccch. I'll live in town in
my 100 year old house with dozens of locally owned businesses
within 10 blocks, thanks. 'Taint perfect but it beats the hell out
of the suburbs.

Both the relatively old suburbs, and the very new suburbs are usually
walkable and bicycleable. I.e., from my 44 year old house I can walk
to about 50 restaurants in 20 minutes, and there are numerous biking
opportunities close by. It's the suburbs built in the seventies to
the nineties, far from the city center, that are usually not so
walkable, though if they were planned well there is local shopping
and other amenities nearby.

The newest suburbs here haven't followed suit, from what I've seen (but
then, I have not spent a lot of time looking in the ones built in the
past two or three years). The goal of the newest suburbs is to create a
faux rural feel without being *too* far from the big box stores.

I grew up in an older suburb of Chicago- Elmhurst. It was very walkable
and pleasant. Where my Mom lives, I could live without using a car for
weeks at a time. When I visit, often I don't drive for the entire week.
It's four blocks to the grocery store, five blocks to the downtown
business section. I walked to school every day (1/4 mile in grade
school, 1 mile in junior high school and high school) until I got too
cool for that in high school and bummed rides from my friends. :-P I
walked or rode my bike to see my friends and vice versa. I didn't even
get a driver's license until I was 19.

The forecast in our area is for a 25-40% increase in population by
2050. Current trends (large lot suburbs) will result in an outer
ring of suburbs nearly 50 miles out from the center (it's already a
30 mile radius). A 50 mile commute in an area that has no
practical public transit infrastructure and incredibly bad highway
design is not my idea of quality of life.

You're right, that commute distance is insane. But the solution is
not to make our current communities even more unwalkable and more
uncycleable by increasing congestion.

I wish I knew the solution, I could package it and sell it to major
metropolitan areas and make a tidy fortune. Seems to me that there are
just too many people, who all have to live somewhere and have as much
right to good housing as I have. There's no perfect solution- allow
sprawl and spend trillions of dollars subsidizing cars. Increase
density and get the problems of crowding- increased crime, pummeled
infrastructure, and a tendency towards a bleaker and more aggressive
life.

When I was a kid growing up, each suburb had its own center with a
distinct full-service business district. Lots of locally owned
businesses and it was rare that you couldn't get what you needed without
leaving town. That meant that there were a lot of jobs in town, too,
although a lot of people in my home town commuted into Chicago for work.
For my Dad's entire working life, he never had a commute to work longer
than two miles. My Mom's commute was 1 1/2 miles.

By comparison, I work in two locations a day, with commutes ranging from
..9 miles to 30 miles.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message news:timmcn-

.. Seems to me that there are
just too many people, who all have to live somewhere and have as much
right to good housing as I have. There's no perfect solution- allow
sprawl and spend trillions of dollars subsidizing cars. Increase
density and get the problems of crowding- increased crime, pummeled
infrastructure, and a tendency towards a bleaker and more aggressive
life.

All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give it up
boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the people
will move to the few areas where growth is happening. But stop worrying
about it. Just don't put everyone in a Russian-style apartment building and
remember that what Smart Growth now calls good development was at one time
condemned as bad.

On Apr 5, 4:34 pm, SMS wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:
What does it bother you, the fact that it's smart and planned, versus
unplanned and stupid? Have you seen anything unplanned that produces
the intended results, or you couldn't care less about the results, and
you just want to go against common sense?

What bothers me is that I've seen the lie that is the horribly mis-named
"Smart Growth." It's an invention of developers to increase profits, at
the expense of the communities that it destroys. They're able to con a
few faux-environmentalists to support them, and of course they can get
the politicians that are owned by the building trades unions to support
building anything, no matter how destructive it is.

The result of "Smart Growth" where I live is more driving, less cycling,
less walking, increased traffic, over-crowded schools, destruction of
local businesses, and loss of major employers. All of this is not
intentional, rather it's a byproduct of the lack of a systems level
approach when doing planning. It's what you'd expect from developers
that plop down a high-density block of condos with unleasable stores on
the bottom, then run away to count their money leaving the community to
deal with the fallout from their "smartness." When you try to tell the
politicians what the results will be, they label you as anti-growth,
NIMBY, etc., they just don't want to hear the facts.

On the other hand, I've seen new developments which were really
"smart-growth" but not labeled as such. The developers made allowances
for schools, shopping, industry, housing, roads, recreation, etc. This
is more like "intelligent growth" than faux "Smart Growth." All this is
financed by special property tax assessments, in California it's called
Mello-Roos. It makes the property a tougher sell because of the higher
taxes.

Oh, I get you, you are talking about fake smart development, but that
we got everywhere, and it's part of the general lies we live under.
It's called CAMOUFLAGE, in jungle talk.

You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq...

For example:

(this is serious)

'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made
in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We
also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global
nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that
we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human
rights, and humanitarian relief.'

http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org...promotion.html

On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

.. .





"George Conklin" wrote in
link.net:

"Dave Head" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote:

"Dave Head" wrote in message
.. .
My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
corners
except
the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
factories
all
over
that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to
work.
There's
very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
traffic
a
bit,
but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
whistles,
and
use
them to tell time without your watch.

Dave Head

The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
business
all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition.

And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
exactly
how?

DPH

We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
close enough.

20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.

The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot have
a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was impossible in
1890 too.-

It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley.

By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads...

"By the start of the 20th century, cycling had become an important
means of transportation, and in the United States an increasingly
popular form of recreation."

\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle

On Apr 5, 7:57 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message

. ..







"George Conklin" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"George Conklin" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
news

"George Conklin" wrote in message
hlink.net...
To say that Smart Growth is the only way is like saying
only
Chevrolet
makes cars.

I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only
way
if
you
actually want to plan the future, vs.

Wrong again. Smart Growth has stated that they are the only way
to
go,
like
Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is
not
what
some self-centered group wants it to be.

OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
other
ideas
on formulating urban plans?

Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
that
the
quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
board
all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
then
spend
the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
happens
one decision at a time when the commands of Smart Growth violate
everyone's
common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things
get
changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well,
even
owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can
have
standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do
(he
has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
commision?
5
to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
grand,
empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
future.

So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.

You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.

If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer some
better alternative, then she was one smart lady. I suspect she was, given
all she accomplished.

You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise what
is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome of
hate which always praises the past

Or perhaps it's a syndrome of common sense when you have 6 and 1/2
billion inhabitants on this planet.

150 years ago it was...

1850... 1.2 billion

On Apr 6, 7:27 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message

. ..







"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"George Conklin" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
...

"George Conklin" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
news

"George Conklin" wrote in message
hlink.net...
To say that Smart Growth is the only way is like saying
only
Chevrolet
makes cars.

I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the
only
way
if
you
actually want to plan the future, vs.

Wrong again. Smart Growth has stated that they are the only
way
to
go,
like
Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future
is
not
what
some self-centered group wants it to be.

OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
other
ideas
on formulating urban plans?

Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
that
the
quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the
planning
board
all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
then
spend
the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
happens
one decision at a time when the commands of Smart Growth violate
everyone's
common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream,
things
get
changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite
well,
even
owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we
can
have
standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would
do
(he
has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
commision?
5
to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
grand,
empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
future.

So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.

You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.

If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer
some
better alternative, then she was one smart lady. I suspect she was,
given
all she accomplished.

You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise
what
is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome
of
hate which always praises the past.

I hate to tell you this, but Queen Elizabeth lived longer ago than 150
years.

Some things never change. And the current vocabulary about "sprawl" was
firmly in place following some blasts in 1800s. The joke is that the same
vocabulary is now in place to criticize new buildings while the original
source of scorn is now seen as good. The goal is to be critical, but of
what? Anything convenient. You are a good example.-

I'm sure the Indians were critical of it too. And see how much they
have advanced now: They even got casinos and big money to prove that
"if you can't beat them, join them."

Because it's all about money --not quality of life.

donquijote1954 wrote:

You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq...

For example:

(this is serious)

'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made
in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We
also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global
nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that
we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human
rights, and humanitarian relief.'

No ****. Bush seems to think he can blow smoke up everybodies ass.
Other countries share the goal of not having to listen to American B.S.
We have no REAL partnerships because they will **** on us and change
sides as soon as it is to their advantage. 'Partner' is a word that is
way overused in business. Your 'partner' can switch overnight and put
you out of business. China is not a partner or friend but they love our
money.
Democracy promotion is reserved for those with oil for us.
Advancement of human rights is just politician rhetoric.
Humanitarian relief means sending our money to a country that does not
appreciate it, all for a news byte, and while ignoring the problems at
home, like New Orleans, the homeless in OUR country, etc.
I wonder if Bush even realizes what a joke he is getting to be known as?

http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org...promotion.html
Above link requires login and password.
Bill Baka