Ride an SUB not an SUV

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

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:

Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who
have
at least tried to come up with solutions to problems, you have to
advocate some sort of solution yourself as an alternative (other than
doing nothing)?

You don't have to have a solution to know what doesn't work. The "Smart
Growth" people have NOT tried to come up with solutions. The developers
conned them into believing that these developments will solve all these
alleged problems.

Yes they have tried to solve problems.

Developers have tried to solve THEIR problems: how to put more housing
on
less land and get YOU to believe they are doing it to help the world.

Odd that you think it's ok for developers to solve THEIR problems in a way
that others don't agree helps the community when you call it sprawl.

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

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..
....

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.

Please learn to snip.

You're damned right I will criticize a university professor who does not
know that Queen Elizabeth the First was WAY before the 1800's! Idiot.

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

I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of
planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around
School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the
"I'm smarter than you and know what is better" school that most
planners subscribe to.

Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell
people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success.
The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things
closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they
do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle
influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the
elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want.
Also, if you try, smarter people (and there are always smarter people)
will find away around any reg you can imaging.


Actually look at the article on Sociation Today about why planning
fails.
It fails because it is based on an obsolete model of how a city should
look.
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociation...42/jentsch.htm

Jentsch is a former professor of planning who worked with Smart Growth in
various jurisdictions as a planner.

You know I find it impossible to take anything seriously in your little
newspaper. The editorial quality is a joke.

George Conklin wrote:

Well, busing is required by law in most of the United States and it is
going to remain that way too. Schools must balance race, class and other
variables.

They must balance it withing the school district. When you have
relatively small school districts, with race distributed fairly evenly,
there is little busing. There is no requirement for busing anywhere in
the U.S., there is a requirement for non-segregated schools. Busing is
the method used in many areas.

George Conklin wrote:

100% correct. Then they proclaim that they are making the world a better
place as long as they can make more money. Planners go right along with
them. I wonder how much money really changes hands under the table for such
recommendations.

It goes even beyond the planners and the developers. It goes to
corporations that, rather than make money providing a product or
service, decide to sell some real property every quarter in order to
boost their profits.

One of the deals we stopped in my city, involved a large corporation
trying to sell land to a developer. This corporation is doing the same
thing all over the country. They report good financial results, but a
large part of the results are the profits from land sales, rather than
from the sale of products and services. They recently sold a large
private campground in the mountains, one that they had owned for
decades, where employees and guests could go for camping, hiking, etc.
The employees (and retirees) were devastated by this sale, but the
company is no longer employee-centric, that disappeared when the
founders lost control. They sold all their recreation sites around the
world for a one-time financial gain.

The land they own could be used for retail, and some retailers are
interested, but the land is worth less as a retail site than as a site
for housing, hence the effort to get it rezoned. The company has
proclaimed that they will not sell the land to a retailer, even though
the city desperately needs land for more sales-tax generating retail.

Suffice it to say that the city's planning department is furious with
the residents for quashing their rezoning efforts. It's a badge of honor
to us.

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.