Ride an SUB not an SUV

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 6, 7:40 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Apr 5, 8:09 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message

hlink.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.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

This should be an interesting read too...

Sprawl Costs Us All

Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable
result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency.
But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful
planning and development.

"Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they
can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is
dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and
consumers, have to pay."

http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/...stofsprawl.htm


Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to pay
for a developer's schemes.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
donquijote1954 wrote:

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

My favorite story was when the Sierra Club thought they had a deal where
the developers would pay $100 million dollars and in return the Sierra
Club would not oppose development in San Jose's Coyote Valley.

A Sierra Club member, upset by this extortion, leaked the story.

"http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/01/02/story2.html"

The whole thing collapsed when it was made public.

The city of San Jose, to their credit, is not letting developers build
housing in the Coyote Valley until the industrial and commercial space
is developed and sold (or leased). Both Apple and Cisco abandoned plans
for large campuses in that area. Apple sold the land and is adding a
campus in Cupertino (and they oppose the conversion of commercial to
residential) while Cisco may still own the land but has no plans to
develop it. The developers are chomping at the bit to build housing
there. They tried to elect a mayor that would eliminate the requirement
for intelligent growth, but they lost...for now.

The computer industry knows it cannot command its employees to live in a
Smart Growth ghetto. You should be smart enough to see that too, but I
guess not.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:28:37 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote:


"Dave Head" wrote in message
Across the street would be fine. I lived across the street from the
National
Carbon Company in Fostoria, and, once we got 'em to clean up some
particularly
nasty particulates, it was just great.

Dave Head

Most people don't want lower class housing.

Hey, the price was right. I sold it about 15 years ago for $12K. Now, I'ts
prolly worth $50K 'cuz the neighborhood has improved dramatically. Small
house. But lotsa space outside. And... nobody really cares about the carbon
plant.

DPH

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"Baxter" wrote in message
...

I don't hear that many complaints from the people who live on the cliff
above Swan Island - and that includes some fairly pricey homes.

What were residents saying _before_ the industrial facilities were built?

That's lost in history, but they probably were glad for the jobs. There's
been industry on Swan Island since probably before 1900.

In article t,
"George Conklin" wrote:

Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer
to pay for a developer's schemes.

Not like that's new. That sort of scheming was around long before
"smart growth."

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"George Conklin" wrote:

Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer
to pay for a developer's schemes.

Not like that's new. That sort of scheming was around long before
"smart growth."

True, but smart growth is just the latest scam.

In article t,
"George Conklin" wrote:

"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.

That's one of those statistics that follows lies and damned lies.

But stop worrying about it.

It's worth worrying about if you live in one of those places people are
moving to, and it's worth worrying about if you live in one of those
places people are moving from.

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.

It's inevitable as cities grow. Density will increase and with that
comes urban gulags. But there are ways to avoid the "vertical ghettos"
syndrome (I grew up near Chicago, and the failings of the housing
projects is vivid even though I didn't live near them. Having to
occasionally go down into those areas for work was like entering another
world a horrible one of bleak concrete and harsh light, of filth and
despair). I think cooperative housing is a better notion than
traditional apartment buildings. Personal investment and some type of
ownership of one's home encourage pro-social behavior.

On Apr 6, 6:28 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message

ups.com...



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...

It was the trolley which spread cities by a factor of 100 AND ended the
walkable city. Bicycles? They changed nothing.

I take it that you have never read "The Revenge of the Methodist
Biycle Company"? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

"Bill" wrote in message
...
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 get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort
of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media attention.
Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely wiped
off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of some
sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get back
to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New Orleans
chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
failed them so badly in power.

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

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...

please learn to snip

Sprawl Costs Us All

Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable
result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency.
But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful
planning and development.

"Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they
can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is
dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and
consumers, have to pay."

http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/...stofsprawl.htm


Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to
pay
for a developer's schemes.

All developers try to get other people (especially taxpayers) to pay for as
much of what they are building as they can. This is not unique to any one
school of thought. Smart Growth is just a convenient label, both for
developers and critics, because it is the only school of thought that has a
name. So all developers will try to call their developers Smart Growth if
they think they can find an advantage in it (even if they actually are not
applying smart growth principles), and all critics will be quick to label
anything they don't like smart growth, because it's much easier to criticize
something if you can label it.