|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#731
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
Amy Blankenship wrote:
Regardless, I am not defending Smart Growth in this line of questioning. I am simply asking what alternatives there are to look at for people who would like to plan their communities. This seems to be far too difficult a question for George (and apparently you) to understand. Many communities don't need any more planning. What's happened is that appropriate zoning is changed because developers always want to use land for the most profitable use at each moment, rather than keep the current zoning. During the dotcom boom, they wanted to convert industrial to commercial. After the dotcom bust they wanted to convert the commercial to high-density residential. These conversions are bad because they upset the balance of different uses and hurt tax revenue. For example, an owner of a shopping center intentionally forces out retailers by raising the rents and letting the center deteriorate. Once the shopping center is mostly empty they go to the city council and planning commission and claim that the center is obsolete, unleasable, etc., and that they should be allowed to tear it down to build condos. They promise a coffee house and dry cleaner on the bottom level, and proclaim their plan as "Smart Growth." The revenue generated by residential property tax doesn't cover the cost of services, so they put bond measures and parcel taxes on the ballot to pay for this "Smart Growth." In my city, the developers and their politicians recently spent $100,000 to fund a study over what should be done with a large parcel of industrial/commercial land in our city. The developers desperately want to tear down all the buildings, most of them currently leased out, and build condos. They invited citizens to serve on the panel, but deliberately excluded everyone that's been fighting high-density housing, which is more than 2/3 of the city. People showed up at the meeting to voice their displeasure, but when the results of the study are released, there will be a big push for high-density housing, under the mantra of "Smart Growth." "Smart Growth" has become a code word for undesirable development. The developers and politicians better coin a new phrase soon. |
Ads |
#732
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message ... In article .net, George Conklin wrote: Smart Growth has one goal: infill. This means getting current residents out and moving in those with more money. I thought Smart Growth's one goal was keeping kids out. Isn't that what you said before? It is keeping kids out in New Jersey. The census is about ready to report that in the 30 largest cities that Smart Growth replaces lower educational levels of residents with higher educational levels, which is a proxy for income. I attend demography conferences and see the data. |
#733
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message . .. "George Conklin" wrote in message ink.net... "Amy Blankenship" wrote in message . .. "George Conklin" wrote in message link.net... "Amy Blankenship" wrote in message . .. "George Conklin" wrote in message link.net... "Amy Blankenship" wrote in message news "George Conklin" wrote in message ink.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. |
#734
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"Dave Head" wrote in message ... On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:03:13 GMT, "George Conklin" wrote: "Dave Head" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:02:12 -0500, "di" wrote: "Dave Head" wrote in message We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is close enough. That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd rather see 3 - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town. DPH I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each way, but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be. Guess you'll just have to get use to it. Get back to me when your 30 minute drive starts costing you about $30 each way for gasoline. Why not be reasonable and say $100? The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things as they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the zoning. Dave Head Put Mr. Head to work in an auto factory and make him live in the basement. 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. |
#735
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"SMS" wrote in message ... George Conklin wrote: Smart Growth does cause increased congestion. That has been shown to be true. Further, schools are racially balanced by busing, so even if your local school is walkable, most of the students will still arrive there by bus. No buses in my area, or at least very, very few. To racially balance the schools in my area would require busing in vast quantities of Caucasians, as the area is now very Asian, except for the old-timers (who no longer have children). The demographic changes have improved the area in many ways, including better restaurants, better schools, and more care in taking care of properties. However one negative is the tendency to be over-protective, so walking or biking to school is not as widespread as it should be. I see one guy driving his daughter about 300 feet to school almost every day, it takes much longer to drive that distance than to walk it. Also, the level of driving proficiency is not high, though it's not because of race, it's because of many less years of driving experience, and an attitude towards pedestrians and cyclists that originates from places where cars have even higher priority. The daily minivan convention is daunting, as many drivers don't stop for students in the crosswalks. I carry a crossing guards stop sign with me every morning, and it's a big help, but even with that some drivers ignore my son and I. The "Smart Growth" has made it much worse because of the overcrowding it brings. It's a domino effect where people are even less likely to walk or bike because of the traffic congestion. The few stores that are part of the high-density housing are not patronized much, and many have closed. |
#736
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"SMS" wrote in message ... George Conklin wrote: Smart Growth does cause increased congestion. That has been shown to be true. Further, schools are racially balanced by busing, so even if your local school is walkable, most of the students will still arrive there by bus. No buses in my area, or at least very, very few. To racially balance the schools in my area would require busing in vast quantities of Caucasians, as the area is now very Asian, except for the old-timers (who no longer have children). 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. |
#737
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message t... In article , Dave Head wrote: The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things as they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the zoning. You have to get rid of more than zoning. You have to get rid of companies which move. You have to make it possible for all working family members to work in the same community. You have to either have long-term jobs or make moving one's home much easier. You would need a czar of employment and housing and make companies provide housing for their workers. That used to be called a mill town, and they exploited the workers horribly. So does Smart Growth. |
#738
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message . .. "George Conklin" wrote in message ink.net... "Amy Blankenship" wrote in message .. . "George Conklin" wrote in message link.net... "Amy Blankenship" wrote in message .. . "George Conklin" wrote in message link.net... "donquijote1954" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin" wrote: So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be solved? I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing in the past 50 years is any kind of a problem. Smart Growth is a real problems since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a carefully-constructed lie.- What does it bother you, the fact that it's smart and planned, versus unplanned and stupid? Smart Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by idiots who lie to us. 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 don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT a problem. Smart Growth tries to make it a problem. They have failed. In fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they did in the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made by increments. It is harmed by ideologies like Smart Growth. Smart Growth wouldn't have any adherents if everything were as hunky dorey with unplanned growth as you like to pretend. Critics have always had vague hates and need something to pin it on. Happy people don't look for things to moan about, as in happy single-family homeowner. I suppose that's why you're so critical of those who think things could be improved. Smart Growth is a step backwards into fake history. Its promised are built on flat-out lies. "The development of the last 50 years" is NOT a school of thought. The critics have always had the same rant. They just love what happened in the past, so they can criticize the present. As you do. Happy people don't complain all the time. Then you should quit complaining that people on a forum called alt.planning.urban want to discuss urban planning. If you have nothing to add to the discussion of the topic this was set up to discuss, why are you even here? Urban planning is only about Smart Growth. We need to plan for what people really want, not for what you want to do to them. I suggest again the book "Sprawl: A Compact History" to see how the critics constantly change what they say to make the past seem good and the future bad. The vocabulary you spout is about 150 years old. It is a negative approach, and the rest of the world goes about its way ignorning naysayers. Happy people don't develop and ideology like you demand. Unhappy people do. Why are you so unhappy? What vocabulary? I simply asked you to point out a different school of thought. Obviously that is completely beyond your capabilities. The fact that you want a label pasted on planning shows you have no ability to look at multiple facts and simply want a religion. |
#739
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"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. |
#740
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"SMS" wrote in message ... Amy Blankenship wrote: Regardless, I am not defending Smart Growth in this line of questioning. I am simply asking what alternatives there are to look at for people who would like to plan their communities. This seems to be far too difficult a question for George (and apparently you) to understand. Many communities don't need any more planning. What's happened is that appropriate zoning is changed because developers always want to use land for the most profitable use at each moment, rather than keep the current zoning. 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. During the dotcom boom, they wanted to convert industrial to commercial. After the dotcom bust they wanted to convert the commercial to high-density residential. These conversions are bad because they upset the balance of different uses and hurt tax revenue. For example, an owner of a shopping center intentionally forces out retailers by raising the rents and letting the center deteriorate. Once the shopping center is mostly empty they go to the city council and planning commission and claim that the center is obsolete, unleasable, etc., and that they should be allowed to tear it down to build condos. They promise a coffee house and dry cleaner on the bottom level, and proclaim their plan as "Smart Growth." The revenue generated by residential property tax doesn't cover the cost of services, so they put bond measures and parcel taxes on the ballot to pay for this "Smart Growth." In my city, the developers and their politicians recently spent $100,000 to fund a study over what should be done with a large parcel of industrial/commercial land in our city. The developers desperately want to tear down all the buildings, most of them currently leased out, and build condos. They invited citizens to serve on the panel, but deliberately excluded everyone that's been fighting high-density housing, which is more than 2/3 of the city. People showed up at the meeting to voice their displeasure, but when the results of the study are released, there will be a big push for high-density housing, under the mantra of "Smart Growth." "Smart Growth" has become a code word for undesirable development. The developers and politicians better coin a new phrase soon. As long as the only thing the APA will look at is more and more housing on less and less land, everyone involved in the process is happy. Only the public gets had. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ride Report ( Long) - Children's Cancer Institute Bike Ride - Townsville to Cairns | HughMann | Australia | 2 | August 7th 05 04:08 AM |
Early-bird bike ride helps Sierra Club ("Morning Glory" ride) | Garrison Hilliard | General | 5 | July 8th 05 05:44 PM |
Bike Ride Pictures: Club ride to Half Moon Bay, CA, June 2005 | Bill Bushnell | Rides | 0 | June 28th 05 07:05 AM |
Bike Ride Pictures: Sequoia Century Worker's Ride (200k, w/variations), June 2005 | Bill Bushnell | Rides | 0 | June 19th 05 03:31 PM |
[Texas] Bridgewood Farms "Ride From the Heart" Charity Bike Ride | Greg Bretting | Rides | 0 | January 15th 04 05:38 AM |