Urban planning or fascism?

[Hypnos]

Smart Growth and the Ideal City (http://ti.org/vaupdate53.html)

[coffeezombie]

People need to buy into community living in order for urban planning to work. If they just want to continue to drive their cars around and pollute the air while refusing to use public transportation, then of course new urbanism won't work. They need to start realizing that their individual actions, when taken as a collective whole, are damaging to the environment and needlessly gobbling up natural land that could better be used for other things.

[Hypnos]

Counterarguments:

* Environmental damage is a negative externality -- cost to many by many. Without the proper disincentives, it must continue, due to the prisoners' dilemma. You can resolve this by instituting fiat disincentives (e.g., fuel taxes), or by having a homogenous population with strong social bonds (equivalent to repeated trials of the prisoners' dilemma). I don't think the latter would work in the US, and I doubt many INTPs would find it to be desirable.

* Even accounting for these failures, urban planning has a spotty record. Taking New Urbanism:
- increased crime, due to unmonitored travel corridors
- increased last-mile travel time
- poor diversity in housing options for differing tastes

Another good resource on the debate (includes articles, and links to both sides) --

http://reason.com/bisprawl.shtml

[coffeezombie]

Counterarguments:

* Environmental damage is a negative externality -- cost to many by many. Without the proper disincentives, it must continue, due to the prisoners' dilemma. You can resolve this by instituting fiat disincentives (e.g., fuel taxes), or by having a homogenous population with strong social bonds (equivalent to repeated trials of the prisoners' dilemma). I don't think the latter would work in the US, and I doubt many INTPs would find it to be desirable.

* Even accounting for these failures, urban planning has a spotty record. Taking New Urbanism:
- increased crime, due to unmonitored travel corridors
- increased last-mile travel time
- poor diversity in housing options for differing tastes


Things like excessive fuel taxes mean that you give the rich more advantages than the poor. You just create more economic inequality, which is not a good thing for many reasons.

Unmonitored travel corridors? What studies show more crime in New Urbanist neighborhoods? If you ask me, there is more neighborhood unity in such neighborhoods, which leads to things such as solid neighborhood watch programs. People also live closer to their neighbors, which seems to me would decrease crime when such neighbors are not home and burglars try to rob them.

Increased last-mile travel time? Explain this one to me.

Poor diversity for housing options only exist because more banks have not bought onto the idea of new urbanism and don't give developers the financial backing they need. If the people saw the benefits of New Urbanism as they truly are, demand for it would increase, and developers and banks would be forced to develop better options.

INTPs like living in neighborhoods of intellectuals just as much as everyone else. Who said that we all want to live in suburban cookie cutter houses? INTPs don't want that for certain.

[Hypnos]

* "Regressiveness" of fuel taxes

No one is required to own a car, and "public" transit need not be publicly owned. For example, private buslines are prevalent in India and provide cheap, timely service.

* Crime

Source: New Urbanism Promotes Crime (http://www.rppi.org/newurbancrime.shtml)

Can you provide a source showing that New Urbanism reduces crime? Many urban planners think it, but no one has proof.

* Last-mile transit time

Because of New Urbanism's reliance on public transportation and aggregated parking, there is no solution for getting from the major transportation terminus to your front door. Public models, like shuttles, don't scale well and are therefore cost-inefficient or untimely. Higher density housing, such that elevators become the "last mile," are a workable solution.

* Lack of diversity in New Urbanism

Perhaps we have a semantic conflict. My diversity, I mean different lifestyles: quiet, secluded, private, and similar qualities are inimical to high-density development and public spaces.

* INTP preferences

Maybe. While INTPs prefer intellectual company, they still like their physical privacy. The suburbs might be underrated ;)

[Sally]

Yeah but I think you can have more privacy in a crowd. Maybe...

Hmm. Well, I'm in suburbia right now, and I certainly don't feel close to my neighbors. But on the other hand, I would want a home that's very easy to maintain, and a bare-bones apartment with crazy neighbors who are too busy living their own lives to worry about mine seems pretty appealing...

Concrete block housing is rather ugly, though. ...From the outside. No, I don't think I'd mind living in one that wasn't run-down and covered with (uninteresting) graffiti.

[coffeezombie]

People are sick of environmental degradation and traffic congestion. Those are the main reasons why planners need to exist today. The private sector does not develop to combat these harms. They only care for the needs of the individual consumer, not the community as a whole. It is the urban planner who takes the needs of the community in mind. New Urbanism is just another option in the marketplace. We don't advocate everyone live this way. But don't you think it's a good idea for the people who are sick of spending 30 minutes plus stuck in traffic jams every day in smog filled metropolitan areas?

There are many cities where mass transportation is widely used and people don't mind it. Why so many Americans feel they need their cars no matter what, I still can't figure out. They certainly cost enough money to own, fuel and maintain compared to mass transportation.

[Hypnos]

People are sick of environmental degradation and traffic congestion. Those are the main reasons why planners need to exist today. The private sector does not develop to combat these harms. They only care for the needs of the individual consumer, not the community as a whole. It is the urban planner who takes the needs of the community in mind. [...]
How beautifully arrogant! "Without effort 'X,' we'd go to hell in a handbasket."

This totally forgets to mention the risk of unintended consequences (e.g., increased crime) and the problems of public choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory).

I concede that externalities are a problem, but hamfisted centralized control is no solution.


[...] New Urbanism is just another option in the marketplace. We don't advocate everyone live this way. But don't you think it's a good idea for the people who are sick of spending 30 minutes plus stuck in traffic jams every day in smog filled metropolitan areas?
I agree that choice is good -- as an architectural motif, New Urbanism might be appealing. But doesn't consumer choice mitigate any positive effect from the planning, whose necessity you argue above?


There are many cities where mass transportation is widely used and people don't mind it. Why so many Americans feel they need their cars no matter what, I still can't figure out. They certainly cost enough money to own, fuel and maintain compared to mass transportation.
Many people like their space. They're willing to tolerate long commutes to have their 1/4 acre, a backyard and a garage. Is this poor socialization/materialism or innate? I would argue for the latter. In peaceful civilzations, there have always been suburban/subrural development.

[s]

Smart Growth and the Ideal City (http://ti.org/vaupdate53.html)

I find it fascinating that you brought the link between urban planning and fascism. While I strongly believe in planning our urban and suburban areas, I also believe lifestyle to be a personal choice. Most cities can stand some infilling, but there is a point when density threatens the character of some older cities. Inner city neighborhoods often cry "not in my backyard" when high rises are being planned, because of the traffic, both foot and vehicle, through neighborhoods. Also, the right to live in any setting, rural, suburban or urban should be respected. Plenty of people flee the city and plenty flee the country to live in the city once their needs and wants are not fulfilled.

Mixed-use development is also not only limited to cities, but also are appearing more frequently in suburban towns. It is far too lazy to assume all suburbs are the poorly planned rows of homes popularized in the 80's (oddly enough many of those homes are now "in town"). Many suburbs are encouraging more jobs, so that they will become more than just "bedroom communities." I know of one particular suburban town that boasts a new mixed-use town center and acres and acres of parkland. This suburban town also is giving its main drag a new facelift thanks to some crafty urban planners and will have rail access soon enough. I think focusing on making existing and new communities more sustainable IS becoming more popular, because it increases the property's value and is more aesthetically pleasing. People showing strong interest in these communities will encourage supply for the demand, prompting developers to take note.

Suburbs are not evil. Many of these towns were here long before a developer put up a billboard. Poor planning of suburban towns should not be confused as a reason for making a villain out of people wanting a patch of earth to call their own. I love the city, but I do love my garden and MY trees. I want to be able to hear my sparrows chirp outside my window and I want to hear crickets in the summer. I want to be able to open my window and feel the cool breeze and SILENCE. I want to walk to my neighborhood parks by way of my tree-lined streets and have many of the conveniences of urban living. Kids play in the front yards by the dozens and people say hi to each other because they go to the same grocery store, their kids to the same schools, and frequent the same eateries. The same lifestyle quality that I enjoy (modest sized energy efficient new/rennovated home, neighborhood amenities, schools, aesthetic value) would be only affordable to very affluent if I moved less than 20 miles towards downtown. Communities should be fairly self-contained and have easy access to other areas by highways, rails, and buses.

A note about cars...

Americans love cars and I think that should not come as a surprise. It is a part of our culture, so I doubt anyone is going to just start riding a bus all of the time. Cars are not evil, but should be run on alternative forms of fuel or at the very least be extremely fuel-efficient. Cars should have improved mileage and ideally certain entities would be held accountable by the general public. Also, there are tons of things such as power plants and chemical plants that pollute our environment and make a number of communities POISONED. I hear far less about this than I do about SUV's from armchair environmentalists. If you pay a high electric bill, support pesticide sprayed produce, and purchase a good deal of plastics and products with chemicals, you are just as guilty of pollution as a heavy commuter.


"The core of Nazi rural socialism was the idea that land-use must be planned. Gottfried Feder was a leading Nazi charged with the duty of formulating such policy. He made a speech in Berlin in 1934 in which he stated that the right to build homes or factories or to use land according to the personal interests of owners was to be abolished. The government instead would dictate how land was to be used and what would be constructed on it."

Interesting stuff, eh?

More here: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/ecology/nazi_ecology.htm

[Hypnos]

s:

a) Where, and how, would you draw the line between necessary planning and intrusion?

b) Did you just fulfill Godwin's Law? ;)

[s]

s:

a) Where, and how, would you draw the line between necessary planning and intrusion?

b) Did you just fulfill Godwin's Law? ;)


a) Let me get back with you on that... carpal. tunnel. setting... in...

b) [laughter] I had been waiting to use that lovely card.


G'night gentleman.

[coffeezombie]

Mixed use centers basically are New Urbanism, s, at least how I define it. If suburban areas develop like this, I am all for it. What I have a problem with is the unnecessary separation of land uses through zoning. There is an illusion that planners are some kind of fascists imposing their ideas on others. It is private developers who through offering so few alternatives to the cookie-cutter subdivision who are the real fascists. Plannners merely attempt to determine through communication with a community and its elected politicians what is best for such community. Most communities do not like traffic congestion, pollution and lack of housing alternatives, and most communities are learning that building new roads and new subdivisions out in the middle of nowhere are not solutions. Instead, they just create more traffic, more pollution and waste precious natural land that could be used for better purposes.

Most visual preference surveys (where pictures are shown to people and rated) in communities across the United States show that people prefer traditional neighborhood development where one can easily walk to employment and retail facilities. People want the traditional "small town" America again, which is what New Urbanism provides. If people could help it, I don't think most would live in the ugly cookie-cutter subdivisions of today. I think they only choose to do so because they feel they have no other choice because small town America is dead. New Urbanism has successfully revived this feeling again in many communities. I don't see what is so fascist about giving people what they really want and educating them that it is possible.

[Shai Gar]

urban planning, covering it in geography, tis a good idea

[Hypnos]

CZ,

I would agree with you that zoning is overdone. What makes it overdone is when it aspires to be more than a device for isolating noise, odor and pollution. People try to impose their white-picket-fence extended-daycare fantasies, when often developers have something more to offer. As I've said, New Urbanism has something to offer if it can operate in the framework of conservative zoning.

However, you seem to subscribe to a much more active vision. Is your premise that even in an environment of limited zoning, developers would fail to deliver what people want? This might be true if reducing land use is a merit good. However, like so many things, this merit good is all fine and dandy to an individual unless (s)he is forced to abide by it: SUVs, schools with busing, mixed-housing developments, etc.

[Robespierre]

Urban Planning is no more moral or effective than economic central planning. Both have failed horribly in the past, not because they got some small detail wrong, but because the underlying premise involved is faulty. Cities and economies are complex systems, and cannot be managed by a central office, no more than the weather can be accurately predicted past 1 week into the future.

And then there's the most damning part, the moral nature of the problem. You all seem to have some idea about how cities should operate. That's all well and good, but everyone else has their own ideas about how cities should operate, more specifically, how their own property within the city should be operated. By what right may any group, appointed or elected, step in and overpower the property owner?

As far as pollution goes, that is a problem that has mainly been created by governments. Without the massive subsidies to the oil, auto, and roadbuilding industries in this country, other forms of transportation would be much more competative. The feds built the inter-state highway system with stolen money which, along with compulsory unionism and many other interventions, killed the railroad industry. Who knows what else may have sprung up in place of the car, had the feds not promoted it so vigorously.

[Robespierre]

There is an illusion that planners are some kind of fascists imposing their ideas on others.

How is that an illusion? What do planners do? They plan. And what do they do with those plans? They implement them with the full force of their local government. I'd say that's "imposing their ideas on others".


It is private developers who through offering so few alternatives to the cookie-cutter subdivision who are the real fascists.

Okay, this is just absurd. You take those who actually use violence to get what they want, and defend them. Then, you take those who operate on a completely voluntary basis, and label them fascists? By what right? So you don't like the cookie-cutter homes? Has a developer threatened to imprison you if you don't buy one of his cheap, easily contructed homes?

How do you turn something that involves an absolutely voluntary system of decision making, and turn it into a bad thing?

Freedom is slavery?


Plannners merely attempt to determine through communication with a community and its elected politicians what is best for such community.

Again, here we see the real fascism at work. Ask the majority, their will is always supreme, and must be forced upon all others. Why not let individuals decide what is best for themselves? Or do you suppose that the little people aren't smart enough to decide where and how to live?


Most communities do not like traffic congestion,

And yet the government monopoly on roads continues. You'd think people would have figured it out by now that central planning of complex systems is impossible, and detrimental to the health and wealth of all it's imposed upon.


waste precious natural land that could be used for better purposes.

Better according to whom? According to those people who owned the land and wanted to sell it to developers? Or better according to those who wanted to build homes there? There is no objective "better purpose" that some plannners can devise. The best purpose is that which the owner chooses. Beyond that, it's merely a matter of taste.


Most visual preference surveys (where pictures are shown to people and rated) in communities across the United States show that people prefer traditional neighborhood development where one can easily walk to employment and retail facilities. People want the traditional "small town" America again, which is what New Urbanism provides.

People would also prefer to live in a mansion and have an in-ground swimming pool in their backyard. Cost is the issue. In your arrogance, you would deny a large portion of the working-poor the opportunity to own a home. And for what? So that those who drive by on the way to the planner's office don't have to look at "cookie-cutter" homes?


If people could help it, I don't think most would live in the ugly cookie-cutter subdivisions of today.

What makes you think they can't help it?


I think they only choose to do so because they feel they have no other choice because small town America is dead. New Urbanism has successfully revived this feeling again in many communities. I don't see what is so fascist about giving people what they really want and educating them that it is possible.

The truly fascistic aspect of this whole idea is that you or any planner could possibly presume to know what people really want. If that is your ultimate goal, why not let the individual decide what he really wants? Or will you "educate" about what they really should want?

Also, the reliance upon executing the will of the people, or "der volksgemanschaft" as Hitler would call it, will necessarily remove the individual liberties of most of those whom you are trying to save from themselves.

[MacGuffin]

Urban Planning is no more moral or effective than economic central planning. Both have failed horribly in the past, not because they got some small detail wrong, but because the underlying premise involved is faulty. Cities and economies are complex systems, and cannot be managed by a central office, no more than the weather can be accurately predicted past 1 week into the future.

And then there's the most damning part, the moral nature of the problem. You all seem to have some idea about how cities should operate. That's all well and good, but everyone else has their own ideas about how cities should operate, more specifically, how their own property within the city should be operated. By what right may any group, appointed or elected, step in and overpower the property owner?

As far as pollution goes, that is a problem that has mainly been created by governments. Without the massive subsidies to the oil, auto, and roadbuilding industries in this country, other forms of transportation would be much more competative. The feds built the inter-state highway system with stolen money which, along with compulsory unionism and many other interventions, killed the railroad industry. Who knows what else may have sprung up in place of the car, had the feds not promoted it so vigorously.
Ah more libertarian BS.

It is possible to study large groups of humans living in close proximity to each other and design a system that makes living efficient. No different than designing a legal system, financial system, etc. There is no management once the system is in place. The property owners (who buy into the system at the beginning) can change things as problems arise.

And the railroad industry? The one that was created by the federal government giving out massive land grants? Not the best example of free market enterprise.

[MacGuffin]

Okay, this is just absurd. You take those who actually use violence to get what they want, and defend them. Then, you take those who operate on a completely voluntary basis, and label them fascists? By what right? So you don't like the cookie-cutter homes? Has a developer threatened to imprison you if you don't buy one of his cheap, easily contructed homes?
Are cookie cutter subdivisions planned out? Hmmmm.....


The truly fascistic aspect of this whole idea is that you or any planner could possibly presume to know what people really want. If that is your ultimate goal, why not let the individual decide what he really wants? Or will you "educate" about what they really should want?
Why do you assume that urban planners don't know what people want? Isn't that their job? If they did it so badly, wouldn't people hate the result and they'd be out of a job? Aren't local governments elected by the people? Aren't the people in local governments your neighbors? People you know? Why would they remain elected if they don't give the electorate what they want?

[Robespierre]

Ah more libertarian BS.

It is possible to study large groups of humans living in close proximity to each other and design a system that makes living efficient.

Efficient to what end? This is where the fascism comes in. You have decided that there is ONE end to which society can strive. All who disagree, get their property stolen and or tossed in jail.


No different than designing a legal system

Exactly. And centrally dictated legal systems work just as well as centrally planned economies, which is to say, they work for those who do the planning.


financial system, etc.

Are you saying that a centrally planned economy is "effcient"?


There is no management once the system is in place. The property owners (who buy into the system at the beginning) can change things as problems arise.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.


And the railroad industry? The one that was created by the federal government giving out massive land grants? Not the best example of free market enterprise.

The railroad industry was actually destroyed by government land grants. Like all industries, there are those with politicial connections who use them to get some advantages for their business. As railroads began, they had to respect property rights, and purchase the right-of-way from local owners. Ever heard of the Great Northern Railroad? That was a transcontinental line built entirely without government money or land-grabs.

The point is, the railroads were run a-ground by politically connected businessmen who got truck-loads of cash from the government, had indians eradicated so they could steal their land, and numerous other notorious crimes. These government connected groups made it impossible for most honest railroads to compete.

[MacGuffin]

Efficient to what end? This is where the fascism comes in. You have decided that there is ONE end to which society can strive. All who disagree, get their property stolen and or tossed in jail.Yeah, that's me alright.

One end? There are many ends. I just believe one can study human interactions and come to conclusions about them.


Exactly. And centrally dictated legal systems work just as well as centrally planned economies, which is to say, they work for those who do the planning.

Are you saying that a centrally planned economy is "effcient"?No. But a capitalist system backed up by a legal system is several steps above stone age bartering.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.The planning takes place before the property is purchased. Those that don't like it can go elsewhere. It is a free country.


The railroad industry was actually destroyed by government land grants. Like all industries, there are those with politicial connections who use them to get some advantages for their business. As railroads began, they had to respect property rights, and purchase the right-of-way from local owners. Ever heard of the Great Northern Railroad? That was a transcontinental line built entirely without government money or land-grabs.

The point is, the railroads were run a-ground by politically connected businessmen who got truck-loads of cash from the government, had indians eradicated so they could steal their land, and numerous other notorious crimes. These government connected groups made it impossible for most honest railroads to compete.Wait, I thought it was cars?

[Robespierre]

Are cookie cutter subdivisions planned out? Hmmmm.....

Of course, by the owner, or does that distinction mean nothing to you?


Why do you assume that urban planners don't know what people want?

Suppose by some miracle that they DID know what everyone wanted. Could they possibly give everyone what they want? Never. They might be able to satisfy the majority for some short period of time, but it always and inevitably boils down to operating the system in the best interests of the planners.


Isn't that their job?

Exactly the problem. Their job is to do the impossible, which of course, cannot be done. There exists no objectively agreed upon most efficient way to run society, and trying to force one upon society is disgusting and wrong.


If they did it so badly, wouldn't people hate the result and they'd be out of a job?

Only if those people who hate the result are in the majority. What if 1% of the people hate the result? Should that 1% be forced to go along with the planners? Do the ends justify the means?


Aren't local governments elected by the people?

Democracy is a complete sham. Imposing one of a few choices based upon a majority vote is in no way a legitimate form of government.


Aren't the people in local governments your neighbors? People you know? Why would they remain elected if they don't give the electorate what they want?

The majority of voters has no more a right to decide how I use my property than does a planner.

[Robespierre]

Yeah, that's me alright.

One end? There are many ends. I just believe one can study human interactions and come to conclusions about them.

Indeed one can. But imposing those conclusions at the point of a gun is not okay.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec1.asp


No. But a capitalist system backed up by a legal system is several steps above stone age bartering.

It certainly is. This is why no one here is advocating stone age bartering. At least as far as I know. Perhaps there are some so far down the socialist road as to suggest an economy that is ONLY planned, with no money allowed.


The planning takes place before the property is purchased. Those that don't like it can go elsewhere. It is a free country.

And what of all the pre-existing cities? This is not actually how planning works. The governments change the rules on property owners all the time. The rules are constantly shifting to best suit those with political power, be it the majority of voters or some special business interest.


Wait, I thought it was cars?

No defense then?

There are many factors involved in the demise of the railroads. Government action being the common factor in all of them.

[MacGuffin]

Of course, by the owner, or does that distinction mean nothing to you?
And why does that make it better?


Suppose by some miracle that they DID know what everyone wanted. Could they possibly give everyone what they want? Never. They might be able to satisfy the majority for some short period of time, but it always and inevitably boils down to operating the system in the best interests of the planners.
So cynical...


Exactly the problem. Their job is to do the impossible, which of course, cannot be done. There exists no objectively agreed upon most efficient way to run society, and trying to force one upon society is disgusting and wrong.
Society determines its own path. It is not an outside influence.


Only if those people who hate the result are in the majority. What if 1% of the people hate the result? Should that 1% be forced to go along with the planners? Do the ends justify the means?
Then don't buy in. Simple. Go somewhere else.


Democracy is a complete sham. Imposing one of a few choices based upon a majority vote is in no way a legitimate form of government.
What is a legitimate form of government?


The majority of voters has no more a right to decide how I use my property than does a planner.
[scoffs] Maybe, one day your uptopia will arrive. Until then you will be just as frustrated as your shadow brothers = the Marxists.

[Robespierre]

And why does that make it better?

Because violence is something to be avoided.


So cynical...

Absolutely I am. What ration person wouldn't be cynical in a world that values the mob's opinion above that of the individual?


Society determines its own path. It is not an outside influence.

So this "society" sits down, and plans out its path?


Then don't buy in. Simple. Go somewhere else.

Sounds simple, but this is never how planning operates. They take pre-existing cities, and force their plans upon the property owners in that city.

Another problem with this idea, those doing the planning must OWN the land upon which they are planning for their plans to be moral in any way.


What is a legitimate form of government?

Any form which is entirely voluntary.


[scoffs] Maybe, one day your uptopia will arrive. Until then you will be just as frustrated as your shadow brothers = the Marxists.

You can insult me all you like, it doesn't add to your case for central planning in the real-estate market.

Will you suggest to me that planned economies are efficient? You have yet to explain how central planning can ever be efficient, even if there were some universally agreed upon goal.

[crule81]

There simply needs to be some kind some kind of balance. Yes, the high-density apartment slabs that result from excessive planning are distasteful, but so are decaying and sprawled cities that result from short-sightedness and a lack of planning. As a example of the latter, I need not physically move an inch, as I am in the midst of the worst disaster in the Western World that has resulted for the lack of urban planning: the Detroit Metropolitan Area. The overwhelming influence of the auto industry and racism (this is the most racist metropolitan area in America, period) has created a city that is essentially currently developed like a donut. That is, the city is rotting and not very densely populated. There is no significant public transportation system. The buses do not run to many areas and everything is so spread out and traffic so heavy that busing simply does not make sense. Suburban communities do not want buses in their area because it brings black people to their towns. The city has no interest in public transportation out to the suburbs because of animosity toward white people. What happened was that white people were so freaked out by the riot in 1967 that they packed up and moved to the suburbs. Even the working class could afford this since, working for the auto industry and related areas, they received good wages and cars at a significantly discounted price. No public transportation was needed to get them around so none was built. Urban planners should have stepped in early to stop the trends that eventually led to problems that seem so insolvable today, but it didn't happen. Being the conservative that I am on most issues, I hate to say that government intervention could be the only way to save the area. My urban plan for Detroit is 1. public transportation - just a skeletal framework of rails that can be built on later. 2. the government just condemns huge tracts of land in the City and kicks everybody out who's living there and starts from scratch with developments (also the Mich Supreme Court basically ruled this kind of thing to be unconstitutional under the state constitution)

Another thing one must understand is that urban planning has a component that is based on art and not just economics. There's a subjective component that cannot be measured in terms of efficiency, commuting time, etc. Of course, one must delve into the question of whether artists should be allowed to impose their art on others in a way that not only affects aesthetics, but directly affects the everyday life of those who live in an area. I believe a problem is that people are more willing to accept the "invisible hand" of the collective choices of their peers than a mandate handed down by the government.

[Robespierre]

As a example of the latter, I need not physically move an inch, as I am in the midst of the worst disaster in the Western World that has resulted for the lack of urban planning: the Detroit Metropolitan Area.

Lack of planning? Who built the interstate highway system? Housing projects? Section-8 housing? Welfare? St.louis suffers, to a slightly lesser degree, the same problems as detroit, and those problems can never be solved by central planning, but are a direct result of past planning.

Perhaps when compared with the planning that went on in the Soviet Union, one could suggest Detroit lacked planning. But for a free people, the amount of intervention and imposition imposed upon the large urban areas of the US in no way lacks planning.

[crule81]

Lack of planning? Who built the interstate highway system? Housing projects? Section-8 housing? Welfare? St.louis suffers, to a slightly lesser degree, the same problems as detroit, and those problems can never be solved by central planning, but are a direct result of past planning.

Perhaps when compared with the planning that went on in the Soviet Union, one could suggest Detroit lacked planning. But for a free people, the amount of intervention and imposition imposed upon the large urban areas of the US in no way lacks planning.

All major cities in the US have all of the things you mention above, so it doesn't doesn't explain why Detroit is much worse than any other American city in so many areas. In any event, the interstate highway system has less impact now in this area since people don't commute from the suburbs to the central city, but from one suburb to another and the limited-access highways aren't very good at going from suburb to suburb. I'm not saying that the government should always interfere and create problems where there are few, but that in drastic cases, such as Detroit, it may be needed.

[Robespierre]

In any event, the interstate highway system has less impact now in this area since people don't commute from the suburbs to the central city, but from one suburb to another and the limited-access highways aren't very good at going from suburb to suburb.

Perhaps now the highways play less a role, but intially, they enabled the white flight. You may call it racism, and in some aspects for some individuals, it may well be. But it cannot be denied that the neighborhoods that these people fled took a serious turn for the worse, before the flight. People didn't just leave because blacks moved in, they left because crime went up, property values went down, and a whole host of other issues related to the decline of urban neighborhoods.


I'm not saying that the government should always interfere and create problems where there are few, but that in drastic cases, such as Detroit, it may be needed.

The problem that has been created in detroit, has also been solved, to the degree that people are allowed to solve their own problems, by the people in detroit. Government meddling helped destroy neighborhoods and uproot lives, so people re-arranged themselves into new neighborhoods and got on with their lives. Eliminate the government interventions that caused the problem in the first place, and business, followed by people, will soon return to the center, for most of the same reasons that brought them there to begin with.

[coffeezombie]

Robespierre, urban planning began as a field in order to maintain libertarian values, not to destroy them. Early court cases dealt with industry owners placing their factories too close to residential property, and thus destroying any economic value that their property had, not to mention the cost to human health. Is this the kind of society that you want to live in, where anybody can put anything next to anything else and economically deprive others because of their selfishness? I doubt you'd want to lose any money as a residential land owner on your land investment due to the greedy self-interests of some industrial capitalist.

[Ka.avik]

Robespierre, [...] I doubt you'd want to lose any money as a residential land owner on your land investment due to the greedy self-interests of some industrial capitalist. If I read him right elsewhere, it seems he'd rather chase the industry away with his own atomic bomb, rather then rely on government to enforce some arbitrary regulation that could always be purchased away by the rich industry.

Not sure I agree, not sure I disagree...

[Robespierre]

Robespierre, urban planning began as a field in order to maintain libertarian values, not to destroy them. Early court cases dealt with industry owners placing their factories too close to residential property, and thus destroying any economic value that their property had, not to mention the cost to human health.

And those with political influence at the time, pressured the government to condone such tresspasses.

The intentions or origins of Urban Planning cannot excuse the wrong inherent in it.


Is this the kind of society that you want to live in, where anybody can put anything next to anything else and economically deprive others because of their selfishness?

Not at all, and without a government allowing people to do just that, we would be a lot closer to a society that respects the individual.

You have the absolute freedom to use your property, so long as you respect the rights of others to do so. I've been consistent with that all along.


I doubt you'd want to lose any money as a residential land owner on your land investment due to the greedy self-interests of some industrial capitalist.

Mercantilist is the correct term. Capitalism is the free exchange of property.

I want to ask you why you think more government activity can solve a problem that is the sole result of previous government activity?

[Robespierre]

If I read him right elsewhere, it seems he'd rather chase the industry away with his own atomic bomb, rather then rely on government to enforce some arbitrary regulation that could always be purchased away by the rich industry.

Aside from the atomic bomb part, you are partially correct. I prefer to solve any issue without resorting violence if it is possible. In this instance, forcing people to leave their homes, restricting their ability to use their property as they see fit, these are acts of violence. No matter what the aim, violence cannot be justified as a positive policy, it is exclusively justified in direct self-defense.

[sbw]

All major cities in the US have all of the things you mention above, so it doesn't doesn't explain why Detroit is much worse than any other American city in so many areas.

mayor kwame kilpatrick is a crook, for one thing...for another crule, I would submit that detroit (as an entity) had a LOT of money in the first half of the 20th century due to the burgeoning car industry, thus making "white flight" even more convenient for detroiters than for people living in other major cities. (My understanding is that the "white flight" phenomenon occurred in all major american cities.) The drugstore at the corner of the street where my dad's parents lived was burned to the ground during the '67 riots; wouldn't you move out to plymouth?

Scott

[crule81]

mayor kwame kilpatrick is a crook, for one thing...for another crule, I would submit that detroit (as an entity) had a LOT of money in the first half of the 20th century due to the burgeoning car industry, thus making "white flight" even more convenient for detroiters than for people living in other major cities. (My understanding is that the "white flight" phenomenon occurred in all major american cities.) The drugstore at the corner of the street where my dad's parents lived was burned to the ground during the '67 riots; wouldn't you move out to plymouth?

Kwame The Entertainer has only inflicted himself on the city for a few years and is merely another symptom of the problem. My point is that Detroit is much worse than other cities that had riots in the 60's (LA and DC, for example. Newark doesn't count because it was a dump even before that.) and while I believe that the higher income of the working class may be a factor, it was not completely determinative. Every major city has bad neighborhoods, but at least there are some good neighborhoods mixed in. The problem with Detroit is that the "good" neighborhoods are not really that good and usually only extend a few small blocks and are completely surrounded by crime-ridden desolation.

[crule81]

The problem that has been created in detroit, has also been solved, to the degree that people are allowed to solve their own problems, by the people in detroit. Government meddling helped destroy neighborhoods and uproot lives, so people re-arranged themselves into new neighborhoods and got on with their lives. Eliminate the government interventions that caused the problem in the first place, and business, followed by people, will soon return to the center, for most of the same reasons that brought them there to begin with.

I hope so, but the process is moving much, much slower than elsewhere.

[Robespierre]

I hope so, but the process is moving much, much slower than elsewhere.

I can't speak for Detroit, but I see absolutely no let up in the style and amount of meddling in St.Louis that led to the problem.

[sbw]

Every major city has bad neighborhoods, but at least there are some good neighborhoods mixed in. The problem with Detroit is that the "good" neighborhoods are not really that good and usually only extend a few small blocks and are completely surrounded by crime-ridden desolation.

I tell people all the time that detroit is special because the other large cities I've visited (london, chicago, boston) all have nice, upscale areas within the city limits, while detroit (proper) is ALL ghetto, with the rich folk (who live in lincoln park, only 2 miles from downtown, in chicago) ALL living an hour away in the suburbs. And yes, I've wondered in the past why this is...

Scott

[coffeezombie]

And those with political influence at the time, pressured the government to condone such tresspasses.

Wrong. Where did you get this information? What existed before the police power and zoning was basically a libertarian land use system.



Not at all, and without a government allowing people to do just that, we would be a lot closer to a society that respects the individual.

Wrong. You fail to argue how the ability of a next door neighbor to destroy your land investment with his own freedom to do what he wants with his land is a good thing. Without government controlling the use of public goods, you have problems such as air, noise and light pollution. You can go to war if you want with your neighbor, but then there is a chance you will die. Most people aren't willing to live like that.



You have the absolute freedom to use your property, so long as you respect the rights of others to do so. I've been consistent with that all along.


That's fine. I'll start a petrochemical factory right next door to your house then. Sounds fun. Of course there are the soldiers with guns to shoot you once you trespass on my property when you try to get me to stop.



I want to ask you why you think more government activity can solve a problem that is the sole result of previous government activity?

No, government is preventing people from selfishly destroying each other's land investments because of conflicting land uses. The problem is not government, it is people's selfishness. If government does anything to deprive people of land rights, it is because of majority will. If you decide to dump nuclear waste on your land and 99% of the community does not want it there, you have no right to harm the community just because of your individual land rights.

[coffeezombie]

Oh, by the way, how does government interference cause racism? Detroit is bad because people are unwilling to live near poor minorities who are going to be in the central city no matter what because the housing stock is old. If the government did not intervene, the problem would be worse because not only would Detroit be a ghetto, it would be a ghetto full of decaying houses and no newer housing projects, basically a third-world country.

[jread]

I don't think everyone should live in commie-blocks, but I do think the best solution for us is to go back to the traditional neighborhood. These neighborhoods still allow everyone to have their own home and lawn, but also integrate parks, walkable streets, neighborhood shops, etc. into the neighborhoods. There is more mixed-use and mixed-income development. The suburban design is very segregated, seperating everyone into little "pods" of homes where they only live around people who are exactly like them.

To understand what I mean by traditional neighborhood, go look at a very old, inner-city neighborhood in any major city. Now, imagine back in the day when that place was still very nice (if it isn't anymore).... that's the kind of place I'm talking about.

[jread]

Oh, by the way, how does government interference cause racism? Detroit is bad because people are unwilling to live near poor minorities who are going to be in the central city no matter what because the housing stock is old. If the government did not intervene, the problem would be worse because not only would Detroit be a ghetto, it would be a ghetto full of decaying houses and no newer housing projects, basically a third-world country.

There are areas like this in some of the wards of innercity Houston. There are areas there that really do look third-world and are not maintained by the City at all. Even the cops stay away from these areas.

[coffeezombie]

There are areas like this in some of the wards of innercity Houston. There are areas there that really do look third-world and are not maintained by the City at all. Even the cops stay away from these areas.

I agree that the huge commie-block housing projects were not a good solution, but I don't think that the government shouldn't stop trying to build something resembling a new neighborhood for poorer people. Of course, like you say, ideally it would be mixed income where there wouldn't be an appearance of "class separation" in the neighborhood. There are ways to build so that people with more money can get larger places, people with little money get smaller places and yet the architectural unity is maintained within the neighborhood.

[Robespierre]

Wrong. Where did you get this information? What existed before the police power and zoning was basically a libertarian land use system.

Are you telling me that the first intercontinental railroad was built according to libertarian pricnciples? I hope somebody told the native americans that before the USG shot or evicted them. Eminent Domain and various other government tricks were a big part of the well-connected rail-road tycoon's strategy in the late 19th century.


Wrong. You fail to argue how the ability of a next door neighbor to destroy your land investment with his own freedom to do what he wants with his land is a good thing.

You well know I would never argue such a thing, as such an activity represents violence. The government legal system ignored the individual's right to be secure in his person and property from tresspassers by allowing pollution from any manner of sources for over 100 years.


Without government controlling the use of public goods,

There is no such thing as a public good.


you have problems such as air, noise and light pollution. You can go to war if you want with your neighbor, but then there is a chance you will die. Most people aren't willing to live like that.

I think you missed the non-violent part, which is easy to understand. You have been promoting the violent solution to these issues since I've been around, so long as those committing the violence agree with you attitudes and tastes.


That's fine. I'll start a petrochemical factory right next door to your house then. Sounds fun. Of course there are the soldiers with guns to shoot you once you trespass on my property when you try to get me to stop.

Are you serious? What happened 100 years ago when this stuff really happened? Where was your precious government? Most people didn't care or even know about the real effects of pollution back then. Then, the only people who cared were those who were directly polluted on, so government ignored their property rights, and allowed industry to proceed without care for those around them. Coercive governments can't solve this problem.


No, government is preventing people from selfishly destroying each other's land investments because of conflicting land uses.

These issues can only be settled by recognizing absolute property rights. No other rational or moral means exists to settle disputes over land usage.


The problem is not government, it is people's selfishness.

Actually, it's both.


If government does anything to deprive people of land rights, it is because of majority will.

And before people gave a crap about the environment, der volksgemanschaft(will of the people) was firmly on the side of industry and "progress". The majority has no more a right to rule than does a king.


If you decide to dump nuclear waste on your land and 99% of the community does not want it there, you have no right to harm the community just because of your individual land rights.

If my nuclear waste harms the community, it doesn't matter that it's my land because I am removing their ability to use their property as they see fit. And if the nuclear waste doesn't effect anyone in the community, it's none of their business.

[jread]

I agree that the huge commie-block housing projects were not a good solution, but I don't think that the government shouldn't stop trying to build something resembling a new neighborhood for poorer people. Of course, like you say, ideally it would be mixed income where there wouldn't be an appearance of "class separation" in the neighborhood. There are ways to build so that people with more money can get larger places, people with little money get smaller places and yet the architectural unity is maintained within the neighborhood.

Exactly!

An excellent example of this can be seen in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington D.C. http://www.georgetowner.com/virtual_tour.html

We also have some areas here in Austin that are like this. Some older neighborhoods have undergone a partial gentrification, though the original residents have not been run out, just some people have moved in and fixed up some old homes and moved into them. So far, everyone seems to get along just fine in this setup.

[Robespierre]

Detroit is bad because people are unwilling to live near poor minorities who are going to be in the central city no matter what because the housing stock is old.

The age of the housing stock has little to do with it. The white flight is not simply people being afraid of blacks. The nieghborhoods that these people once lived in were changed by government spending and various housing programs. These neighborhoods were sacrificed by eager politicians who wanted to look like they were doing something.


If the government did not intervene, the problem would be worse

So white flight is completely the fault of racist whites not wanting to live next to blacks, and more government intervention would solve the problem?


because not only would Detroit be a ghetto, it would be a ghetto full of decaying houses and no newer housing projects, basically a third-world country.

Yeah, not at all like now.

Another big component to this issue is gun control. In most large metropolitan areas, and I assume in Detroit as well, concealed weapons, and sometimes all guns, concealed or otherwise, are banned. People will not live in places where they are subjected to an immense criminal threat and are forcibly prevented from protecting themselves. Even if people wanted to try to stay behind and repair their neighborhoods, they would be risking their lives without the ability to protect themselves. Washington DC is a great example of a gun ban at work.

[Robespierre]

I don't think everyone should live in commie-blocks, but I do think the best solution for us is to go back to the traditional neighborhood. These neighborhoods still allow everyone to have their own home and lawn, but also integrate parks, walkable streets, neighborhood shops, etc. into the neighborhoods. There is more mixed-use and mixed-income development. The suburban design is very segregated, seperating everyone into little "pods" of homes where they only live around people who are exactly like them.

To understand what I mean by traditional neighborhood, go look at a very old, inner-city neighborhood in any major city. Now, imagine back in the day when that place was still very nice (if it isn't anymore).... that's the kind of place I'm talking about.

Are you willing to use force to compell people to live in your ideal neighborhood?

[coffeezombie]

First of all, I dont see how you can say there is no such thing as a public good. The air we all breathe is a public good. It is both non-rival and non-excludable. The air carries many potential harms to others, such as air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution. Unless you build an absolute vaccum around your property, you cannot prevent air from being a public good.

What you interpret as destroying one's viable use of land and what another person does is debatable. This has been at the core of many of the court cases in planning. Nobody will ever agree on this. Therefore, a judicial system is needed to judge such debates. Otherwise, they will be resolved with violence.

Who decides what is whose property anyway? If I want some of your land, why can I not just take it? Does every human get the exact same amount of land in your system, Robespierre? Who will stop someone from trying to take more? Ideally we could all be so unselfish. I don't have a problem with libertarianism if we all knew how to mind each other's business, but we don't. A libertarian system will always end up with a defacto government anyway. Whoever has the most money will just buy up everyone else's land and labor and govern. That is why libertarianism will never work.

[jread]

Are you willing to use force to compell people to live in your ideal neighborhood?

What is your obsession with this use of force thing?

No, I would not use physical force at all. New codes and standards would be created and new development would adhere to them. Same as the way it is now, just a different design.

Portland, Oregon is famous for designating a "no development" ring around the city to keep sprawl at a minimum. It has worked very well and nothing was forceful about it.

[Robespierre]

First of all, I dont see how you can say there is no such thing as a public good. The air we all breathe is a public good. It is both non-rival and non-excludable.

The air itself is not a good, as it is not scarce. It requires no concious effort to obtain, under normal circumstances. It is the use of some air, in a certain space that is scarce. If I want to smoke inside my own home, am I to be prevented because air is a public good?


The air carries many potential harms to others, such as air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution. Unless you build an absolute vaccum around your property, you cannot prevent air from being a public good.

And if you can't do something on your peoperty without disturbing your neighbor(barring his approval of such disturbances), then you have no right to do that something.


What you interpret as destroying one's viable use of land and what another person does is debatable. This has been at the core of many of the court cases in planning. Nobody will ever agree on this. Therefore, a judicial system is needed to judge such debates. Otherwise, they will be resolved with violence.

Let's recap your logic here. The courts have absolutely failed to accomplish this goal in the past, let's get the courts more involved?


Who decides what is whose property anyway?

I know I've explained this more than twice in threads which you were posting.


If I want some of your land, why can I not just take it?

The same reason why I shouldn't walk into your house and take your wallet.


Does every human get the exact same amount of land in your system, Robespierre?

No Coffeezombie, they don't. Unless of course they all freely decide to distribute the land amongst themselves evenly, but that would be foolish and is fairly unlikely.


Who will stop someone from trying to take more?

More than what? From whom?


Ideally we could all be so unselfish. I don't have a problem with libertarianism if we all knew how to mind each other's business, but we don't. A libertarian system will always end up with a defacto government anyway. Whoever has the most money will just buy up everyone else's land and labor and govern. That is why libertarianism will never work.

You repeat this position a lot, but never defend it. Why would people sell off their land and labor for nothing, and accept servitude? You're condemnation relies upon faith that humans will act against their own best interests as they see them. For libertarianism to work, it relies upon the assumption that people always act in their own best interests as they see them. And since you have already granted this, I don't see why you continue to suggest that libertarianism is anything but ultimately practical?

[Robespierre]

What is your obsession with this use of force thing?

No, I would not use physical force at all. New codes and standards would be created and new development would adhere to them. Same as the way it is now, just a different design.

Why would people adhere to them? What if they don't? Do you suppose that the zoning ordinances are obeyed because everyone who owns property agrees with them? Of course not, the whole system rests on violence. If you disobey the rules, they come and get you. Simple. I'm not the one obsessed with the use of force.


Portland, Oregon is famous for designating a "no development" ring around the city to keep sprawl at a minimum. It has worked very well and nothing was forceful about it.

Yeah, works great if you love rampant homelessness and heroin junkies.

And what of those who owned property in the "no development" ring? Do their rights just evaporate because the intellectuals put in charge of Portland don't like sprawl?

How about this, to prevent sprawl, stop subsidising it by paying for roads. Simply stop building government roads.

[MacGuffin]

What is your obsession with this use of force thing?
Don't worry about it. It is how you identify libertarian nutjobs, the same way the use of "bourgeois" helps you identify communist nutjobs.

[Ka.avik]

The problem is not government, it is people's selfishness. agreed.

Didn't one of the US' founding fathers say something about government being a fickle servant & a timid master?
...
The solution, as I see it, is more belief in altruism. And more machine guns.

Altruism, because it can be used to overcome one's selfishness.

Machine guns, because it will make other's refusal to be altruistic more expensive for them, thus encouraging a much-delayed selfishness.

[MacGuffin]

And if you can't do something on your peoperty without disturbing your neighbor(barring his approval of such disturbances), then you have no right to do that something.
Good luck stopping someone with no government.

[Hypnos]

Good luck stopping someone with no government.
Heh heh. Yeah, that's something most libertarians come to terms with. That and transaction costs.

[Robespierre]

Transaction costs is such a weak argument... It suggests that right and wrong don't matter, only efficiency.

Most people want to get married and have kids, wouldn't it be easier if we just appointed people as couples and made them have 2 kids? I mean think of all the cost involved of actually finding a mate and courting him or her. So much waste!

[Ka.avik]

Heh heh. Yeah, that's something most libertarians come to terms with. That and transaction costs. Machine guns, I'm telling yahttp://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/spam_laser.gif

Another forum has a member whose .sig says:
"Now that I think of it, violence has a rich tradition of putting the world aright!" ~Baughb the Elf

[MacGuffin]

Transaction costs is such a weak argument... It suggests that right and wrong don't matter, only efficiency.

Most people want to get married and have kids, wouldn't it be easier if we just appointed people as couples and made them have 2 kids? I mean think of all the cost involved of actually finding a mate and courting him or her. So much waste!
*coughs*straw man*coughs*

[jread]

Why would people adhere to them? What if they don't? Do you suppose that the zoning ordinances are obeyed because everyone who owns property agrees with them? Of course not, the whole system rests on violence. If you disobey the rules, they come and get you. Simple. I'm not the one obsessed with the use of force.


If they don't, then they won't be allowed to build or their home can be taken away, no different than the way it is now. You have to have some kind of order or there would be complete chaos. It has been proven throughout history that the general public is too stupid to make the right decisions on their own.


Yeah, works great if you love rampant homelessness and heroin junkies.

I don't see how any of these problems have anything to do with Portland's development standards. Apples and Oranges.


And what of those who owned property in the "no development" ring? Do their rights just evaporate because the intellectuals put in charge of Portland don't like sprawl?

If I'm not mistaken, the land is owned by the City government. If it was owned by other landowners, then it was probably bought from them.


How about this, to prevent sprawl, stop subsidising it by paying for roads. Simply stop building government roads.

That's a great idea as well. The problem with traffic and sprawl is that the local governments keep building more roads, exacerbating the problem.

[Ka.avik]

Most people want to get married and have kids, wouldn't it be easier if we just appointed people as couples and made them have 2 kids? I mean think of all the cost involved of actually finding a mate and courting him or her. So much waste!
You're joking, but...didn't China do this? I know in general the orient has a rich tradition of arranged marrieges. It's not exactly like the orient has collapsed from the inhumanity of the human creature.

[Hypnos]

Robespierre:

You need to do two things --

a) Establish what you consider a merit good. It seems that you have adopted libertarian political principles as moral principles.

b) Proscribed by this morality, make economic arguments. Right now, your economic arguments (e.g., inefficiency of central planning) are overlapping with your moral arguments (e.g, tyranny of central planning).

My libertarianism is of a different variety. People want what they want; there's commonality, and variation. Morality is a commodity that is necessarily poorly allocated, not a principle of nature ("self-evidence" is a vacuous argument). I see the free market w/ selected gov't control of externalities as a practical (and practicable) political system.

This is why I identify myself as a "Goldwater republican."

[s]

Many new Austin suburban neighborhoods have multi-family housing (thus mixing people of varying incomes), parks, smaller lots (less than a 1/8 of an acre), a school, and a shopping center or two with an HEB grocery store as an anchor-- all with native materials and landscaping. I think it is a good step in the right direction and an attempt to revisit to early suburban neighborhoods like Austin's Hyde Park. Smart growth initiatives can be found in areas far removed from downtown, a place where affordable housing is extinct.

*A note about gentrification: it has been a huge problem for many people in Austin that do not have a tax break like the ones given to the elderly or owners of historic homes, and MUCH has been reported on this subject in local business journals and news outlets. Property values increase, then property taxes follow suit, which can easily make a home unaffordable in a matter of even a couple years. Gentrification is both negative and positive result of "white flight" into a neighborhood, rather than out.


In general, I believe that urban planning should come from tax incentives, if it is in the "interest of the public" (whether you believe in such a concept or not) and not at the expense of individuals. Often tax incentives are abused, but it is the public that needs to take ownership in the checks and balances of our system. "Money talks and bullshit walks," so making smart growth an attractive choice financially is far more effective than belittling suburbanites, who just want the same thing inner city traditional neighborhood residents want-- to afford the American dream. All of us cannot live in the central part of a city for a variety of reasons, so suburbs, like satellites, must surround the larger city. The planting of native plants and trees and setting aside parklands, adding multi-use high density buildings, and communities developing their own identities will all enhance our physical environments and lifestyles.

Population growth is the bane and blessing of municipalities. As population booms (and it will continue to grow unless a plague or war wipes plenty of us out), cities and towns will grow and evolve. I think "zero population growth" beliefs counter our instinct to survive as a human race. I find it ironic some people want population growth slowed, but some of the same people ban smoking in bars, add seatbelt laws, and whine about McDonalds super sizing food... all counteractive ways to limit population. If anyone wants to live in a cramped apartment, raise children on a questionable street or rent chronically JUST so they will not contribute to sprawl, then I tip my hat to them.

Ah, Darwinism...

[Hypnos]

s,

Thanks for replying. I would agree on first blush that the public themselves must take charge of public interest, and that tax incentives are a sensible way to penalize behaviors costly to the public at large. The problem I see is that public choice is rarely effective in deciding what is _actually costly_. The common failures are that voters can't always know what they want in sophisticated topics like pollution, and that special interests can manipulate this ignorance to actually increase societal costs for their own benefit. California's statewide referenda are a perfect example of this absurdity.

In short, public choice only works at the neighborhood/town level where issues are concrete and voting power is high (a model used in much of New England). The hope here is that "smart" growth can be effected on the same scale, through self-determination.

[s]

s,


In short, public choice only works at the neighborhood/town level where issues are concrete and voting power is high (a model used in much of New England). The hope here is that "smart" growth can be effected on the same scale, through self-determination.

I agree completely.

"Think globally, act locally."

[coffeezombie]

Thanks for replying. I would agree on first blush that the public themselves must take charge of public interest, and that tax incentives are a sensible way to penalize behaviors costly to the public at large. The problem I see is that public choice is rarely effective in deciding what is _actually costly_. The common failures are that voters can't always know what they want in sophisticated topics like pollution, and that special interests can manipulate this ignorance to actually increase societal costs for their own benefit. California's statewide referenda are a perfect example of this absurdity.


How do land developers know any better about sophisticated topics like pollution? In fact, they often don't even live in the communities they develop for and care less about the traffic and environmental damages their developments might cause. This is another reason why urban planners are needed. It's ridiculous to say that the people who live in a community know less about its local issues than greedy developers, and of course, you're anti-urban planner, the supposed expert who should know about this stuff most of all.

[Hypnos]

CZ: Did you even read the last paragraph of the post you quote from? It's the one quoted by s. I simply argue for the economic limitations of central planning and public choice. And, can you fault "greedy" developers for giving people what they want?

[Robespierre]

*coughs*straw man*coughs*

I'm getting a little tired of hearing the "straw man" argument coming up, especially when it doesn't apply. If you wish to attack my statement, you could call it a false analogy, but it is not a straw man.

[Robespierre]

If they don't, then they won't be allowed to build or their home can be taken away, no different than the way it is now.

And you still hold that this is non-violent? What if those people don't WANT their homes taken away? Will you have the police drag them out of their homes?


You have to have some kind of order or there would be complete chaos.

Of course, civilized life isn't possible without order. This is why governments are not very good at being civilized, as they provide very little order.


It has been proven throughout history that the general public is too stupid to make the right decisions on their own.

And here we get down to the heart of the issue, INTp arrogance. You are too stupid to have freedom, but I am smart enough. If you don't agree with me, you will be coerced into agreement. I think we have finally found the fascism here.


If I'm not mistaken, the land is owned by the City government. If it was owned by other landowners, then it was probably bought from them.

And I'm sure they had a choice in the matter, right?


That's a great idea as well. The problem with traffic and sprawl is that the local governments keep building more roads, exacerbating the problem.

I'm not saying there should be no roads, I just want to government to stop funding sprawl. Government is the cause, not the solution of the sprawl issue.

[Robespierre]

You're joking, but...didn't China do this? I know in general the orient has a rich tradition of arranged marrieges. It's not exactly like the orient has collapsed from the inhumanity of the human creature.

Okay, here's one vote for a federal mate-finding program. I suppose some might actually support such a monsterous program. I am reminded of the comic store guy proposing using the vulcan mating cycle, everyone may mate every 7 years. "For some, this means much less mating. For me, much much more."

[Biff_Loman]

With all the discussion lately of an impending oil peak, the answer seems obvious to me. As long as liquid fuel - or some other portable energy source - is widely available, there will be incredible pressure towards living in the suburbs. Most people don't like density.

Density is only attractive when transportation is inaffordable. In the 1890s, the wealthy in Buenos Aires lived in suburbs, and commuted to the city center via privately owned horse-drawn trolleys. I am not sure how they solved the "last mile" dilemma, but I suspect they walked.

As for myself: I hate driving, so I walk whenever possible. My wife and I have been fortunate to have the best of both worlds in our present community to which we just moved. It is a city of 350 000, and is essentially an overgrown town. In many parts of the city, commercial and residential zones are nestled close to each other. Although we live in the basement apartment of a "suburban" house with a generous yard, we can walk to the nearest mall in 10 minutes. It is a five minute walk to the nearest bus stop.

It's a shame we can't seem to figure out how to consistently create this kind of environment. I'll never forget the first time I drove through Scarborough, Ontario (a giant residential zone on the outskirts of Toronto). Around here, we call it Scar-beria. . . Many people have to drive 15 minutes from their home simply to reach a grocery store. It's bizarre.

[Robespierre]

Robespierre:

You need to do two things --

a) Establish what you consider a merit good. It seems that you have adopted libertarian political principles as moral principles.

Okay, I really should keep some of these responses in the can, as the questions come up a lot.

I view morality as a system that defines the right-wrong status of interactions with other humans. If there were only one person on the planet, he would be amoral, because there would be no one for him to interact with. This is a negative sort of definition in that it defines what people should not do only. One should not tresspass another's property. It lays the groundwork for all human interaction. Don't punch someone in the face, unless they approve, as their face is their property. Etc. All basic prohibitions against violence are derived from this.

As far as what *should* be done, that is a matter of ethics. If I see someone laying in the street bleeding to death, it would not be immoral for me to completely ignore this person, as negative prohibitions cannot demand positive actions. And in my opinion, there is no objective way to define ethics, or what should be done. There are many systems proposed, religions, etc. Another word for ethics is values, which is much more illustrative of the meaning I wish to use. People value one action over another, one thing above another, etc. This is a matter of taste.



b) Proscribed by this morality, make economic arguments. Right now, your economic arguments (e.g., inefficiency of central planning) are overlapping with your moral arguments (e.g, tyranny of central planning).

I only bring the economic arguments to attempt to use every weapon to disuade people from supporting coercive governments. I don't find utilitarian arguments compelling at all, but I doubt most people here understand or care about my opinion of morality.


My libertarianism is of a different variety. People want what they want; there's commonality, and variation. Morality is a commodity that is necessarily poorly allocated, not a principle of nature ("self-evidence" is a vacuous argument).

Yet you haven't defined morality for us. If you could do so, it might further the discussion quite a bit.


I see the free market w/ selected gov't control of externalities as a practical (and practicable) political system.

This is why I identify myself as a "Goldwater republican."

So you think that the market can provide good typically consumer items and services, but not other services like defense or roadbuilding?

[Robespierre]

How do land developers know any better about sophisticated topics like pollution?

It makes no difference at all what they know about it, relative to some intellectual in a think-tank or university. The only important factor is whether their neighbors approve or disapprove of their tresspasses, assuming they make any.


In fact, they often don't even live in the communities they develop for and care less about the traffic and environmental damages their developments might cause. This is another reason why urban planners are needed.

Right... because urban planners always live in the communities they destroy... When was the last time you saw a sociology professor walking out of the projects on his way to class?


It's ridiculous to say that the people who live in a community know less about its local issues than greedy developers,

You're on to something here. I'd say more specifically, that it's ridiculous for someone who doesn't own a piece of property to presume to know what is best for the owner to do with it.

[Ka.avik]

Of course, civilized life isn't possible without order. This is why governments are not very good at being civilized, as they provide very little order.
http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/holy.gif :rofl:



And here we get down to the heart of the issue, INTp arrogance. "You are too stupid to have freedom, but I am smart enough. If you don't agree with me, you will be coerced into agreement." I think we have finally found the fascism here.

I am not arrogant. There is no arrogance in observing the truth.
Put a drop cloth over the mirror -- no facist!

OK, OK, I'll need to research a different word, I'm sure, to apply to your mistakes here. But many humans don't have a long-term outlook, and for that, I find government, in the abstract, to be very helpful in improving "things".

Violence is an intrinsic part of human nature. If you want to consider taxes violent, I'd just have to say they're very useful at minimizing overall violence levels.

You could also start your own goverment. I suppose that's what you're trying to do...but it would only work if you have enough people agreeing with you (which, as I've said before, no one here does) to defend your borders from the violence of neighboring governments who want to "tax" your land.

No, really the answer is neither less planning, nor even less government -- it's less people. Now, how to implement it....I, for one, am single, and a virgin. Likely to remain so.

Ah! I'll quietly enforce sterilization by building a nuclear power plant, only...I won't let anyone look over my building methods...and no one can "feel" the pollution. Heck, by the time anyone figures it out, it'll be too late ... no lawsuit, no amount of money will make babies!

Whaddya think?

[Robespierre]

http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/holy.gif :rofl:

So your counter-argument consists of animated emoticons? Not all that convincing...




I am not arrogant. There is no arrogance in observing the truth.
Put a drop cloth over the mirror -- no facist!

OK, OK, I'll need to research a different word, I'm sure, to apply to your mistakes here. But many humans don't have a long-term outlook, and for that, I find government, in the abstract, to be very helpful in improving "things".

And there is an objectively universal outlook and time horizon that ALL people should follow?


Violence is an intrinsic part of human nature. If you want to consider taxes violent, I'd just have to say they're very useful at minimizing overall violence levels.

So we're back to the ends justifying the means.


You could also start your own goverment. I suppose that's what you're trying to do...but it would only work if you have enough people agreeing with you (which, as I've said before, no one here does) to defend your borders from the violence of neighboring governments who want to "tax" your land.

Explain what you mean by that.


No, really the answer is neither less planning, nor even less government -- it's less people. Now, how to implement it....I, for one, am single, and a virgin. Likely to remain so.

Ah! I'll quietly enforce sterilization by building a nuclear power plant, only...I won't let anyone look over my building methods...and no one can "feel" the pollution. Heck, by the time anyone figures it out, it'll be too late ... no lawsuit, no amount of money will make babies!

Whaddya think?

The conversation can be a serious or as joking as you please.

So do you have anything to add?

[Ka.avik]

>So your counter-argument consists of animated emoticons?

That was me coughing my moring coffee out my nose.


And there is an objectively universal outlook and time horizon that ALL people should follow?
There is an objective reality, and we ALL should strive to see it. Timeline matters are in the realm of values, and would still need to be hashed out with those who are effected -- only, how can you? You're neighbors' second cousin-once-removed's great-great grandchildren haven't even been born yet! And since their property will be effected by your decisions now, how can you sit there and tell me that the ends (you using your property today) justify the means (infringing on the property of those yet to come)?


> So we're back to the ends justifying the means.

Noo....just, that you have to choose your master...ya gotta serve somebody, as that-guy-who-cant-sing pointed out. If you choose total pacifism, history shows that you will be violated. If you choose to hire a band of thugs to protect you, they'll become ever-more expensive.

> Explain what you mean by that.

Much the same as my view that there is no difference between goverment and corporation. You can say "no man is an island" ... but I believe every man is an island. We are each a government, having chosen to align with other governments.

Uh, I'm at work so I gotta cut this a bit short...but, I said before we chose this government. We could riot / hunger-strike / whatever, and choose another.

The government we have is suitable for the people who work under it. Otherwise, we'd all get together and change it.

Add? Who says I have Add? I have nothing to Add. Nor do I wish to multiply.
//now, dividing....

[Robespierre]

Uh, I'm at work so I gotta cut this a bit short...but, I said before we chose this government. We could riot / hunger-strike / whatever, and choose another.

Or "we" could just vote in a new government. After all, the majority IS always right...

[Hypnos]

I view morality as a system that defines the right-wrong status of interactions with other humans. [...]

As far as what *should* be done, that is a matter of ethics. [...]
Thanks. However, you do abuse the definitions of morality and ethics (see m-w.com). It would be more consistent to say "my morality/ethics are negative, and do not include personal values."


I only bring the economic arguments to attempt to use every weapon to disuade people from supporting coercive governments. I don't find utilitarian arguments compelling at all, but I doubt most people here understand or care about my opinion of morality.
Eh, an appeal to popularity weakens your argument, IMHO.



Yet you haven't defined morality for us. If you could do so, it might further the discussion quite a bit.
My morality is flexible -- I often surprise myself.

I also think the question is largely orthogonal to the issue of a political economy. People believe what they believe, and changes in political systems can only push it so fast. Amartya Sen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385720270/002-6942603-3255264?v=glance) has interesting insights on this very topic. It will also be interesting to follow the progress of the United States' two nation-building efforts.


So you think that the market can provide good typically consumer items and services, but not other services like defense or roadbuilding?
Essentially. The problem is that certain goods are benefit-to-many, cost-to-many. Examples include common defense, superhighways and nuclear power stations. "Not in my backyard" is just a manifestation of prisoners' dilemma. The common resolutions to this dilemma, contractual communication and reputation from repeated trials, are not available.

Taking the example of nuclear power:

* You want clean nuclear power -- it's clean and techno-cool, and the disaster risk is acceptable. Still, having one near your home would reduce its value. How do you sit down and work this out with your 1 million neighbors?

* A nuclear station takes 10 years to build, test and bring online. Now multiply that by, say, 10 large neighborhoods in your city. With this long timescale and this many players, how can you decide if you're getting a fair shake on risk/unsightliness from your neighbors on megaprojects?

I find the balance that New Hampshire has struck on many fronts between personal liberty and collective issues like nuclear power, urban planning and waterworks to be rather impressive. The abiding principle is to find practical solutions, but to err on the side of liberty and devolution.

[s]

I think developers are no more "greedy" than anyone else trying to make a profit. Land developers are not running a charity nor are all of them building heinous eye sores. If land developers built useless buildings, they would not profit, so they are simply providing a supply for the demand. Appears to me that some "greedy" folks have let down our communities with poor planning, design, and civil engineering.

[coffeezombie]

I think developers are no more "greedy" than anyone else trying to make a profit. Land developers are not running a charity nor are all of them building heinous eye sores. If land developers built useless buildings, they would not profit, so they are simply providing a supply for the demand. Appears to me that some "greedy" folks have let down our communities with poor planning, design, and civil engineering.

How can planners be greedy when so few of them are hired by governmental entities in the first place? It seems to me that the status quo is more anti-planning than anything else. It's the "market" in the form of land developers that are making too many decisions for communities, and they are often unwilling to pay many of the external costs that their developments might impose upon a community because it cuts into their profit margins.

If you think the goal of life is for everybody to try to make as much of a profit as possible like the typical land developer tries to, what a sad, sad life you must live. It amazes me how many people have lost sight of community values in the face of maximizing individual gain for themselves.

[s]

How can planners be greedy when so few of them are hired by governmental entities in the first place? It seems to me that the status quo is more anti-planning than anything else.

If you think the goal of life is for everybody to try to make as much of a profit as possible like the typical land developer tries to, what a sad, sad life you must live. It amazes me how many people have lost sight of community values in the face of maximizing individual gain for themselves.


According to what I have read, 7 out of 10 urban planners are hired by local governments, and Austin, Texas has had urban planning teams on the payroll for more than 15 years. During this time, I think many civil engineering and planning projects in Austin have been rather subpar.

Yes, a person should make as much profit as possible within the limits of ethics and law. Am I sad? Well, I am a stay at home parent, so amassing fortune must not be my primary objective. You can believe that people should play fair, but the reality is power is not usually acquired by playing nice.

[coffeezombie]

Yes, seven out of ten urban planners are hired by local governments, but do you think that means that many actually exist? Compare the US to Great Britain, for instance, where their system of development has such a need for urban planners that there is a shortage there. People wonder why Europe looks so much better compared to the United States. This is what happens when people actually *plan* rather than let the market control everything.

Also, I've worked in both the public sector and the private sector of urban planning and have seen how much of what the private sector does is motivated by pure profit motive, while the public sector tries their hardest to serve their constituents with the finite resouces that they have. I have faith that a government responsible to its citizens is the best way to run things, rather than those who care more about their profits. All they care about is how much of a bonus they get at the end of the year by overcharging the clients they work for.

[Hypnos]

CZ:

* Europe might look better, but I wouldn't want to live there. Actually, I disagree that it looks better.

* As a citizen, I find private developers and my proximate neighbors to be far more trustworthy than bureaucrats or lobbyists in determining the optimal layout of my community. Why? Because the former group is far more accountable to _me_.

[s]

People wonder why Europe looks so much better compared to the United States. This is what happens when people actually *plan* rather than let the market control everything.



No, that is what happens when there isn't a lot of space to waste.


edit: there are more than 32,000 urban planners in the US and The U.S. Census counted 25,375 places (towns, cities, etc) in 2000. That is more than one per city, town, and hamlet plus some to spare for the top cities.

[coffeezombie]

In the UK, there is believed to be about 10,000 town planners, and another 10,000 transportation planners, both of which are considered "urban planners" by the United States definition. There are only 500 units of government in the UK. This means that on average there are 40 planners per jurisdiction in the UK, compared to what looks to be about 1.5 for the United States. Still, they consider themselves to have a shortage of planners.

I'm not sure you're aware of the work that needs to be performed in order to plan effectively.

Do you think that the fact that the United States has a lot of space to waste means that we need to waste it?

Hypnos and S: I'm curious, where do you think is a *good* place to live? What do you want your communities to look like?

[coffeezombie]

* As a citizen, I find private developers and my proximate neighbors to be far more trustworthy than bureaucrats or lobbyists in determining the optimal layout of my community. Why? Because the former group is far more accountable to _me_.

An urban planner in the public sector is answerable to a city manager, who is answerable to politicans, elected by the people. On the other hand, private developers' accounting books are unviewable by the public.

[Robespierre]

and they are often unwilling to pay many of the external costs that their developments might impose upon a community because it cuts into their profit margins.

What sort of costs might a developer's activity impose on a community?


It amazes me how many people have lost sight of community values in the face of maximizing individual gain for themselves.

This appeal comes in many forms. You can replace community values with religious values, racial purity, faithfulness to the revolution, whatever you like. The fault lies not in advocating community values, whatever they might be, but in the lack of a rational definition of what you mean. You have stated many goals that you personally think are important. You value style and centrality above affordability and access. Fine. Others have different values. Yet you haven't explained why your values ought to be imposed upon others. What makes your values better than those of the individuals who buy the homes you disapprove of?

[Robespierre]

People wonder why Europe looks so much better compared to the United States.

I wonder about people that make broad generalizations about their own tastes, and pass them off as some sort of objective standard for the rest of us to follow.

http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/week/2004/040109/Photos/Plattenbau2.jpg



Also, I've worked in both the public sector and the private sector of urban planning and have seen how much of what the private sector does is motivated by pure profit motive

There exists no human being who doesn't act in a self-interested way.


while the public sector tries their hardest to serve their constituents with the finite resouces that they have.

They don't have any resources, the people subjected to their technocracy do, and they must plunder these resources in order to do anything. Governments cannot create wealth, only destroy or move it around.


All they care about is how much of a bonus they get at the end of the year by overcharging the clients they work for.

You've been ranting about people being concerned with profits quite a lot lately. Can you elaborate some on the evils of profit? Or at the very least, define profit for us, and explain how it acts to deprive society?

[coffeezombie]

This appeal comes in many forms. You can replace community values with religious values, racial purity, faithfulness to the revolution, whatever you like. The fault lies not in advocating community values, whatever they might be, but in the lack of a rational definition of what you mean. You have stated many goals that you personally think are important. You value style and centrality above affordability and access. Fine. Others have different values. Yet you haven't explained why your values ought to be imposed upon others. What makes your values better than those of the individuals who buy the homes you disapprove of?

I don't think my values should be imposed upon others. My contention is that what the public really wants is not being developed by the current market mechanism. Despite the idealism that uber-capitalists like you have, the market is not immediately responsible to what people truly want. Banks won't lend money to developers for "risky ventures," and therefore the market becomes mired in a conservative quagmire, meaning that the same thing is uniformly developed, making suburban areas a bland sea of sameness.

Yet, when you show pictures to people of what they truly want, what they choose is traditional neighborhood development, not cookie-cutter subdivisions. Why isn't the market producing what people want for them if it is so perfect? It's up to urban planners to fix inadequacies in the market so that the people truly get what they want, which includes unpolluted, uncongested environments. Capitalism is far from a perfect mechanism, while, ideally, the urban planner has the public's interests at heart and can use his or her expertise to give the public what it truly desires, a sense of both privacy and community at the same time.

[Hypnos]

An urban planner in the public sector is answerable to a city manager, who is answerable to politicans, elected by the people. [...]
:blink: As I explained before, this byzantine process is riddled with pandering, peddling, and outright corruption. So the planner's purview should be restricted severely to management of necessary external costs: public utilities, transportation, noise, and environmental load.

Grand planning visions should be avoided, because they can't predict what people want -- everyone loses. If a private developer wants to try a grand planned community, _he_ will lose if it doesn't work.


[...]On the other hand, private developers' accounting books are unviewable by the public.
Largely irrelevant -- I write them a 6-figure check, they give me what I want. If they make money, good for them.

As for my ideal community: I'm pretty flexible. I've lived in the satellite city small apartment building, thousand-unit apt. complex, "cookie cutter" single family home development, and quasi-"cookie-cutter" luxury home on a public drive of wooded lots.

I liked them all, except for my current satellite city small apt. building -- Berkeley, CA is retarded. They don't want people using their cars, but they won't permit high density housing; rent control ensures rent stability, but also mitigates capital investment into properties.

Hmmm ... I think I'd like the custom row house with a garage and a view, with easy motorcycle parking around town. Roads, utilities, trash pickup (municipal or private), and customer service should be flawless. Private door-to-door taxi service should be permitted. Development rules should be liberal, with no whining about "neighborhood character" or "displacement." Any restrictions should be towards maintaining views and such that services like roads, utilities and trash pickup continue to work efficiently.

This should be within a city, or 20 minutes from one -- I gots to have the symphony, museums and tasty restaurants.

[s]

Do you think that the fact that the United States has a lot of space to waste means that we need to waste it?

Hypnos and S: I'm curious, where do you think is a *good* place to live? What do you want your communities to look like?

edit:

Should we waste it? No, but not having space makes planning a more pressing and tangile reason for planning.

1.5 planners, if every trailer park in arizona has a planner. I think the top 1000 cities may need it the most.

I love where I live now. Check out my larger two previous posts on this thread to answer your question.

[s]

Yet, when you show pictures to people of what they truly want, what they choose is traditional neighborhood development, not cookie-cutter subdivisions. Why isn't the market producing what people want for them if it is so perfect? It's up to urban planners to fix inadequacies in the market so that the people truly get what they want, which includes unpolluted, uncongested environments. Capitalism is far from a perfect mechanism, while, ideally, the urban planner has the public's interests at heart and can use his or her expertise to give the public what it truly desires, a sense of both privacy and community at the same time.


Plenty of builders ARE starting to build what people want in the traditional model. Also, people may have low expectations on a first home, an investment property, and those who cannot afford much, so the need for non cookie cutter may not be there always. Unique homes don't sell well in the real estate market, so unique neighborhoods may not always either.

[coffeezombie]

Grand planning visions should be avoided, because they can't predict what people want -- everyone loses. If a private developer wants to try a grand planned community, _he_ will lose if it doesn't work.


Not necessarily. The community also loses as well in terms of space being wasted that could have been used for something better. But I think that much of the problem is that the "grand planned community" where everything is coordinated in a cohesive whole is *not* planned enough in the present system because of the potential risk. Instead, planning occurs haphazardly due to a multitude of developers throwing up uncoordinated developments with no respect to infrastructure needs. Often, the developer feels that they should not have to pay the infrastructure costs as well, which are instead borne by the taxpayers.

Also, sprawl is encouraged under the current market system because land on the outskirts is much cheaper than land near the center. The average citizen just wants a cheap house and is unconcerned about the environmental impact of sprawl development, or doesn't keep in mind what kind of traffic problems might ensue from living so far from the center. In that sense, I don't think the market is a perfect system, and it is up to planners to inform the public of all of the potential benefits and harms of whatever decision they make. You can't expect them to educate themselves, as most don't, and the profit-hungry developers certainly won't educate them if they know they can make a buck.

[Hypnos]

CZ:

* What "better" use is there for land than homes? If you want a park, set up an association and buy land, or ask developers to include them (which they do).

* What extra costs does "haphazard" development put on infrastructure? I find it plausible that it would, esp. if the development is overly dense, but the big cost is still the large number of units with individual fixtures and metering, no?

* People seem to like sprawl. Instead of a 10 minute commute from a downtown condo, they'll tolerate a 30+ commute for their detached single family home on 1/4 acre. Though, this is changing -- people are flowing back into urban neighborhoods, and are vilified as gentrifiers.

[Robespierre]

Also, sprawl is encouraged under the current market system because land on the outskirts is much cheaper than land near the center.

And why is this so? What enables people to live so easily in low density areas at the edge of cities? Governments of course. Who socializes the costs of building new utlities? Who socializes the costs of connecting the roads? Who provides the police services? Will you honestly tell me that governments are not the driving factor that facilitates sprawl?

[s]

Poor CZ...

[pats on back]

I hope that cup of joe is fair trade.

[coffeezombie]

And why is this so? What enables people to live so easily in low density areas at the edge of cities? Governments of course. Who socializes the costs of building new utlities? Who socializes the costs of connecting the roads? Who provides the police services? Will you honestly tell me that governments are not the driving factor that facilitates sprawl?

Governments only do because they give developers permission to build in those areas, which they shouldn't do unless those developers agree to pay all necessary infrastructure costs (which would then most likely be passed onto consumers). Without restrictions by government on where to build, a developer might put in a cheap septic system rather than a sewer system, which will save the consumer money in the short run, but will harm the environment, and thus humanity, in the long run.

The problem with the market is that it is designed only to cater to consumers' short term whims, and not their true long-term interests. Planners are specialists trained to think in the long-term, to inform all parties involved of the long-term impacts of their decisions, and to factor these external costs into the market's pricing mechanisms.

[Robespierre]

Without restrictions by government on where to build, a developer might put in a cheap septic system rather than a sewer system, which will save the consumer money in the short run, but will harm the environment, and thus humanity, in the long run.

Is it your opinion that no private citizens should own property?

[Robespierre]

Thanks. However, you do abuse the definitions of morality and ethics (see m-w.com). It would be more consistent to say "my morality/ethics are negative, and do not include personal values."

My morality is negative, my ethics are personal values. I think it is immoral to punch someone in the face for no reason. I think it is unethical to not help someone who has been punched in the face. The distiction I draw between the two, is that a moral transgression creates a situation which should result in some punishment or action by the party that has been wronged. In an ethical situation, no crime has been committed, but my personal values were not observed. Morality, by my definition, not the typical one, is something I take as objective, and ethics as entirely subjective.


Eh, an appeal to popularity weakens your argument, IMHO.

It certainly would, had I made one. What I was doing was attacking the opposing view, primarily by stating my view of the truth and explaining why it should be so, then showing how the opposing view cannot be true even if I grant the assumptions they make, which are also wrong.


My morality is flexible -- I often surprise myself.

I also think the question is largely orthogonal to the issue of a political economy. People believe what they believe, and changes in political systems can only push it so fast. Amartya Sen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385720270/002-6942603-3255264?v=glance) has interesting insights on this very topic. It will also be interesting to follow the progress of the United States' two nation-building efforts.

I don't think morality can be seperated from political philosophy/economics. There are fundamental objectives which any system is trying to achieve. These objectives must be defined before they can be achieved. It is in the definition of the objectives of a system that we all come to blows. I want a system that has absolute respect for human rights, others may want a system that distributes wealth evenly to all parties, etc. There may be objectively definable best ways to obtain some certain goal, but choosing the goal is subjective, a matter of taste.


[Examples]

I have two lines of attack for the nuclear plant argument.

First, if a nuclear plant cannot be constructed without forcibly taking money from people to pay for it, it should not be constructed. I have been beating this point to death, but the ends cannot justify the means.

Second, I don't agree that a nuclear power plant couldn't exist withot public funds. Were the market for electricity a free market, and not one cartelized by government mandated local distribution monopolies, prices would be considerably lower, quality higher, and investments in capital goods for the electric industry would have an acurate and reliable method for pricing, stock in electric companies. A true free market in electricity certainly could raise enough money for nuclear power. Whether or not it would, no one can say.

[Architectonic]

The thing is, with a true libertarian system, you could still technically be able run your own planned commie-unity (with the community as a business) if you wanted, but if people don't like it, they'll simply move away, unless you *force* them to stay. If it is an economic failure, then you'll have to deal with the consequences.

[Hypnos]

My morality is negative, my ethics are personal values. I think it is immoral to punch someone in the face for no reason. I think it is unethical to not help someone who has been punched in the face. [...]
Morality is a protocol, but ethics is your personal code?

Hmmm ... :unsure:


It certainly would, had I made one. What I was doing was attacking the opposing view, primarily by stating my view of the truth and explaining why it should be so, then showing how the opposing view cannot be true even if I grant the assumptions they make, which are also wrong.
Fair enough -- yielding the terms of the debate, then. ;)


[...] I want a system that has absolute respect for human rights, others may want a system that distributes wealth evenly to all parties, etc. There may be objectively definable best ways to obtain some certain goal, but choosing the goal is subjective, a matter of taste.
Indeed, it is. My main point is that your assertion that the right to life is self-evident is largely aesthetic. I sympathize with it, but convincing others must be more than a statement of fact -- cf. Nietzsche.

[Avengardh]

Community? What's that?

[Jacque]

Mixed use centers basically are New Urbanism, s, at least how I define it. If suburban areas develop like this, I am all for it. What I have a problem with is the unnecessary separation of land uses through zoning. There is an illusion that planners are some kind of fascists imposing their ideas on others.

Sounds like Jane Jacob's take. Anyway, transportation is key. Architecture and zoning is a matter of taste, which can be adaptable. Car ownership is too heavily subsidized. Take that away, and people will congregate. A single land tax might do it as well, as it fosters the efficient use of real estate, and the abundance of public land.

Suburbs aren't that reclusive. Some houses are built so close together, that you'd have more privacy sharing a wall. Letting down a blind is like surrendering a window, until you raise it - to which it returns to the original standoff. Anyway, the inhabitants congregate just as frequently, only in fewer numbers and with the assistance of bikes, skates, boards, and sometimes motorized devices. Suburbs are seen more as a nursery for kids as contact can be strictly monitored. Compared to rural and urban living, the suburbs offer not a combination, but a neutralization, a stagnant incubator. You can't construct communities the same way you do houses. Even when you try, it's a pugnent artificial feeling, even from a non-INTP perspective.

[coffeezombie]

I don't have a problem with suburbs per se as long as they have some kind of town center and are not just bedroom communities where everybody commutes long distances to work. It's a shame that people move out from the central city but you can't force them to stay there, and the reasons they move out are beyond the purview of the urban planner.

[Hypnos]

[...] Compared to rural and urban living, the suburbs offer not a combination, but a neutralization, a stagnant incubator. You can't construct communities the same way you do houses. Even when you try, it's a pugnent artificial feeling, even from a non-INTP perspective.
Why? Because there isn't forced social interaction, even if it just means bumping elbows on the bus or train?

[relaxo]

Under urban planning or fascism, am I allowed to build what I wish on my property? Am I allowed to own my own property? Can the government come by and take my property away from me without my consent?

If any of those cases are true, then urban planning is nonsense and a scam. Just like fascism.

[coffeezombie]

Damn, another libertarian.

Who decided that was "your property" anyway? Isn't that a little selfish to think that you have absolute rights to the land, compared to any other animal that happens to live on it, or the trees that happen to be there too?

[Robespierre]

Isn't that a little selfish to think that you have absolute rights to the land, compared to any other animal that happens to live on it, or the trees that happen to be there too?

Perhaps we should consult the trees and animals for their opinion on the matter. If they don't respond one way or the other, we should assume they approve.


Okay I went outside and asked the oak in my front yard if it minded if I chopped it down. No response, it must approve.

[coffeezombie]

lol I'm just saying that perhaps we should not look at land as much as "owners" but more of as "caretakers." Just something to think about. This is how government looks at it with some of its environmental regulations, for instance, although most of the time such regulations are created merely for the self-centered reason of preservation of the human species, unfortunately.

[Robespierre]

although most of the time such regulations are created merely for the self-centered reason of preservation of the human species, unfortunately.

You say it as a condemnation, as though self-preservation were some shameful shady act.

[coffeezombie]

I don't consider it shady. I just think that we should also be preserving the earth for reasons other than our self-preservation, for instance, a responsibility to the planet as a whole considering we our its most intelligent species. But perhaps I am being a bit too romantic about the whole thing and the earth is just here us to exploit for our own purposes.

[Robespierre]

I don't consider it shady. I just think that we should also be preserving the earth for reasons other than our self-preservation, for instance, a responsibility to the planet as a whole considering we our its most intelligent species.

Only intelligent species, depending upon your definitinon.

And what responsibility do we have to the earth on account of our intelligence? If anything, it opposite it true. We have the right to use the earth for those ends which we deem useful.


But perhaps I am being a bit too romantic about the whole thing and the earth is just here us to exploit for our own purposes.

Exploit, use, utilize, improve, any term you like.

[Dman]

I don't have a problem with suburbs per se as long as they have some kind of town center and are not just bedroom communities where everybody commutes long distances to work. It's a shame that people move out from the central city but you can't force them to stay there, and the reasons they move out are beyond the purview of the urban planner.

What about people who live AND work in the suburbs? Where I live, there are a few large multinational corporations in the suburbs themselves.

I like the suburbs. I would despise raising my family in the city center. Too much constant interaction with people, no yard to play in. I'd have to go to a park to throw a frisbee for my dog, and "share" the space with whoever else was there. I'd also have to take my dog for a walk at least twice a day to let her go to the bathroom, rather than just let her outside for a while to run around. That sucks in my opinion. Give me my backyard, where I can BBQ, throw a ball for my dog, play with my kid on his swingset, etc. and not have to deal with any other human beings at all.

If people want to live in the city, good for them, but don't expect me to. I avoid going downtown as much as humanly possible.

As for public transportation, that sucks too. I use our commuter train occassionally, but I don't like it. I'd rather sit in my own space, no disruptions, listen to my music as loud as I want, go exactly where I want, when I want, and experience the pleasure of operating a finely engineered piece of machinery.

[Jacque]

If any of those cases are true, then urban planning is nonsense and a scam. Just like fascism.

Hilter wanted a Volkswagon Beetle in every garage. One color, simple and economical. Instead, they were welcomed into the communes of hippies, who embraced them symbolically.

[coffeezombie]

I don't have a problem with intelligently designed suburbs, dman, when people don't use them as "bedroom communities," meaning that their only purpose is to house people. However, what bothers me is that people keep moving further and further out from the center, wasting land and making any trips to the center needlessly long ones.

[s]

Just a comment: Mixed-use buildings are not confined to "new urbanism," as it is was first evident in our old fashioned town squares. New town squares are being built by developers who have a finger on the pulse of the American public. The trend of returning to our roots and having more livable communties is being fueled by capitalism and democracy at the local level, as it should be. Smartly planned satellite suburbs that are now more than bedroom communities are still too often belittled by proponents of new urbanism. The negative blanket comments portray suburbs as little more than capitalist pig pens, which further alienates suburban homeowners from any new urbanism propaganda. Much of the sprawl issue (found even in Elizabethen London) should not fall on the shoulders of the working class and bourgeois* suburbanites, but also on the urban municipalities that incorporate the outlying areas, subsidizing utilities and roads (as our resident Libertarians so eloquently pointed out). I have heard ad nauseam city dwellers (acting as armchair environmentalists) lambaste suburbanites for their contributions to sprawl, but it is also their precious city limit signs that keep moving towards us.

I am also sick to death with talk of fat Americans and their SUV's, because I will be damned if I ever ride a bus to the home improvement store, the plant nursery or to the grocery, because I shop for Armaggedon when the price is right. I will have rail access to downtown soon enough and I plan to ride it often, but it is ridiculous to suggest Americans will ever give up their cars. Alternatives forms of fuel and increasing fuel economy are much more realistic goals than Americans relying on a bus schedule to dictate when and how they live their lives.


*can't a capitalist use it too? [chuckles]

[coffeezombie]

s, a few questions.

Do you think New York City is a terrible place to live? What about London, Paris or Tokyo? Do you think that the people who live in these places who don't own cars are always unhappy that they don't own one? If resources vital to the continued survival of the human species could be saved by living this way, wouldn't it make logical sense for most of us to choose this way? Or do you advocate that we live selfishly and wastefully just because we have the freedom to do so? It's a fallacy to think that technology is going to solve all of our environmental problems. Are you really willing to take that gamble, anyway?

Also, when municipalities annex outer suburban areas, they are doing a good thing, not a bad thing. As it is, there are too many uncoordinated municipalities in metropolitan areas. They do not coordinate transportation or land use very well, and often even waste precious taxpayer resources by such things as competing with each other to provide tax breaks in order to attact the new Wal Mart. It seems libertarians would logically be favor of reducing the number of governmental entities in their lives, not increasing them, but that never seems to be the case.

[s]

Actually, I would rather live on my own ranch in Texas and fly to visit those cities. Massive high density cities like Tokyo and New York are not free of cars, crime, sprawl, pollution, problem, poor planning, economic and racial segregation, and gentrification. If someone does not need a car, then maybe their needs are different than mine.

The ugly unplanned sprawl I have seen in Houston and Austin is well within city limits and these areas were all previously out of city limits.

[Hypnos]

CZ:

* Not everyone likes cities. What does efficiency even mean if people are unhappy? Environmental concerns should be expressed as costs to individuals (e.g., fuel taxes), and not as excuses for holier-than-thou central planning, to as great an extent as possible. This way, those who prefer a lifestyle that is more taxing on the environment and infrastructure can pay more for their choice.

* What you call uncoordinated, libertarians call flexible, generally preferring vertical structures to emerge from lateral relationships where it is efficient, rather than having vertical structures a priori. Of course, this requires a pricing and choice mechanism, something which is imperfect for things like freeways and garbage dumps. In these cases, planning considerations should be devolved to as local a gov't level as possible.

[coffeezombie]

What's the cost of that last drop of oil once we run out? What's the cost of that last member of an animal species once it dies?

[Ka.avik]

What's the cost of that last drop of oil once we run out? What's the cost of that last member of an animal species once it dies? Whatever the market will bear, of course.

Don't think that environmental controls can protect the environment. People will do what they want. There is altruism, but there is also evil.

Annexing the 'burbs is always a bad idea. Cities are inherently bad, IMHO.

The solution? You all need to stop having babies, of course!

//goes about building his nuclear power plant....

[coffeezombie]

Is your life worth as much as someone needs to pay a hitman to kill you, Ka.avik? Perhaps things have an actual worth that is greater than what the "market can bear." Consider that.

[Robespierre]

Is your life worth as much as someone needs to pay a hitman to kill you, Ka.avik? Perhaps things have an actual worth that is greater than what the "market can bear." Consider that.

What worth might that be? There is no value outside the individual. If you value someone's life less than a cup of coffee, that is the value of that person's life to you. He probably values his own life differently, and as his body is his own property, any tresspass of it, without his permission, is wrong. It just drives home the point of individually subjective value. There is no value to nature outside of that which some individual holds. Without sentient beings to give it value, nature is valueless.

[coffeezombie]

But perhaps some things have greater value than most of us realize, just because the majority don't have the capability to realize it.

[Hypnos]

What's the cost of that last drop of oil once we run out? What's the cost of that last member of an animal species once it dies?
What is the cost of the privacy and security of your own home? What's the cost of a garden, or a garage to work on your bike? What's the cost of _ownership_ ?

[coffeezombie]

What is the cost of the privacy and security of your own home? What's the cost of a garden, or a garage to work on your bike? What's the cost of _ownership_ ?

All those things can exist without the sprawl type development that we see now. Personally I think most people selfishly think they need more space than they really do. Mostly they do it so that they can show off how much land they own to others, I think. It's all about greed and vanity for most people.

[Hypnos]

All those things can exist without the sprawl type development that we see now. [...]
Considering a property with a detached building, acreage and garage space, a number of them would form a suburb. Is this not right?


[...] Personally I think most people selfishly think they need more space than they really do. Mostly they do it so that they can show off how much land they own to others, I think. It's all about greed and vanity for most people.
How good of you, to tell people what they need. Not only do I find it utterly distasteful, but it hasn't worked out that well in the past.

[Robespierre]

But perhaps some things have greater value than most of us realize, just because the majority don't have the capability to realize it.

No value exists outside the individual. If someone doesn't hold the same values as you, for say, the environment, they are not wrong. There is no fundamentally correct value.

[coffeezombie]

No value exists outside the individual. If someone doesn't hold the same values as you, for say, the environment, they are not wrong. There is no fundamentally correct value.

Haven't you ever made a decision that you regretted because you lacked knowledge? Don't you think that the "real value" of anything that pertained to that knowledge you lacked was actually greater than what you perceived it to be at that time?

[Robespierre]

Haven't you ever made a decision that you regretted because you lacked knowledge?

Absolutely. As humans, we are always limited in our knowledge of the world.


Don't you think that the "real value" of anything that pertained to that knowledge you lacked was actually greater than what you perceived it to be at that time?

Absolutely not, as there exists no such thing as the "real value". I may have wished that I had a piece of information, and once I found it out, I changed my value, but that doesn't make my previous valuation wrong. There is something fundamental that you are missing here: values cannot be wrong. Values only respresent our current opinions of things, our taste. Can taste be wrong?

[Robespierre]

Here's an interesting article on the topic of "smart growth". I don't have much more to add to what I've already said, but it's possible that another voice may clarify the anti-smart-growth position.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_04_4_otoole.pdf

The article uses some specific examples of policy and results from the Portland area.

[Dman]

Here's an interesting article on the topic of "smart growth". I don't have much more to add to what I've already said, but it's possible that another voice may clarify the anti-smart-growth position.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_04_4_otoole.pdf

The article uses some specific examples of policy and results from the Portland area.

I am intimately familiar with all the references to the Portland area. Our leaders want very much to shove urban planning down our throats – the construction of the light rail lines was defeated by popular vote but they found a way to build each of them anyways. Vancouver (not B.C., but in Washington state, just across the river from Portland) has been fighting a light rail going up there because they don’t want Portland’s crime coming with it (which does happen). I’m sure Portland will find a way to do it anyhow.

The Beaverton Round is a total boondoggle. For several years (I think at least 10 years) it was just a rusting carcass of building infrastructure that was started and not finished. Now it’s finally (after bailouts) finished but still unpopular. Orenco (which is actually in Hillsboro) was also a slow start, and still has a lot of vacancy (although they continue to build). Intel employees are basically keeping that place alive.

The worst thing, which I’ve mentioned before in other threads, is the high-density housing. What used to be vast landscapes of farmland and/or modest houses on decent sized lots has been transformed into cracker box houses piled on top of each other. I think the average lot size is 4000 – 5000 sq.ft. for most new homes, whereas older “pre-growth explosion” houses were 10,000 – 15,000 in a typical suburban neighborhood. Parks in these new neighborhoods are virtually non-existent, unless there are high tension power lines running through the neighborhood where they won’t build houses underneath (but a great place to play – yeah). They’re basically glorified apartments.

I know someone who bought one, they were so proud (I won’t have to worry about taking care of a yard!), and after one month they were complaining that they could hear all of their neighbors arguing, they could see directly into 6 people’s houses from their back yard (which is just a deck – that’s all there’s room for), and people were arguing about parking on the street because everybody’s cars won’t fit – not enough room. The craziest thing is these houses START in the $200 – $300k range. I would hate to be a first-time homebuyer in this market. A lot of them have to buy houses way out in the sticks just to get something they can afford, and actually have a little room to breathe.

Even out in the sticks though, there are so many land-use laws and regulations that you are prevented from owning a decent size of land without stringent rules and specifications (such as a certain amount of farming revenue required annually).

My wife and I long for the Portland of yester-year, and often talk about where a comparable place to live would be found these days. I don’t think such a place exists, we were the last hold-outs. America found Oregon. It’s all Intel’s fault!

I’ve heard that Canada sure is a purty place though…

Hmm…this probably belonged in the Rants section, but I couldn’t help it…

I’ve witnessed smart-growth. It sucks, unless you love to live in crowded, high crime, urban settings. Or unless you like your city leaders doing the opposite of what you’ve asked them to do. I don’t.

[Robespierre]

I am intimately familiar with all the references to the Portland area. Our leaders want very much to shove urban planning down our throats – the construction of the light rail lines was defeated by popular vote but they found a way to build each of them anyways. Vancouver (not B.C., but in Washington state, just across the river from Portland) has been fighting a light rail going up there because they don’t want Portland’s crime coming with it (which does happen). I’m sure Portland will find a way to do it anyhow.

The Beaverton Round is a total boondoggle. For several years (I think at least 10 years) it was just a rusting carcass of building infrastructure that was started and not finished. Now it’s finally (after bailouts) finished but still unpopular. Orenco (which is actually in Hillsboro) was also a slow start, and still has a lot of vacancy (although they continue to build). Intel employees are basically keeping that place alive.

The worst thing, which I’ve mentioned before in other threads, is the high-density housing. What used to be vast landscapes of farmland and/or modest houses on decent sized lots has been transformed into cracker box houses piled on top of each other. I think the average lot size is 4000 – 5000 sq.ft. for most new homes, whereas older “pre-growth explosion” houses were 10,000 – 15,000 in a typical suburban neighborhood. Parks in these new neighborhoods are virtually non-existent, unless there are high tension power lines running through the neighborhood where they won’t build houses underneath (but a great place to play – yeah). They’re basically glorified apartments.

I know someone who bought one, they were so proud (I won’t have to worry about taking care of a yard!), and after one month they were complaining that they could hear all of their neighbors arguing, they could see directly into 6 people’s houses from their back yard (which is just a deck – that’s all there’s room for), and people were arguing about parking on the street because everybody’s cars won’t fit – not enough room. The craziest thing is these houses START in the $200 – $300k range. I would hate to be a first-time homebuyer in this market. A lot of them have to buy houses way out in the sticks just to get something they can afford, and actually have a little room to breathe.

Even out in the sticks though, there are so many land-use laws and regulations that you are prevented from owning a decent size of land without stringent rules and specifications (such as a certain amount of farming revenue required annually).

My wife and I long for the Portland of yester-year, and often talk about where a comparable place to live would be found these days. I don’t think such a place exists, we were the last hold-outs. America found Oregon. It’s all Intel’s fault!

I’ve heard that Canada sure is a purty place though…

Hmm…this probably belonged in the Rants section, but I couldn’t help it…

I’ve witnessed smart-growth. It sucks, unless you love to live in crowded, high crime, urban settings. Or unless you like your city leaders doing the opposite of what you’ve asked them to do. I don’t.

Thanks for that. Your main point reinforces mine, that smart-growth does not do what its proponents claim, but in fact it does the opposite. It increases pollution from auto's, increases housing costs, and increases congestion.

[coffeezombie]

Thanks for that. Your main point reinforces mine, that smart-growth does not do what its proponents claim, but in fact it does the opposite. It increases pollution from auto's, increases housing costs, and increases congestion.

It increases pollution and congestion because people don't make the necessary change to public transportation. Portland does a good job promoting its excellent public transportation system. It decreases fuel consumption, though, by the way.

It increases housing costs only because developers refuse to cut their profit margin from developing on more expensive land, not because the supply decreases any. It definitely saves natural land that might have another better economic use than residential large-lot development, though.

[Robespierre]

It increases pollution and congestion because people don't make the necessary change to public transportation. Portland does a good job promoting its excellent public transportation system. It decreases fuel consumption, though, by the way.

It increases housing costs only because developers refuse to cut their profit margin from developing on more expensive land, not because the supply decreases any. It definitely saves natural land that might have another better economic use than residential large-lot development, though.

So it's the fault of greedy developers who build and then sell people the homes that they demand, and NOT the socialist planners short-circuiting individual liberty and the natural forces of supply and damand? I don't see it.

Public transportation is no better than public schools, public roads, or public health-care, all horrifying failures. When wealth is violently stolen, property seized, and lives uprooted, all at the whim of socialist planners, no good can possibly come. Any "benefit" derived by individuals in the community comes at a vastly greater expense to those who are forced to pay for these "benefits". Urban Planning is a barbarous, savage way for governments to breed the sort of people they want, those who will be comfortable in slums, working in tightly packed factories, and who have no concept of individualism or private property. I've been to the greatest example of this theory in practice, the city of Moscow. Muscovites have been bred to be tiny cogs in the massive creaking machinery of the russian state, and to inhabit their sector of the hive without any idea of a different life.

[coffeezombie]

If a majority of people in places like Portland did not want the city to be planned this way, they'd vote the politicans out, and things would change. The US is not Communist Russia. Planners exist as an occupation because the public sees a need for them, as there is an obvious need for them, which I've explained in my previous posts, that you just don't seem to get. Basically, many people from Portland realize the waste that takes place in the typical sprawling American lifestyle. Huge blocks of public housing are not a good planning solution, but neither is unaesthetic commercial development in the middle of nowhere, which is what happens when the market is allowed to develop without government interference.

[Ka.avik]

I argue for a balonce -- government big enough to out-power business, and with that said, small government.

It most nearly puts the power where it needs to be, in the hands of the people who care the most about how it's done.

[Architectonic]

I argue for a balonce -- government big enough to out-power business, and with that said, small government.

Yes, the real balance is local decentralized government - one that is run like a business - if the citizens do not like it, they have the freedom to move to a different town where there is a different government.

[coffeezombie]

Yes, the real balance is local decentralized government - one that is run like a business - if the citizens do not like it, they have the freedom to move to a different town where there is a different government.

Isn't it cheaper just to elect a new government than to expect people to spend the money to move?

[Architectonic]

Isn't it cheaper just to elect a new government than to expect people to spend the money to move?

Cheaper in what sense?

The people can of course still make requests and suggestions to the local government.

[Robespierre]

If a majority of people in places like Portland did not want the city to be planned this way, they'd vote the politicans out, and things would change.

And if the majority of people in Alabama in the early 20th century wanted to allow interracial marriages, they wouldn't have elected representatives who would ban it.... What about majority rule makes it right?


The US is not Communist Russia.

No, it is not.


Planners exist as an occupation because the public sees a need for them, as there is an obvious need for them, which I've explained in my previous posts, that you just don't seem to get.

I get it, I understand exactly why you think we need them, there's just no moral justification for granting them the authority to make and destroy lives.


Basically, many people from Portland realize the waste that takes place in the typical sprawling American lifestyle. Huge blocks of public housing are not a good planning solution, but neither is unaesthetic commercial development in the middle of nowhere, which is what happens when the market is allowed to develop without government interference.

Who has the right to decide what is best? Is it people like you? Or is it those who actually own the property in question? Will there next be laws governing the "efficient" use of space within people's homes? How about eliminating bad haircuts? Perhaps we could define which food is the best, and improve efficiency by forcing everyone to agree?

What "the people" of Portland decide is as relevant to the individual liberty of a property owner in Portland as is the opinion of the sultan of brunei. The majority has no right at all to rule over the individual, in any coercive way.

Perhaps we could improve the discussion by having you state exactly what goals you hope to achieve, in specific terms. Quantify.

[Robespierre]

I argue for a balonce -- government big enough to out-power business, and with that said, small government.

It most nearly puts the power where it needs to be, in the hands of the people who care the most about how it's done.


Why should power lie in ANY hands other than those of the individual property owners?

[Robespierre]

if the citizens do not like it, they have the freedom to move to a different town where there is a different government.

This is not good enough, unless all the individuals in that area originally decided of their own free will to incorporate their property into the municipality.

[Robespierre]

Isn't it cheaper just to elect a new government than to expect people to spend the money to move?

You must be used to agreeing with the masses. What happens if you don't get the government you want, and all your neighbors disagree? Why should you not be able to simply withdraw your property from the government of which you don't approve?

[coffeezombie]

You must be used to agreeing with the masses. What happens if you don't get the government you want, and all your neighbors disagree? Why should you not be able to simply withdraw your property from the government of which you don't approve?

If everyone did what they wanted, society would be a mess and people would probably be killing each other. Why can you get that through your head? Not everyone is as rational and detached as you, and they never will be.

[Robespierre]

If everyone did what they wanted, society would be a mess and people would probably be killing each other. Why can you get that through your head? Not everyone is as rational and detached as you, and they never will be.

Killing cannot be avoided, but chaos can. Currently, governments cause massive amounts of violent death, robbery, starvation, and all around misery. Nothing in the world has a worse record than nation-states. The idea that respect for individual liberty is MORE dangerous than world wars, genocide, nuclear annihilation, etc, is untenable.

[Hypnos]

Expanding on Robes, there have been few, if any, instances in which too much freedom has led to any sort of horrible state of affairs. One might ask what the preconditions for the flourishing of freedom are.

[Robespierre]

One might ask what the preconditions for the flourishing of freedom are.

This is a vitally important question.

High population density doesn't seem to be one of those conditions.

[Dman]

I believe what’s going on in Portland is different than what others may think. The reason voters have thus far approved (although not in all cases, such as light rail) of the urban planning going on is due to preservation of the status quo, rather than of some urban planning utopia.

Native Oregonians want the state to remain mostly rural and quiet, with vast forests and farmlands. This is why we buy into the whole “stop urban sprawl” scheme. The problem is that Oregonians don’t want to admit that the good old days are gone and our population is exploding through the roof.

The urban planning is sold as keeping the state the way it used to be, by concentrating all the overpopulation into the city. This is a fallacy. Overpopulation affects everything regardless, the urban planning just makes it worse within the populated areas.

The population only sees a need for urban planning because they think it will keep Oregon the way it was 20 years ago, but this is simply living in denial. In the meantime our cities and suburbs have become an absolute mess, and difficult to move out of.

[Ka.avik]

Why should power lie in ANY hands other than those of the individual property owners?
If they're the ones who care the most about how the government's power is used, so be it. Sheeple don't care ... and are more than willing to abdicate authority to someone who spends their time thinkng about matters of state. If the power disparity is not great, IE you don't have massive federal funding for DEA getting into a turf war with the dealers (or, according to some, setting up dealers to publically fight with), then I believe it should be workable -- the squeaky wheel gets to provide the grease.

I'm not sure I believe in property. Seems to be a broken system no matter who "owns" it. No, I don't have any alternate suggestions. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smiley_violin.gif

[Ka.avik]

Expanding on Robes, there have been few, if any, instances in which too much freedom has led to any sort of horrible state of affairs.

agreed.


Now, we just have to convince the masses of shrub-supporters, that those who trade liberty for security, not only deserve neither, but will recieve neither.

[coffeezombie]

Expanding on Robes, there have been few, if any, instances in which too much freedom has led to any sort of horrible state of affairs. One might ask what the preconditions for the flourishing of freedom are.

I would argue that the aesthetic appearance of the American suburb, it's accompanying waste of fossil fuels and the unnecessary destruction of the natural enviroment, are all indicative of a "horrible state of affairs."

[Robespierre]

Now, we just have to convince the masses of shrub-supporters, that those who trade liberty for security, not only deserve neither, but will recieve neither.

Republicans are not the only problem. From the 30's up 'til the '94 republican "revolution", the democrats were the party with absolute power. It was they who offered people the security of welfare, foodstamps, medicare and medicaid, a strong military force to defend us from the reds, etc etc etc. At every step, no matter who is in power, they are trying to consolidate that power and add to it.

[Robespierre]

I would argue that the aesthetic appearance of the American suburb,

You don't like the looks of suburbs... but you do like the looks of the run-down pollution/congestion stricken city?


it's accompanying waste of fossil fuels and the unnecessary destruction of the natural enviroment, are all indicative of a "horrible state of affairs."

And this horrible state of affairs, in your opinion, justifies giving power to the socialists to destroy neighborhoods, ruin lives, and suck the living soul out of the cities?

[Hypnos]

I would argue that the aesthetic appearance of the American suburb, it's accompanying waste of fossil fuels and the unnecessary destruction of the natural enviroment, are all indicative of a "horrible state of affairs."
That's a tough argument to make:

* Many people enjoy the aesthetic of having their own detached home. Not everyone can afford an architect, custom builder, the land for a country manor, and most notably, tolerate the commute.

* Energy requirements will always increase, never decrease, for thermodynamic reasons; one can hope that technology fills the void when oil becomes too scarce/expensive. In the meantime, fuel austerity and deep-reaching public transportation would be an economic disaster, if the demand for single family homes is entertained.

* How is the natural environment being destroyed? "Sprawl" preserves green spaces and can be built around sensitive areas. Dense urban areas have concentrated pollution from stop-and-go traffic, heat output, and pollution/litter due to abuse of community property.

Again, the empirical evidence is clear: density -> pollution, crime and long commuting time (esp. at the last mile). Those who don't mind this "color" should be free to live in dense areas, but so should those who prefer the open space.

[coffeezombie]

That's a tough argument to make:
* Many people enjoy the aesthetic of having their own detached home. Not everyone can afford an architect, custom builder, the land for a country manor, and most notably, tolerate the commute.


I'm not saying that everyone should live in an apartment block, but contemporary neighborhoods are ridiculously wasteful when it comes to land. Too much natural environment is destroyed based upon people's selfish desires to have huge, golf-course lawns.



* Energy requirements will always increase, never decrease, for thermodynamic reasons; one can hope that technology fills the void when oil becomes too scarce/expensive. In the meantime, fuel austerity and deep-reaching public transportation would be an economic disaster, if the demand for single family homes is entertained.


This growing energy needs argument is ridiculous. The need for excessive energy can always be curbed. I agree that public transportation would be a disaster with current living patterns, but I think there is a way to show the public that denser neighborhoods can still look nice.



* How is the natural environment being destroyed? "Sprawl" preserves green spaces and can be built around sensitive areas. Dense urban areas have concentrated pollution from stop-and-go traffic, heat output, and pollution/litter due to abuse of community property.


Sprawl does not preserve green space because often huge tracts of land are just bulldozed and developed. The green space just ends up being people's lawns. That's not "green space." It's better to concentrate pollution in one smaller area than to have it spread over a huge metropolitan area such as the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.

[Robespierre]

It's better to concentrate pollution in one smaller area than to have it spread over a huge metropolitan area such as the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.

Why?

[Hypnos]

CZ:

* Energy demands will increase with increasingly grand and precise technologies -- 2nd law of thermodynamics. Certainly, waste can be curbed, but the long-term picture is of increasing demand even without increasing population.

* It's far from clear that high density of development improves environmental health -- the empirical data available to this layman indicates quite the opposite.

[In...TP]

I'm working on a worm farm and dealing with slugs.

[Ka.avik]

I'm working on a worm farm and dealing with slugs. So, do you always feel sluggish in the morning, and/or has this land-use technique wormed it way into your heart? :wub:

[In...TP]

Not since I started taking fish oil supplements. Worms are the best. :)

Spider webs are good on cuts, it takes a wrap.

There's something about slugs. Slickest creatures I've run across.

[Architectonic]

This is not good enough, unless all the individuals in that area originally decided of their own free will to incorporate their property into the municipality.

That's the plan.

[Dman]

I'm not saying that everyone should live in an apartment block, but contemporary neighborhoods are ridiculously wasteful when it comes to land. Too much natural environment is destroyed based upon people's selfish desires to have huge, golf-course lawns.



This growing energy needs argument is ridiculous. The need for excessive energy can always be curbed. I agree that public transportation would be a disaster with current living patterns, but I think there is a way to show the public that denser neighborhoods can still look nice.



Sprawl does not preserve green space because often huge tracts of land are just bulldozed and developed. The green space just ends up being people's lawns. That's not "green space." It's better to concentrate pollution in one smaller area than to have it spread over a huge metropolitan area such as the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.

My suburban neighborhood, built decades ago before all this urban planning stuff, has several huge "greenways" which are common areas, and the largest even has a creek and small forest. Trees proliferate the neighborhood. This is a modest, affordable working class neighborhood. It was an orchard before it was developed. You tell me that is worse than some stinking apartment building in the pit of the city, or the new 4000 sq ft lots with house upon house stacked on top of each other and no parks, no trees, no creeks, no common greenways. The greenspace is still bulldozed and consumed in the new developments, but now they are all paved over instead of some preservation of what was there before.

BTW I forgot to point out that our schools have become horribly overcrowded and underfunded, another by-product of the densely populated urban confines.

[coffeezombie]

My suburban neighborhood, built decades ago before all this urban planning stuff, has several huge "greenways" which are common areas, and the largest even has a creek and small forest. Trees proliferate the neighborhood. This is a modest, affordable working class neighborhood. It was an orchard before it was developed. You tell me that is worse than some stinking apartment building in the pit of the city, or the new 4000 sq ft lots with house upon house stacked on top of each other and no parks, no trees, no creeks, no common greenways. The greenspace is still bulldozed and consumed in the new developments, but now they are all paved over instead of some preservation of what was there before.


Do you have to get in your car and waste gasoline everytime you want to go someplace such as work or to the local store or can you just walk from where you live? If you can walk, I'd say you live in a pretty nice neighborhood.

[VVelox]

I don't think everyone should live in commie-blocks, but I do think the best solution for us is to go back to the traditional neighborhood. These neighborhoods still allow everyone to have their own home and lawn, but also integrate parks, walkable streets, neighborhood shops, etc. into the neighborhoods. There is more mixed-use and mixed-income development. The suburban design is very segregated, seperating everyone into little "pods" of homes where they only live around people who are exactly like them.

To understand what I mean by traditional neighborhood, go look at a very old, inner-city neighborhood in any major city. Now, imagine back in the day when that place was still very nice (if it isn't anymore).... that's the kind of place I'm talking about.

Since the bloody hell does living in the suburb mean that every bloody person around you is the bloody same?

I do agree massively large nieghbor hoods are a problem. Nieghborhoods need to be nicely mangled together with non-industrial small scale commercial areas.

[Dman]

Do you have to get in your car and waste gasoline everytime you want to go someplace such as work or to the local store or can you just walk from where you live? If you can walk, I'd say you live in a pretty nice neighborhood.

I am within walking distance of many stores (you can thank strip malls for that, those hated sprawling wastes!)

I could ride a back to work, conceivably, but I won’t because it would take too long and is unsafe IMO. It’s in a different suburb than mine. Obviously if I worked at one of the nearby schools or businesses I could walk to work.

Most suburban neighborhoods on the west side of Portland that were developed before the mid-80’s are this way. It’s the new high-density ones that are destroying the beauty and pleasantness of the place.

[Dman]

I posted this in the “Is Wal-Mart Evil” thread, but felt it was somewhat fitting here as well… even Wal-Mart hates Portland’s urban planning


"Wal-Mart takes on Oregon only way it can: it'll change

The retail behemoth is bending more and spending more to get past land use, design and other roadblocks to its expansion here

Wal-Mart looks like a corporate behemoth on tiptoes as it tries to grow in Oregon: Minefields seem to be everywhere. “

"Whether it is a shortage of land or local regulations that prevent the company from building its standard gray-and-blue box next to a sea of parking, Wal-Mart is finding it must be flexible in Oregon. It will have to spend more money, be more creative and make concessions to keep growing. "

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/in...ian?fpfp&coll=7

Edit - Wal-mart finally met its match... urban planners!

[Ka.avik]

Wal-mart finally met its match... urban planners! This kind of thing is why I say government & private companies must be evenly matched -- and that I am in favor of avoiding behemoths like Wally world.

They must be evenly matched, because that facilitates a sort of check and balance system. The should be small, because neither, when distressingly large, will listen to the actual needs/wants of the individual people they are trampling on.

[coffeezombie]

Most suburban neighborhoods on the west side of Portland that were developed before the mid-80’s are this way. It’s the new high-density ones that are destroying the beauty and pleasantness of the place.

So are you saying that you think New Urbanism looks uglier than the typical "everyone owns a golf course and a huge, prominent garage" type development? Basically you are saying places like London, Paris and Florence are ugly, and places like suburban Dallas are beautiful? That's a new one to me. That's right, those big box stores are the absolute pinnacle of beauty, aren't they? I lose my breath staring in awe everytime I see a Wal-Mart.

As I've said, I don't have problem with neighborhoods if they are aesthetically attractive and not automobile dependent. Portland has had planners who have done things right a long time before New Urbanism came around. Other places have not.

[coffeezombie]

This kind of thing is why I say government & private companies must be evenly matched -- and that I am in favor of avoiding behemoths like Wally world.


Another reason to shop local places rather than Wal-Mart, despite the slightly higher prices, is that the money you spend stays in your community and makes it more prosperous. It's called the income multiplier effect. If you spend your money at Wal-Mart, it makes Bentonville, Arkansas more prosperous.

[Hypnos]

coffeezombie:

* I am comforted that you have identified The Right aesthetic. Clearly, those of us who enjoy the grass under our own feet and the storage and maintenance of our motorized babies, all in the privacy of our own homes, are ugly and debased. You will save our souls!

* If New Urbanism successfully reproduces the culture and history of London, Paris and Florence, I'll eat my hat. Also, having been in those places, it seems unlikely that most could afford to live anywhere that could get anywhere else in less than 45 minutes. This is why people move to the suburbs in the first place, or get scooters if they are sufficiently risk-tolerant.

[Robespierre]

This kind of thing is why I say government & private companies must be evenly matched -- and that I am in favor of avoiding behemoths like Wally world.

Can you honestly suggest that government is balanced with anything? Walmart can't throw you in jail and take your land, only government can do that.


They must be evenly matched, because that facilitates a sort of check and balance system.

Checj and balance of what!? What about walmart needs to be checked or balanced? They are a damn retail store, not court system.


The should be small, because neither, when distressingly large, will listen to the actual needs/wants of the individual people they are trampling on.

How can walmart trample on people? It is not possible for walmart to force people to do things, only the government can do that.

[Robespierre]

So are you saying that you think New Urbanism looks uglier than the typical "everyone owns a golf course and a huge, prominent garage" type development? Basically you are saying places like London, Paris and Florence are ugly, and places like suburban Dallas are beautiful? That's a new one to me. That's right, those big box stores are the absolute pinnacle of beauty, aren't they? I lose my breath staring in awe everytime I see a Wal-Mart.

Again, we are given a reminder of what urban planning is all about, imposing taste at the point of a gun.


As I've said, I don't have problem with neighborhoods if they are aesthetically attractive and not automobile dependent. Portland has had planners who have done things right a long time before New Urbanism came around. Other places have not.

So in your opinion, Portland is on the right track?

[Robespierre]

Another reason to shop local places rather than Wal-Mart, despite the slightly higher prices, is that the money you spend stays in your community and makes it more prosperous. It's called the income multiplier effect. If you spend your money at Wal-Mart, it makes Bentonville, Arkansas more prosperous.

This is not actually true. Money itself doesn't make communities wealthy. Actually having goods or services in hand is what wealth is made of. If one's money is exchanged for fewer goods and services, higher prices, one is not more wealthy, but less.

By refusing to buy cheaper goods that have been manufactured in other areas, people only impovrish themselves, it does nothing to help the local community. This type of thinking, this strident nationalism/localism is usually behind the anti-free-trade movement, and those who support imposing tariffs on major goods like steel and lumber. The thinking is that prices will climb in the local market, but there will be a benefit by keeping jobs in the country. Of course, no one actually adds up the additional costs imposed by the tariffs, and compares it with the total money paid out in wages to those whose jobs are "saved".

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS