Obesity in America

[jread]

The average joe wants to drive his comfortable car with his Bose 8 speaker system 2 blocks to the Walgreen's and 300 miles for lesuire.

The average joe wants a 2,400sq ft 2-story vinyl box with easy garage access.

The average joe wants cheap groceries, and cheap goods and doesn't care that he has to sacrifice service for price.

The average joe wants a proven good school district, not an improving one

The average joe wants a secure return on his property investment.

The average joe looks at his home as an financial investment, not a community investment. To him, zoning only exists to prevent captial loss, not quality of life loss.

The average joe wants to drive to a fitness center and exercise once there.

The average joe wants free parking.

The average joe wants total conveinence, low maintenance, and quick meals.

The market has been giving the average joe exactly what he wants. Planning will work against the market until demands change. We're attempting to not only change living habits, but personal beliefs on finance, family life, social structures, environmental appreciation, architecture appreciation, and transportation. We're working in direct opposition of 50 years of advertising telling the average joe what he wants.

Excellent post!!!

[giff57]

The market has been giving the average joe exactly what he wants. Planning will work against the market until demands change. We're attempting to not only change living habits, but personal beliefs on finance, family life, social structures, environmental appreciation, architecture appreciation, and transportation. We're working in direct opposition of 50 years of advertising telling the average joe what he wants.

My point is: Don't we work for average Joe?

[boiker]

My point is: Don't we work for average Joe?

I wasnt disagreeing with you. Research says we should strivef for sustainable development. In Practice, I don't think we should change the world, but try to influence it in a positive and more responsible way.

[BKM]

My point is: Don't we work for average Joe?

Not at all. Most of us (especially pro-growth suburban planners) effectively work for the development financing, retail, and construction industries (often regional or national in organization and scope) and their localized political implementation mechanism (e.g., city councils/county commissions) . Most of us work for 'THE MAN" and we can talk revolution all we want, but...

Whether our employers' interests are the same as those of the "Average Joe" is up to debate. Besides, we first have to define what "Average Joe" means.

[nuovorecord]

My point is: Don't we work for average Joe?

I'm inferring from this that you mean our job as civil servants is to give the Average Joe the kind of community they seem to want.

People often want things that aren't good for them or society. The Average Joe seems to want to sit on his fat arse watching TV in his suburban box, eat a bunch of junk food, drive his SUV to the strip mall to buy more crap to eat and shop at Wal-Mart to find XXXL sweats to stuff his ever-expanding body into.

Is this what we strive to become as a nation?

[munibulldog]

I don't agree that this is what the average joe wants. We get lots of people coming to our town from suburban because it still has a living downtown, and you can walk to the beach or parks or downtown from many neighborhoods. A lot of them talk about something that is lost in suburbia, and they seem to find it in a walkable community.

Even if we are talking about someone who does want the average joe things posted above, if it weren't for heavy subsidies on highways, utilities and municipal services, average joe couldn't afford it. Get rid of the subsidies to show the real price of suburbia. If people still want it, OK, as long as they pay their fair share, and people that live in areas that are less expensive to serve get a discount.

[BKM]

I don't agree that this is what the average joe wants. We get lots of people coming to our town from suburban because it still has a living downtown, and you can walk to the beach or parks or downtown from many neighborhoods. A lot of them talk about something that is lost in suburbia, and they seem to find it in a walkable community.

Even if we are talking about someone who does want the average joe things posted above, if it weren't for heavy subsidies on highways, utilities and municipal services, average joe couldn't afford it. Get rid of the subsidies to show the real price of suburbia. If people still want it, OK, as long as they pay their fair share, and people that live in areas that are less expensive to serve get a discount.

Some good points. Should our position be the libertarian one, which some posit will create a far more urbane environment than "over-regulated" Euclidean suburbia. I am skeptical of this argument, but it is out there.

[giff57]

I'm inferring from this that you mean our job as civil servants is to give the Average Joe the kind of community they seem to want.

People often want things that aren't good for them or society. The Average Joe seems to want to sit on his fat arse watching TV in his suburban box, eat a bunch of junk food, drive his SUV to the strip mall to buy more crap to eat and shop at Wal-Mart to find XXXL sweats to stuff his ever-expanding body into.

Is this what we strive to become as a nation?

Yes, it is our job to give the people that pay our salaries what they want. That said, we should be doing a better job educating them on why these are bad for them in the long run.

There are many examples of failed government policy that trys to make folks do or don't do what they want, even if it is what is good for them. We need another angle to use our limited resources on besides beating our collective heads on the wall.

[munibulldog]

Some good points. Should our position be the libertarian one, which some posit will create a far more urbane environment than "over-regulated" Euclidean suburbia. I am skeptical of this argument, but it is out there.

I find it hard to justify planning for the sake of urban design. But for efficient use of infrastructure, absolutely. To create green areas, yes. To concentrate living areas near work and services...to the extent that the market will bear it, yes. Maybe that is urban design.

I like to think that land use regulation will maximize the satisfaction of the people while minimizing land use disputes and maximizing efficient use of public resources on infrastructure. And the only way to really know what people want is to let them buy it in the market (a market that is not distorted by subsidies).

I'm not real sharp on planning or gummint theory, I am sure that this idea extrapolated out might cause problems. It seems to work in a small town, I don't know if it would fly in a big metro.

[munibulldog]

And another thing!

Our pattern of development is dependent on individual vehicles. In order to make transit work, you need to concentrate residential units around nodes, and our patterns just don't fit this at all.

Current technology for individual vehicles (cars) is based on petroleum. Should the government decide that we need to phase out the petro economy, the first thing it needs to do is to encourage dense residential development, especially around mass transit nodes.

This may be crucial in the near term if Washington gets its head out of its axe and realizes that it won't be long till the Islamic governments control all the oil. Our pattern of development makes us vulnerable to foreign control.

This type of national threat would be a legitimate reason for using land use regulation to restrict development that cannot be efficiently served by mass transit.

If only Bozo knew.

[nuovorecord]

Yes, it is our job to give the people that pay our salaries what they want. That said, we should be doing a better job educating them on why these are bad for them in the long run.

There are many examples of failed government policy that trys to make folks do or don't do what they want, even if it is what is good for them. We need another angle to use our limited resources on besides beating our collective heads on the wall.

Agreed! Good summation!

[nuovorecord]

Should the government decide that we need to phase out the petro economy, the first thing it needs to do is to encourage dense residential development, especially around mass transit nodes.

I don't think the government will decide this. Rather, I think it's going to happen all on its own (Hubbert's Peak and all that). And what's worrysome is that we may all be caught with our pants down since we haven't developed any alternative fuels to any great extent and our infrastructure is such that it requires a car or other personal mobility device. I think we need to be building transit oriented communities now, rather than waiting for change to be forced upon us. But, that doesn't seem to be generating much buzz yet among the Average Joes out there.

Of course, when the apocalypse does decend upon us and there's no more oil, there will be plenty of open road space to ride our bikes upon!!!

[magma revival]

I can't wait for the apocalypse.

[BKM]

I can't wait for the apocalypse.

As long as you or your family is not part of the 20-80% of the world's population that doesn't die due to starvation, resource wars, and political instability.