Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 48 of 48

Thread: Is small / limited government compatible with planning?

  1. #26
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,354
    Quote Originally posted by jswanek View post
    .

    In this day and age, there are virtually no means of controlling the "downstream" impacts of development, especially pollution, under a limited federal AND independent local government approach. When the runoff controls on abandoned surface coal mines in West Virginia fail, the pollution impacts might be felt hundreds of miles away. What are Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee supposed to do under such circumstances, go to war with West Virginia?

    The same question of "downstream" impacts applies at all levels. No court has the authority to simply order one municipality to stop development that draws business away from, or even increases traffic in, another. A strong government "overhand" is sadly about all that works, given people's fundamental interest in making money.

    .
    Exactly so. Those who oppose "polluter pays" know this, thus the drive toward kneecapping government.

    And yes, a profession professing that it wants 'sustainability' but out of work when lots of houses don't get built has some thinking to do.

  2. #27
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    611
    Many Tea Party folks don't seem to get the concept that governments have to invest in order to maintain or to increase revenues in order to pay down the debt. Raising tax rates and cutting costs alone are not going to do the job. Economic expansion is also necessary.

    From a planning standpoint, in a world where human capital is increasingly the only thing that matters and where people are more mobile than they've ever been, livable cities are the principal way governments are able to compete for the best talent. So, fixing the U.S. in order to make it more livable and sustainable should keep planners occupied for the foreseeable future.

  3. #28
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Pragmatic Idealist View post
    Many Tea Party folks don't seem to get the concept that governments have to invest in order to maintain or to increase revenues in order to pay down the debt. Raising tax rates and cutting costs alone are not going to do the job. Economic expansion is also necessary.
    I think it's a safe assumption that most Tea Partiers disagree with Keynesian economic theory (even if they might not be able to pin it as such, they still disagree with its precepts).

  4. #29
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    I think it's a safe assumption that most Tea Partiers disagree with Keynesian economic theory (even if they might not be able to pin it as such, they still disagree with its precepts).
    I don't think they understand the notion that tax revenue isn't a zero-sum game.

    An investment in high-speed rail, for instance, doesn't just provide a short-term stimulus to a recessionary economy and fill the gap in aggregate demand when consumers and businesses are unable or unwilling to do so. Such a capital expenditure in infrastructure enhances the economic competitiveness of the country over the long term and helps create the circumstances for economic growth.

  5. #30
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    611
    The deficiencies of our educational system are relevant here because, if people don't know the history of the Great Depression, they may repeat the same mistakes, including prematurely worrying about the debt and attempting to curtail government spending.

    Keynesian economics clearly demonstrated itself through that period in American history, and the nation only fully recovered during World War II, which increased aggregate demand and maximized production in the country.

    Hopefully, the President will announce some sort of Manhattan project or mission to the moon Tuesday night when he speaks about the Gulf of Mexico deep-sea oil drilling disaster and about America's unacceptable dependence on fossil fuels because every one of the world's major problems is telling us we need to shift to clean energy immediately.

  6. #31
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Pragmatic Idealist View post
    I don't think they understand the notion that tax revenue isn't a zero-sum game.

    An investment in high-speed rail, for instance, doesn't just provide a short-term stimulus to a recessionary economy and fill the gap in aggregate demand when consumers and businesses are unable or unwilling to do so. Such a capital expenditure in infrastructure enhances the economic competitiveness of the country over the long term and helps create the circumstances for economic growth.
    Like I said, Tea Partiers most likely don't follow or agree with Keynesian theories on public investment relevant to market cycles. They are more likely to espouse Austrian School concepts or neoclassicial economics.

  7. #32
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,715
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Like I said, Tea Partiers most likely don't follow or agree with Keynesian theories on public investment relevant to market cycles. They are more likely to espouse Austrian School concepts or neoclassicial economics.
    Nicely done TO, I actually had to look up both theories. It appears the the two theories are mutally exclusive. The AS believe that people cannot be analyzed to determine thir buying behavior. Whereas the NCs seem to used models and the such to determine the behavior. I don't think it much matters to the TPers.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  8. #33
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    611
    I don't think the Tea Party people, themselves, know their organizing principles. The comparison to the Boston Tea Party, itself, doesn't really make any sense.

  9. #34
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,610
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Like I said, Tea Partiers most likely don't follow or agree with Keynesian theories on public investment relevant to market cycles. They are more likely to espouse Austrian School concepts or neoclassicial economics.
    Quote Originally posted by Pragmatic Idealist View post
    I don't think the Tea Party people, themselves, know their organizing principles. The comparison to the Boston Tea Party, itself, doesn't really make any sense.
    I agree with the fact that most tea party people don't really have any specific principles... unless you want to say that "disagreeing with the government and where it is going", is a principle.

    TO you are way too smart for your own good sometimes I don't think that the average (heck the above average) Tea Partier has a clue as to what economic philosophy they believe in. I am sure that if you worded it right they would agree with any theory you sold them. I know this is getting back to my extreme dislike for a group (it isn't a movement) that has no principles/boundaries/structure, but unless you stand for something... won't you fall for anything??
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  10. #35
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    TO you are way too smart for your own good sometimes I don't think that the average (heck the above average) Tea Partier has a clue as to what economic philosophy they believe in. I am sure that if you worded it right they would agree with any theory you sold them.
    I know most wouldn't be able to identify their economic philosophy by name.

    ...(even if they might not be able to pin it as such...)
    By that I meant if you took statements from Tea Partiers on average, you'd probably wind up with something loosely resembling Austrian School or neoclassical economic theory (only in dumbed-down layman's terms).

  11. #36
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,715
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    By that I meant if you took statements from Tea Partiers on average, you'd probably wind up with something loosely resembling Austrian School or neoclassical economic theory (only in dumbed-down layman's terms).
    I agree with the previous statement that you are smarter than your peers on this issue. The TPers believe is a form of economic darwinism then.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  12. #37
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally posted by Pragmatic Idealist View post
    I don't think the Tea Party people, themselves, know their organizing principles. The comparison to the Boston Tea Party, itself, doesn't really make any sense.
    I don't even think the Tea Party even knows who they are. Previous groups on both sides of the aisle had far more organized political platforms (Obama in 2008, Republican's Contract with America in 1994, etc.). The Tea Party just wants to shake up the status quo but they have not unified behind one candidate or group of canditates. I think that is going to lead to a series of small fires when they are elected to office in November and are butting heads with the Republican and Democrat establishments come next January.

    I would guess that the "Tea Party" candidates would have a strong hands-off approach to planning/zoning, if they even cared at all about land use issues.
    "This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
    "M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."

    Family Guy

  13. #38
    Cyburbian fringe's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Comer, GA
    Posts
    570
    Jazzman,

    Benighted as my state appears to be in regard to its historical policies it does provide some leadership regarding comp planning and construction codes.

    Local govts, in order to keep status as "qualified local govt", have to create and follow comp plans, so there is some security therein for those engaging in a planning profession.

    As the cliche goes, "If you don't plan you will certainly be blindsided by changes".

    More broadly, does it not seem logical that the more complex become our lives, our society, and our general activity, that the more complex our means of regulation would have to become, ergo, "bigger".

    Has not a lesson been learned from the recent deregulation of things like energy marketing (Enron and the false California energy crisis) and the financial sector (artificial assets and the housing bubble collapse), not to mention oversight of the mining and mineral extraction industries (coal mine explosions, mountaintop removal, and most recently oil spill ((LA Times has just reported that inspection authority for the rig that exploded was assigned to the South Pacific Marshall Islands)))?

  14. #39
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    I agree with the previous statement that you are smarter than your peers on this issue. The TPers believe is a form of economic darwinism then.
    That's an argument that can be used against capitalism as a whole. Key here being that is an argument, not necessarily a fact. The Keynes-inspired mixed market approach and its synthesis with classical economic theory has only been around (read: practiced) since the 1930s. Yet we're still dealing with the same issues (poverty, inequality of incomes, etc.) and the same market fluctuations/cycles as we always have been. There will always be economic darwinism, even if the economy moved towards a socialist paradigm - it's just that the factors determining who's the strongest will change.
    Last edited by TexanOkie; 15 Jun 2010 at 11:24 AM.

  15. #40
    Cyburbian ursus's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    3,680
    Quote Originally posted by fringe View post
    Jazzman,
    Has not a lesson been learned from the recent deregulation of things like energy marketing (Enron and the false California energy crisis) and the financial sector (artificial assets and the housing bubble collapse), not to mention oversight of the mining and mineral extraction industries (coal mine explosions, mountaintop removal, and most recently oil spill ((LA Times has just reported that inspection authority for the rig that exploded was assigned to the South Pacific Marshall Islands)))?
    But over-regulation (or complete state control, in the end) gives you the open, well-run transparent states like North Korea. It gives you the well-run Russian nuclear program, the Georgian Mafia, and basically I'll take my chances with Enron. I think you're correct, though, Fringe. The beauty that is America, to me, is in the balance of the Republic. That's meant to swing. I see the Tea Party as a part of that swing. If there had been no response to the sweeping liberal change that brought President Obama to office THEN I would worry. Probably the way I would worry had there not been a sweeping liberal response to put Obama in office. I'm not a Tea Party activist, but I think I respect their motivation (generally).
    "...I would never try to tick Hink off. He kinda intimidates me. He's quite butch, you know." - Maister

  16. #41
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847
    As with most questions, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle / and it depends on the specific situation. There is no one size fits all answer.
    "Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill

  17. #42
    Cyburbian fringe's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Comer, GA
    Posts
    570
    ursus forgot to mention China in his list of uber state controlled planning locations.

    Their model appears to suit the biggest corporations just fine.

  18. #43
    Cyburbian ursus's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    3,680
    Quote Originally posted by fringe View post
    ursus forgot to mention China in his list of uber state controlled planning locations.

    Their model appears to suit the biggest corporations just fine.
    True, with the Google exception noted
    "...I would never try to tick Hink off. He kinda intimidates me. He's quite butch, you know." - Maister

  19. #44
    Cyburbian RPfresh's avatar
    Registered
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf Jock City
    Posts
    197

    Uhhh...

    There is a huge ideological area between communism and Enron. A definition I've heard is that communism is control of business by government, and fascism is control of government by business. I think somewhere in between is where to shoot for; it's not an either or.

  20. #45
    Cyburbian fringe's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Comer, GA
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally posted by RPfresh View post
    There is a huge ideological area between communism and Enron. A definition I've heard is that communism is control of business by government, and fascism is control of government by business.
    I think in the US we have reached the latter of the two already (condisder the High Court's last campaign finance ruling).

    Next will be the takeover of the Corporate State by the People's Republic.

    Then Mao or whoever's world takeover dream will be fulfilled.

  21. #46
    Cyburbian RPfresh's avatar
    Registered
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf Jock City
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally posted by fringe View post
    I think in the US we have reached the latter of the two already (condisder the High Court's last campaign finance ruling).
    I would agree. However I'm an optimist and hope to high heaven we can work our way towards the middle. If the US went to communism I'd move to Brazil. And I hope no one thinks that Obama trying to socialize healthcare is a bad thing or a step in that direction, because it's not...

  22. #47
    Cyburbian fringe's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Comer, GA
    Posts
    570
    RPfresh,

    You didn't mention what might happen if US turned to fascism...

    Suppose a prez like GWBush began rounding up "intellectuals" as did Franco in Spain, and gunning them down, as Franco did with Lorca, would anyone protest?

  23. #48
    Cyburbian RPfresh's avatar
    Registered
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf Jock City
    Posts
    197
    Interesting - he did manage to shut a lot of intellectuals up, though

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

More at Cyburbia

  1. Planetizen AICP course: Mac compatible?
    Career Development and Advice
    Replies: 4
    Last post: 03 Jul 2011, 3:34 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last post: 12 Jul 2010, 10:04 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last post: 18 Apr 2007, 8:04 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last post: 26 Jan 2002, 3:38 PM