Sprawl: how do you stop it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
318
Likes
0
Points
0
#61
Ok, could I get answers from people who DON'T favor sprawl or the suburban lifestyle please?

I'm sorry but I am only going to listen to people who favor urban areas. I live in a suburban/rural area and have to live with it everyday, I think I have enough of that lifestyle around me to know what people's opinions are if they favor sprawl. I want to hear from people who love cities and love urban areas. Not people who love places like Los Angeles, Overland Park, or certain cities and suburbs that are based on sprawl.

Guess what, sprawl didn't exist in it's current form before WWII, so tell me why do we have to live with our mistakes of the horrible planning/design period that occured in the 50s, 60s and 70s? We should correct and learn from our mistakes, not live with them for generations.

There is a BIG difference between having your freedoms, and letting your perceived freedoms hurt the rest of the world. Just because you want cities to continue to sprawl out, and cause urban decay and global climate change doesn't mean that you deserve the freedom to do so. We aren't talking about freedom here, we are talking about responsibility.

Sprawl is anti-freedom as it is, and it is actually one of our best forms of communism in the country. Eliminating it is NOT communism, and removing one choice of living is NOT communism. Learn the difference between freedoms, responsibility, and choice.
You have the freedom to do what you want, but with those freedoms comes consequences. We have the responsibility to choose to either restrict people from using those freedoms, or to choose to not exercise those freedoms for the good of society and civilization.

It's NOT about me, what I want, and how I want to live. It's about US, it's about human beings, the world, the universe, it's about respecting what you've been given, and respecting nature, the environment and your neighbor. Sprawl is completely against this sort of thing, it promotes what people want, it promotes wasting resources, changing our climate, destroying environments, etc...

I'm not closed minded, I just hate the idea of having no regard for other humans, the environment, the earth, other creatures, our resources, etc... People living in these areas don't realize what they are causing, it isn't their fault, and many planners do not know what they are doing, or don't care. They aren't doing it on purpose, but they are ruining Earth by sprawling out more and more.

Again, I ask, could someone who is against sprawl please comment on this?
 
Last edited:

Jess

Cyburbian
Messages
364
Likes
0
Points
0
#62
How to stop Urban Sprawl?

otterpop, the place you lived was not a healthy urban environment. What I'm saying is a healthy, vibrant, dense urban community will ALWAYS outperform a "perfect" suburban community.

Don't forget, I live in the suburbs too, but I see a big difference between what a city CAN be, and what suburbs are and/or will be.

I've lived in suburbs and rural areas for 100% of my life. Don't forget that.

Read Jane Jacob's books, and check out cnu.org, as well as "City Talk" from Sydney's government.

I want suburbs to be destroyed in their current form, however I believe suburbs can be reformed into vibrant urban communities, it will just take A LOT of time and money, and they have to be willing to make the change.

Ideal urban areas are:
New York City
Barcelona
Toronto
Chicago (parts of it)
Copenhagen
and multiple other European cities
There were already previous discussions about this topic. Just go over them and you can pick some good references. Any way, here are some of them. The rest find it yourself;

http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25201
http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=26403
http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=28303

From your statements, you already identified some problems that triggered sprawl. Although there are more, that has not been identified, Here’s what you can do;

Step 1: Go to your City Council and ask for a copy of their Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Have it reviewed, evaluate, analyze. Is it updated? Do they have plans & programs? What are their mitigation measures? If, not then draft a proposal and make your recommendations and submit that to the City Council for them to include in their plans and programs for this year. That’s what you can do for now as citizen of that state. You have the voice. If it fails and you cannot wait till you become a planner, why not run for yourself and be elected as the head of state so that you can implement your programs. I’m sure you can control sprawl that way.

BTW, What’s in NYC, Sydney, Toronto, Chicago, Barcelona, Copenhagen, and other parts of European cities that are common that it made so special to you and you want to emulate those HIMBY? Have you made research on the Comprehensive Land Use Plans and their growth programs of those cities you mentioned? Please enlighten us.

Thanks.
 

natski

Cyburbian
Messages
2,590
Likes
0
Points
0
#63
,snip>

Read Jane Jacob's books, and check out cnu.org, as well as "City Talk" from Sydney's government.
Huh? Sydney is full of sprawl!

HeartlandCityBoy said:
Guess what, sprawl didn't exist in it's current form before WWII, so tell me why do we have to live with our mistakes of the horrible planning/design period that occured in the 50s, 60s and 70s? We should correct and learn from our mistakes, not live with them for generations.
um there is a reason for this.... its called motor vehicles... its also what we call "The great Australian Dream" owning your own piece of land you can mow and put a hill hoist in... an affluence thing... moved from slummy type packed development to a hygenic residential environment...

Have you ever thought that its just an evolution... and that slowly we are coming full circle, and that something will again influnence the way in which we reside?

HeartlandCityBoy said:
Sprawl is anti-freedom as it is, and it is actually one of our best forms of communism in the country. Eliminating it is NOT communism, and removing one choice of living is NOT communism. Learn the difference between freedoms, responsibility, and choice.
You have the freedom to do what you want, but with those freedoms comes consequences. We have the responsibility to choose to either restrict people from using those freedoms, or to choose to not exercise those freedoms for the good of society and civilization.
Hmm no, in todays society its the market that decides- the market is supposed to work within regulations the government via planners make- but it is often pushed to the limits, and when there is money to be made it will happen. Its all about money- even for the government- wouldnt be worthwhile for them to restrict peoples freedoms.
 

cdub

Cyburbian
Messages
47
Likes
0
Points
0
#64
Hmm no, in todays society its the market that decides- the market is supposed to work within regulations the government via planners make- but it is often pushed to the limits, and when there is money to be made it will happen. Its all about money- even for the government- wouldnt be worthwhile for them to restrict peoples freedoms.
Not entirely. The government helps to dictate where development happens, so it's not a complete free market. The placement of infrastructure guides where development happens. Developers rarely, if ever, extend highways and utilities to their enclaves. Cheap oil and government decisions (those decisions that maintain cheap oil) are the driving force in our development patterns. Sprawl will defeat itself in the end. Either through the end of cheap oil or the bankruptcy of municipalities trying to continue infrastructure development at densities that don't turn a profit.

HeartlandCityBoy, my advice would be to concentrate once you're in the professional world on creating places that are the antithesis of sprawl. Show people that they have an option other than automobile dependent living. It was evident when gasoline passed the $3 mark that people became conscious of their decisions and realized their dependence, having little in the way of actual options other than getting in the car. Unfortunately, like a fat kid with a cupcake, we've already forgotten about the minor heart attack we had and it's back to happy motoring. Examples are out there and it's why people pay a premium to live in those areas.
 
Messages
2
Likes
0
Points
0
#65
Local governments are acting as landlords over their area. As landlords, they decide what road goes where, what is allowed to be built where and how it should be built. The developers only supply what the landlord is telling them to.
Developers do not supply what the local government tells them to, they supply what the housing market demands. Since the 1950’s this has been generally a demand for a single detached dwelling in the suburbs with access to the road system. This demand is only possible because transport costs are lower enough to permit people to live a suburban lifestyle. Just because local authorities have some ability to regulate the supply of land does not mean they are ultimately and solely responsible for how it is consumed. Yes, local governments have the ability to introduce land use controls such as greenbelts to prevent such sprawling development and can negotiate with developers where roads can go, but no, they are not responsible for the demand of low density residential environments. Local governments try to ensure that new development is of a standard appropriate for community consumption and influence development patterns with infrastructure. If local governments (which have been around for quite a while) regulating the supply of land are the cause of sprawl why didn’t we see sprawling cities prior to the 1950’s – it’s because it was only around this time that it became more affordable for people to live in low density suburbs.



Sure, the developers try to pull the government's acts in their directions, but so do you. That's democracy.
True, but developers influence on the policy making process is far greater than mine. My experience in NSW is that local government planning controls are often overridden by a State Government decisions based on influence from developers. You can hardly argue that developers only supply what local governments tell them to, when developers often ignore local government planning controls and develop what they want anyway after lobbying to a higher level of government.

No effort at reduced road construction or greenfield development will alter the fact that people want to leave the central city due to its corruption.
I agree that restricting road construction and greenfield development will not greatly affect the choice of some for a suburban lifestyle. I believe a solution to sprawl is making people pay the true cost of their transportation. I really think people’s decision to move into the suburbs relates to a lot of decisions such as housing affordability and a choice for a certain lifestyle –i.e. a big house with a big backyard, rather than corruption. This choice is made possible by low cost transport. I haven’t seen any evidence that inner city governments are more corrupt than suburban governments.
 

Luca

Cyburbian
Messages
1,147
Likes
0
Points
0
#66
There are three main thought threads that run through this topic (and others like it)

1. Sprawl is caused by (inexplicable) local government bias toward subsidy of sprawl-friendly infrastructure and consumption

2. Sprawl is caused by the desire to escape poorly governed central cities / existing neighbourhoods

3. Sprawl is caused by a natural human preference for living in a suburban setting.

I don’t pretend to have an all-encompassing, systemic explanation but it seems pretty clear that on several levels local government infrastructure and transportation choices helped sustain the car-centric culture that creates sprawl. These choices were then more or less unwittingly, codified (i.e. made nearly obligatory) by urban development codes (though that seems to be changing?).

There is also much evidence that the social policy mega-disaster that was the 1950s-1960s safety-net welfare and loose-policing approach in many US cities led to an exodus that represented a massive acceleration of the pre-existing suburbanization movement (which did coincide with mass auto ownership and better suburban rail/trolley transport).

On the subject of human aspirations and their immutability, I would only point out that in the space of one/two generations smoking in the US went from glamorous and desirable to commonplace to a social market of poor personal hygiene or even underclass membership. If the rich and admired start living in city-center apartments and playing in city parks again you can bet your bottom dollar that the aspirational middle class will be queuing like docile little morons for their ‘lofts’ before you can say ‘Martha Steward’. The ‘burbs’ are ‘always and everywhere’ a caricature of landed gentry lifestyle. Advertising can turn even the stoutest lawn-mower man into a Gothamite. I suggest targeting the ‘nag factor’ (the wives).

SO, my unprofessional advice to “HeartlandCityBoy” (By the way, I spent a decade near the KC metro area):
-> I agree that you should set the example. The warehouse district in KCMO is brilliant. IF you want to be a ‘pioneer’, last time I checked the area just south of Downtown was ripe for rediscovery.
-> To the extent that it is politically feasible, support infill and remove support for the extension of
-> I think specifically BECAUSE KCMO and KCK are surrounded by ‘competing’ suburbs they have a better chance of doing well, if they so wish. If they control crime (which is not actually that difficult) and turn around perceptions on education (again, controllable by the community/government); If they maximize the value of their towns by maintaining/upgrading attractions and raising the cost of living away (free parking for locals, not for suburbanites, tax rebates for locals when using local services, not for suburbanites, etc.); if they encourage ruthless gentrification (ups the tax base, exports the crime/marginal households problems to the suburb) they can easily win.
 
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#67
Local governments try to ensure that new development is of a standard appropriate for community consumption and influence development patterns with infrastructure. If local governments (which have been around for quite a while) regulating the supply of land are the cause of sprawl why didn’t we see sprawling cities prior to the 1950’s – it’s because it was only around this time that it became more affordable for people to live in low density suburbs.
It's more than infrastructure. With zoning, size restrictions on lots and buildings, and all matter of development ordinances, developers are constrained in what they produce to produce only sprawl. In that kind of environment, which developers will grow rich and which will be driven out of the business? Developers who create sprawl grow rich, others go out of the business.

Why didn't cities sprawl prior to the 1950's? Because city growth was regulated in a different pattern. Cities still grew quite rapidly. They just grew differently. Beforehand and after it was the local landlord's decision how the land would be developed.
True, but developers influence on the policy making process is far greater than mine. My experience in NSW is that local government planning controls are often overridden by a State Government decisions based on influence from developers. You can hardly argue that developers only supply what local governments tell them to, when developers often ignore local government planning controls and develop what they want anyway after lobbying to a higher level of government.
Once again, if developers need some level of government's support in order to build what they wish to build, it is the government that is responsible for the result.

To quote Luca
1. Sprawl is caused by (inexplicable) local government bias toward subsidy of sprawl-friendly infrastructure and consumption
It is actually fairly easy to explain. Being that they are communist structures, democratic governments are unable to economize. The subsidy comes from the fact that these local governments are shielded from competition from non-communist local landlords who are able to economize. The market for cities has been abolished. Since these local governments have a monopoly, they have nothing to fear from wasteful spending of their tenants' tax income. The people who administer them do what is most advantageous for themselves, in the immediate moment, at the expense of the whole property. Capital formation (density) is impossible.
 
Messages
318
Likes
0
Points
0
#68
Would it also be a good idea to urbanize some of the suburbs? I know a few suburbs that used to have great urban Downtowns, however because of white flight and decentralization (though on a smaller scale), they died.

One of the problems of our Downtown right now, is that while it is growing, not much affordable housing is being built, most of the units in Downtown are above 170,000 dollars.

Currently our Downtown has jumped from about 10,000-13,000 people in 2000 to 16,262 in early 2006. Just this last year, 891 units were completed, and right now 988 units are under construction in our Downtown. (with over 2600 planned)

The unfortunate thing is that we need to not only get medium income people Downtown, but also keep the lower income families, and a lot of the new construction is destroying buildings instead of preserving and using them. The only preservation that is going on is the renovations to residential condos or lofts.
The East Side needs a lot of help, not only with population, but also crime and schools. (it has a population of something like 60,000 when it used to hold the majority of our 400,000 people in the 1940s)

Hopefully big developers don't get their hands on the East Side, because if they do, they will look out to make money and drive out the lower income families and only target medium and upper income families, as well as they'd probably demolish existing buildings and homes.
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Moderator
Messages
10,548
Likes
1
Points
26
#69
Hartland, to stop sprawl is to change the way people think about urban cores. That means improving schools, reducing crime, and offering opportunities. It is not that downtowns are bad or that the burbs is good, it is that people have not been given a reason to move back into the cities. When the pain of where they are at (such as wishing they were someplace else) gets to a breaking point, which I don't think that anyone knows when that will happen, sprawl will stop.

This is a question that we are all asked, cities have spent millions, but until people stop wanting to move to the suburbs (from one government to another), developers will continue to give people want they want, and sprawl will continue.
I think this is an excellent summation of the problem - there's a reason why people leave, as jaws as said many times as well.

I think the role of government is to make the urban areas pleasant places to live and then people will want to live there, and then it will be overpriced because the supply will not keep up with demand so middle income people revert back out from the cities to find cheaper land/housing :r: - so it's all cyclical, in a way - not to be cynical - but it's reality :)

when we lived in the Boston area, we wanted to live in Cambridge or Boston, but we couldn't touch it financially so we had to go to a suburb (on a rail line, I will add :a: )
 

Michele Zone

     
Messages
7,617
Likes
0
Points
0
#70
There are three main thought threads that run through this topic (and others like it)

1. Sprawl is caused by (inexplicable) local government bias toward subsidy of sprawl-friendly infrastructure and consumption

2. Sprawl is caused by the desire to escape poorly governed central cities / existing neighbourhoods

3. Sprawl is caused by a natural human preference for living in a suburban setting.

I don’t pretend to have an all-encompassing, systemic explanation but it seems pretty clear that on several levels local government infrastructure and transportation choices helped sustain the car-centric culture that creates sprawl.
I've looked at the history in the U.S. I have said in this forum before that it seems pretty clear to me that the pattern of housing/development we have currently grows out of federal policies which were formulated post-WWII. To try to give a brief summary:

During The Depression, there wasn't a lot of housing built, many people were homeless or doubled up and a lot of people moved every thirteen months to get one month free (because things were so bad, with a 30% unemployment rate, that many landlords offered the thirteenth month free if you could pay your rent for 12 months).

Then we had WWII, which "rescued" the U.S. from the depression. The fact that so many men went off to war AND the women worked in factories back home while consumer goods were rationed meant that you just couldn't spend it all, try though you might. Savings rates were extremely high during the war, approaching 50% one year. When the boys came back, women were actively encouraged to leave their jobs and go home so the boys could have the jobs they "deserved". Lots of women were happy to do so. Having been through The Great Depression and WWII, many Americans were perfectly happy to take their gobs of money and buy a house, make babies, and have mom at home...etc. It was a very comfortable existence.

The problem was, you had tons of money in savings, tons of veterans with veterans benefits which would help them buy a house but not enough housing to buy. So this is where you get Levittowns. There was a huge, huge housing boom post-WWII and federal policies were put into place to fuel that fire and throw up as much housing as was possible. Those policies all aimed at supporting the building and purchase of single-family detached housing. To this day, it is very difficult to finance the purchase of anything else because all mechanisms for supporting purchasing a home are aimed at the single family detached house purchased by either a single male with a good income or a couple. If you don't fit those demographics and/or you dont want a single family detached house, you are very much swimming upstream. Options like co-housing, which in theory ought to be more friendly to low income, single parent, elderly who live alone, etc. is out of reach of most such people as it essentially has to be self-funded by the folks wanting to create such a scenario.

If you have ever tried (or fantasized and read up on it) to do homeownership (in the U.S.A.) that varied from single family detached (suburban sprawl) house and/or you fit a demographic other than single male or "nuclear family", then you ought to know first hand how much the system in place makes things very hard on getting alternatives to happen because it is so strongly biased towards this one thing that this country needed so much of, as quickly as possible for a relatively brief period of time. Given that the demographic it supports is in the minority these days, those policies need to be dismantled -- or altered to support more options. Even if you are a single male, you are probably buying a three bedroom house in the 'burbs near a good school just because the resale value is better. Since home ownership accounts for the vast majority of "savings" that most Americans have, the financing mechanism in place makes the decision for most people, regardless of what they might prefer. Only those who have significant resources -- usually including (but not limited to) both money and education -- can swim against this tide.

If you want to stop sprawl, you have to go to D.C. and change policies at the federal level. And the policies you need to concentrate on have to do with how home ownership gets financed and what type of home ownership gets financed and for whom (this includes how tax breaks are structured). Fannie Mae is a big part of the problem. Their home page says "Our business is the American Dream". What do they (mostly) do? They help finance single family detached houses. If their program changed overnight to helping finance condos in the downtown area, patterns of housing development could change as rapidly and as drastically as it did post-WWII when we went from housing shortage to housing boom.

I guess the short version is "Show me the money".
 
Messages
318
Likes
0
Points
0
#71
It doesn't have to be cyclical, you can always have lower income, medium income and upper income people all living together in a neighborhood. As long as it's a healthy urban neighborhood.

People live in the suburbs because of: Crime, Education and Racism. It doesn't have much to do with price of houses, as our area has very low housing prices, but isn't growing much, yet areas that are growing are those that have houses well above $100,000.

While Downtown is selling, and most of it's units are very expensive, and developers have yet to try affordable housing. And the urban core has houses just as cheap as those on the rural edges of the city, yet no one will move there because of prejudice, the education problem, and the perceived crime problem.

I've been looking at our former city auditor's surveys (he is now running for mayor) of the KC area, and here are some of them:
16% of people in KCMO are satisfied with Maintenance
32% of people are satisfied with code enforcement
31% are satisfied with city communication
67% are satisfied with police, fire and ambulance services
16% are satisfied with maintenance of buildings
37% are satisfied with the city's overall image
51% are satisfied with the quality of life
25% are satisfied with the value of use of tax dollars
31% are satisfied with the city's efforts to combat crime
39% are satisfied with the police presence in neighborhoods

32% are satisfied with maintenance and preservation of the Downtown
19% are satisfied with maintenance of sidewalks
21% are satisfied with maintenance of streets
42% are satisfied with the city convention facilities
23% are satisfied with the municipal court
30% are satisfied with the feeling of safety

People feel the least safest in the parks at night, at day, and in their neighborhoods at night.

People in the East Side of the city, which is the area that has more low income people, but also has a lot of potential, rated the city the lowest on quality of life to live, work and to raise children in.

http://www.kcmo.org/auditor/05-06audits/benchmarkingandgeosurveyresults05.pdf
 
Last edited:

Mastiff

Gunfighter
Messages
6,497
Likes
0
Points
1
#72
It is actually fairly easy to explain. Being that they are communist structures, democratic governments are unable to economize. The subsidy comes from the fact that these local governments are shielded from competition from non-communist local landlords who are able to economize. The market for cities has been abolished. Since these local governments have a monopoly, they have nothing to fear from wasteful spending of their tenants' tax income. The people who administer them do what is most advantageous for themselves, in the immediate moment, at the expense of the whole property. Capital formation (density) is impossible.
You know, Jaws... I tend to ignore your tired anti-government screeds. Not this time. I take umbrage at your simple-minded assessment of local government, and your attempt to smear a group of people who generally try to serve the people who hired them as best they can. I work on the budget for about 1/2 of my municipality, and good luck finding "wasteful spending" in my work. And I am not alone... you are among many people who handle the tax monies of the people, and do a fine job of using that money to benefit their citizens.

If we do not do our jobs, we do have something to fear... it's called unemployment. But I have one other thing, even more important than that... the integrity I take to my job. How dare you even take a swipe at it. But that's basically all you are good for... so until you actually do my job, shut your wine and cheese hole about how we do them.
 
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#73
You know, Jaws... I tend to ignore your tired anti-government screeds. Not this time. I take umbrage at your simple-minded assessment of local government, and your attempt to smear a group of people who generally try to serve the people who hired them as best they can. I work on the budget for about 1/2 of my municipality, and good luck finding "wasteful spending" in my work. And I am not alone... you are among many people who handle the tax monies of the people, and do a fine job of using that money to benefit their citizens.

If we do not do our jobs, we do have something to fear... it's called unemployment. But I have one other thing, even more important than that... the integrity I take to my job. How dare you even take a swipe at it. But that's basically all you are good for... so until you actually do my job, shut your wine and cheese hole about how we do them.
What were your net earnings last year? What is your return on equity invested?

Until you can answer that, your budget is wasteful. You are spending but not producing. That's not a personal criticism, it's a systemic flaw of communist organizations. You simply do not know how much value is produced by your spending and cannot know.

Maybe you're spending too much. Maybe you're not spending enough. There's no way to know unless you have a measure of value. The only measure, other than someone's own personal preferences, is the income your spending generates.
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
6,595
Likes
0
Points
0
#74
Until you can answer that, your budget is wasteful. You are spending but not producing. That's not a personal criticism, it's a systemic flaw of communist organizations. You simply do not know how much value is produced by your spending and cannot know.
That's only according to you and your ideas, which do not reflect how local governments actually work, only how you think they should work. I'll take reality over JawsWorld, thanks.
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Moderator
Messages
10,548
Likes
1
Points
26
#75
oh, okay...

What were your net earnings last year? What is your return on equity invested?.
ah-ha - sorry HCB, but this thread just got hijacked! :D

{insert light bulb smilie} now I understand you, Jaws - your premise on government is flawed because government is not a business and it never was set up to be one - we provide a service for the public benefit that serves a common good that the voters decide upon - if the voters say no public transportation, then no public transportation - the public at-large decides what services are provided - so the term value has no meaning because it's the "values" of the municipality that decide what services are provided

the return is your local (if we are talking about local services) property taxes - they pay for the service - you pay in for a service that you decide upon receiving - that's the exchange - the voters are the consumers
 
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#76
That's only according to you and your ideas, which do not reflect how local governments actually work, only how you think they should work. I'll take reality over JawsWorld, thanks.
Actually, this is the reality of communism as it has always been. Even famous Marxist economist finally admitted that it was true with the failure of the Soviet Union.

Communism cannot work, no matter how hard you wish it to. Without exchange of private property, without market prices, it is impossible to know the value of a good. It is impossible to know how much value you are producing as you consume resources.

How do you know that your work has created value?
 

Plan-it

Cyburbian
Messages
921
Likes
0
Points
0
#78
Well i've already been approved to a college for architecture and have scholarships... I love architecture, and I also love urban planning, I want to be able to design buildings as well as cities.

My idea of a city is generally the same as European cities, and to some degree, like NYC...

Cities aren't meant to sprawl out, they are meant to fill in, then go up before they go out even slightly. Farms and small towns/villages are for people who want a rural lifestyle, but even those cannot sprawl out.


A lot of people do not realize the drastic effects sprawl has on inner cities, and they are a bad thing because of what they do to inner cities.

I also feel very helpless, because at my age, I'm not able to do anything about things like this. Yet what goes on now, greatly effects my future, and no one cares about the effects they have even on my own generation.

It's really sad how many cities are winning against sprawl, yet my own hometown thinks of itself as a western town, and regional people think of it as being a western town, and it is beginning to model itself after cities like LA... I really wouldn't want to have to move, but if this city becomes a Los Angeles, I would leave in a second.
Kid...you are putting NYC up on a pedestal like it is an anti-sprawl trophy. Did you know that some people commute in their cars three to four hours to get to their job in Manhattan! That is called SPRAWL!

You are an idealistic person, which planning desperatly needs, and the educational experience you about to undertake will help you to channel that idealism. Once you complete this vetting process, you will enter the real world. When you get into the real world you will discover that we, as planners, are more of the facilitators of development (good and bad types of development) and not dictators who can tell people how and where they will be blessed to live. There is something in this country called property rights and thank goodness we have them because I would not want to live in a country where the state controls all of a person's destiny.
 
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#79
ah-ha - sorry HCB, but this thread just got hijacked! :D

{insert light bulb smilie} now I understand you, Jaws - your premise on government is flawed because government is not a business and it never was set up to be one - we provide a service for the public benefit that serves a common good that the voters decide upon - if the voters say no public transportation, then no public transportation - the public at-large decides what services are provided - so the term value has no meaning because it's the "values" of the municipality that decide what services are provided

the return is your local (if we are talking about local services) property taxes - they pay for the service - you pay in for a service that you decide upon receiving - that's the exchange - the voters are the consumers
That's exactly what I'm saying. Government is not set up as a private enterprise, therefore economizing under this system is impossible. Production of capital is impossible.

They once set up farms that where not set up as private ventures but "for the public benefit" that "served the common good" voters decided upon. The outcome: people starved. The farms could not produce any value.

We have cities set up to serve the common good for the public benefit. The outcome: they are wrecked. The cities cannot produce any value.

Big surprise?

Because my clients pay me.
Exactly. You can calculate your profitability as the difference between what you spend and what your earn in exchange for your expenditures.

Communist organizations cannot do that.
 
Messages
318
Likes
0
Points
0
#80
hey jaws, shut your mouth or create a thread pertaining to your discussion. This isn't about how democratic governments are communist in your view. If you want to discuss that, then create a new thread, this isn't the place to do it.

I've only been regularly participating for a couple days now, and I'm already sick of your anti-democratic/republic rants.

Moderator note:


While I agree that [user]jaws[/user] should not be hijacking the thread, and that such discussion should be split off to it's own thread (or this one will be closed)....a personal attack is not the way to go about voicing your displeasure. Please do not resort to name calling or personal attacks.


This shows apx. 57 out of the total 117 homicides in KCMO in 2006 as they are distributed in our urban core... Downtown as defined by the Downtown Council is shown in the red outline.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top