The Stupid Concept of Smart Growth
Soapbox time.
One of the stupidest ideas going is Smart Growth, which is just whacko-speak for "Let me tell you where you should live and in what kind of home you should live because you're a stupid, insignificant human and there are more important things than your desires."
An obnoxious column in the Santa Clara Sentinel called "Smart Growth does not have to be a pipe dream" by the appropriately named Jeri Ram set me off. It presents every erroneous catch phrase of this socialistic concept. Here they are, with appropriate commentary:
No one wants longer commutes, more pollution or added stress. Actually, they do. That's why people move to the suburbs in droves and barely trickle into urban centers. Besides, as suburbs grow, they attract jobs, which reduces commutes. This is what happened here in OC, and it's happening in fast-growing suburbs all over America (the same ones Bush won so handily). If we all lived in dense urban hubs, it would actually increase pollution because aging urban infrastructure isn't ready to handle a population boom, and slow moving vehicles create more pollution than vehicles moving along freeways and well designed suburban arterial highways. And urban living as a stress reliever? Just ask a New Yorker about stress.
The American Dream
Communities must encourage development in established areas ... first, then ... near existing urbanized areas, while at the same time protecting resources, open space and agricultural lands. If we built per this plan, we could not build enough homes to house California's growing population -- urban, suburban and rural housing combined might accomplish that. And did you notice any reference to the property rights of those who happen to own property anywhere but in the urban areas? Are taxpayers expected to compensate rural landowners for not developing the subdivisions the taxpayers themselves want to live in?
Cities and counties [should] encourage infill rather than gobbling up what's left of our open space and agricultural land with "greenfield" development. Half of California's 100 million acres are state or federal land, just under 45 percent is agriculture and just over five percent is developed. There's a lot of gobbling to be done.
Infill upzoning should be encouraged to allow for greater density, while downzoning that reduces housing opportunities or develops greenfields should be discouraged. The overwhelming majority of Americans wants to live in a suburban, low density home. Eighty five percent of homebuyers under 35 want to move up to a larger (suburban) home, according the the National Association of Homebuilder's national survey. I'm all for dense urban development (I grew up in Tokyo, after all), but let's see these nincompoops try to take away the cherished American Suburban Dream!
If we could just drop a smart bomb on the entire concept of smart growth ...
One of the stupidest ideas going is Smart Growth, which is just whacko-speak for "Let me tell you where you should live and in what kind of home you should live because you're a stupid, insignificant human and there are more important things than your desires."
An obnoxious column in the Santa Clara Sentinel called "Smart Growth does not have to be a pipe dream" by the appropriately named Jeri Ram set me off. It presents every erroneous catch phrase of this socialistic concept. Here they are, with appropriate commentary:
No one wants longer commutes, more pollution or added stress. Actually, they do. That's why people move to the suburbs in droves and barely trickle into urban centers. Besides, as suburbs grow, they attract jobs, which reduces commutes. This is what happened here in OC, and it's happening in fast-growing suburbs all over America (the same ones Bush won so handily). If we all lived in dense urban hubs, it would actually increase pollution because aging urban infrastructure isn't ready to handle a population boom, and slow moving vehicles create more pollution than vehicles moving along freeways and well designed suburban arterial highways. And urban living as a stress reliever? Just ask a New Yorker about stress.
The American Dream
Communities must encourage development in established areas ... first, then ... near existing urbanized areas, while at the same time protecting resources, open space and agricultural lands. If we built per this plan, we could not build enough homes to house California's growing population -- urban, suburban and rural housing combined might accomplish that. And did you notice any reference to the property rights of those who happen to own property anywhere but in the urban areas? Are taxpayers expected to compensate rural landowners for not developing the subdivisions the taxpayers themselves want to live in?
Cities and counties [should] encourage infill rather than gobbling up what's left of our open space and agricultural land with "greenfield" development. Half of California's 100 million acres are state or federal land, just under 45 percent is agriculture and just over five percent is developed. There's a lot of gobbling to be done.
Infill upzoning should be encouraged to allow for greater density, while downzoning that reduces housing opportunities or develops greenfields should be discouraged. The overwhelming majority of Americans wants to live in a suburban, low density home. Eighty five percent of homebuyers under 35 want to move up to a larger (suburban) home, according the the National Association of Homebuilder's national survey. I'm all for dense urban development (I grew up in Tokyo, after all), but let's see these nincompoops try to take away the cherished American Suburban Dream!
If we could just drop a smart bomb on the entire concept of smart growth ...
posted by Laer at 5:58 PM
<< Home