Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA vs. The Suburbs: Planners, Smart Growth, and the Manhattan Delusion
Reason.com ^ | April 17, 2013 | Zach Weissmueller

Posted on 04/20/2013 1:49:03 PM PDT by Twotone

"If you really believe that suburbs are going to die, then let them die, and let the market address the situation" says Joel Kotkin, Chapman University professor and urban planning specialist.

But letting the market work is far from ideal for California's regional planners and local politicians, who want almost 70 percent of new housing over the next 25 years to be multi-unit apartment-style dwelliings, despite the facts that more than half of Southern California households reside in a single-family home and that more people are leaving California than are coming in.

(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Society
KEYWORDS: agenda21; smartgrowth
Video at the site.
1 posted on 04/20/2013 1:49:03 PM PDT by Twotone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Twotone
"In a great nation like ours, you can't let people do what they want. It has to be coordinated," says Hasan Ikhrata, the executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

Does this guy ever have the Obama talking points down! :)

2 posted on 04/20/2013 1:52:29 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

It is not the market that will determine the type of housing built. It is also not planners. Local elected officials getting campaign contributions will determine the bad plans and local officials that are not corrupt will approve the well planned developments.


3 posted on 04/20/2013 2:09:28 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

LET THE FREE MARKET WORK !

If developers believe there is a market for more dense urban living, let them build it and make money from it (and let buyers buy what they want). If they are wrong, let them LOSE MONEY and go out of business

WTF is so hard about this? It’s the free market. Look it up and read about it.

I just don’t understand how CONSERVATIVES cannot understand this.

So tired of this.


4 posted on 04/20/2013 3:21:33 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

They can’t do that if we don’t let them have control through zoning laws.


5 posted on 04/20/2013 3:22:17 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
more people are leaving California than are coming in.

I understand more Americans are moving out of CA than moving in. But is this statement true when you factor in legal and illegal immigration?

6 posted on 04/20/2013 3:25:25 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
"In a great nation like ours, you can't let people do what they want. It has to be coordinated,"

Actually, this POV goes all the way back to the Progressives of the late 19th century. It's based on the idea that simple pre-industrial economies can function based on the free market, but more complex economies and societies require management by experts.

The problem, of course, is that the reverse is true. A feudal lord can run a manorial economy, or a planter a slave plantation, on a command basis with some efficiency. Stalin did indeed produce great economic advance, although with even greater suffering.

But an economy beyond the relatively simple heavy industry level simply cannot be managed on a command basis. The more complex it gets the less possible it becomes.

This is why recent financial meltdowns and bubbles are caused primarily not be failures of the market but by failures of regulation. If the government weren't in it, the market would be self-regulating. Pit the smart guys against each other.

Put the government into the mix and it's the brilliant private sector manipulators against underpaid government salaried guys. Who do you think will win such a battle of wits?

7 posted on 04/20/2013 3:32:14 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Thanks, that was a cogent and helpful analysis.


8 posted on 04/20/2013 3:50:06 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Agenda 21.


9 posted on 04/20/2013 4:13:13 PM PDT by informavoracious (The ancient Greeks and Romans thought they were on the "right side of history.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Zoning laws haven’t made a particle of difference here in Los Angeles. Our Betters in the City Council and the Mayor’s office simply waive every restriction for anyone who will build the kind of East Coast-model housing our Betters want built.

I live way out in the San Fernando Valley in an LA suburb. A hundred years ago it was orange orchards. Fifty years ago it was single-family homes.

We live here because average people can buy houses. Because we don’t have to live all stacked up like rats in cages. Like in New York. Not to be too obvious, but we don’t want to live like that.

Yet our Betters have decided to build thousands and thousands of teensy apartments with no parking five miles from my house. They’re not open yet, but soon. The scale is jaw dropping. Oh, but it’s “smart housing,” because it’s near the Orange Line, which is a dedicated busway. And is already running at peak capacity.

And this “smart housing” Soviet style collectivism is going on all over the city.

We’re going to give up our cars and houses and live the way they want us to live, whether we like it or not.


10 posted on 04/20/2013 4:48:31 PM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

Zoning is government telling property owners what to do with their property.

That’s wrong whether they are dictating suburbs or dense urban housing. Either way it’s government getting in the way.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Live where you want and let others do the same. Let the free market work.


11 posted on 04/20/2013 4:52:58 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
They can’t do that if we don’t let them have control through zoning laws.

Can you say zone text amendment?

12 posted on 04/20/2013 11:10:46 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

To what end?
Whatever the zoning is (whether its mandating some form of development you agree with or some form you don’t agree with) it is telling property owners what they can and cannot do with their property which is not free market.

I cannot understand why so many people (as evidenced by many discussion on the subject hear at FR and other conservative sites) cannot grasp this.

Zoning is ANTI FREE MARKET. If you support it as an ends to justify some means, then you cannot unhypocritically complain when other people do the same.


13 posted on 04/21/2013 6:58:06 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Zoning is ANTI FREE MARKET. If you support it as an ends to justify some means, then you cannot unhypocritically complain when other people do the same.

Total free market would be to allow a 10 story apartment building - for example - to be plopped in the middle of neighborhood of detached single family homes.

Maybe I miss your point. Happy to have clarification.

14 posted on 04/21/2013 4:30:49 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

Yes, that would be total free market.
If you don’t want a 10 story apt bldg plopped down next to your single family house, then buy the property next door.

That is free market.

The other option is to support zoning and central planning of development and try through the democratic process to sway the decisions to the type of development you want to see next door. But if you do that, then you have to accept that others may also sway the decisions to a type of development you may not like.

It’s hypocritical to not admit that this is the case. Zoning is a government process and it is subject to the whims of the democratic vote and/or corruption of the officials that run zoning. Everyone overlooks this when things are going the way they want them to go (for example when zoning is setting minimum lot sizes, minimum house sizes, only allowing single family homes, etc) but they they cry havoc when things do not go their way ... (high rise apartments, etc.)

You can’t have it both ways. If you support zoning and central planning as a process for setting development patterns that you like and approve of, you’ve also sided with an anti-free market approach that opens the door to zoning and central planning that will NOT be what you want.


15 posted on 04/21/2013 6:22:24 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
If you don’t want a 10 story apt bldg plopped down next to your single family house, then buy the property next door.

The other option is to support zoning and central planning of development and try through the democratic process to sway the decisions to the type of development you want to see next door.

Please forgive me for saying this but the first sentence is ridiculous and the second naive.

If you think an ordinary citizen has a chance against the influence exerted by a developer seeking a zone change you are sadly very mistaken.

16 posted on 04/21/2013 6:50:39 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

I work in the industry. I am more than aware of the pull developers have.

My point still stands. If you believe in zoning as a mechanism to get the development you want, be aware that developers will use the exact same system to get what they want.

You can’t have it both ways.


17 posted on 04/21/2013 6:58:33 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

And how is the general public supposed to compete with a developer in the development process? What is the public supposed to do, show up to a planning commission meeting for public comment? You know the deal is done before it ever gets to the planning commission.

Try getting the details from the city prior to the public notice of the planning commission meeting. The public has no chance.


18 posted on 04/21/2013 9:01:07 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

I’m telling you, I know how the system works. I realize that the deals are done before the general public has a chance to comment.

It is the same for single family suburban development.
But who complained when it happened for single family suburban development? You? People who were more than happy to see lots and lots of single family suburban development?

NO.
They did not complain about the system when it went the way they wanted.

Did people opposed to more suburban development have a chance at public comment? A chance to voice their dissent?

NO. They did not.

You can’t have it both ways.


19 posted on 04/21/2013 9:09:49 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

I’m telling you, I know how the system works. I realize that the deals are done before the general public has a chance to comment.

It is the same for single family suburban development.
But who complained when it happened for single family suburban development? You? People who were more than happy to see lots and lots of single family suburban development?

NO.
They did not complain about the system when it went the way they wanted.

Did people opposed to more suburban development have a chance at public comment? A chance to voice their dissent?

NO. They did not.

You can’t have it both ways.


20 posted on 04/21/2013 9:10:29 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Not sure what you mean by having it both ways. I’m inclined to think we agree on this one more than we agree. I’m certain that if we shared our particular circumstances we would agree with each other’s complaints.

Certainly there is not a development that someone somewhere will not object to. And there are always those people that are cozy in their suburban home that will be the first to complain about any more of them being built around them.

On the process though, developers can play by the rules and have great influence. If bad public decision making comes about as a result, it is the fault of the elected officials or their appointees on the planning commission.

Can’t blame a developer for trying to get what they can. In my view, though, the system is generally speaking (legally) very corrupt.


21 posted on 04/21/2013 9:45:05 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

I don’t blame a developer for wanting to develop HIS PROPERTY they way he wishes.

What I have a problem with is people who complain about the process when a developer wants to build something they don’t like, but don’t complain when a developer wants to build something they do like.

NIMBYs.

I have a problem with those who call themselves Conservatives who will rail on and on and on about “high rise development” and “they are going to herd us all into high rises” and other hysterical rantings, but who would support using zoning and government top-down planning as a tool to get single family developments.

I say let developers develop THEIR PROPERTY which they bought (and anyone else could have bought) they way they wish and if it is a financial success fine, if not then fine as well, they will lose out.

The problem is that a lot of so-called conservatives have a problem with any type of development other than single family car-dependent suburbs. Yet they supposedly believe in the free market and free choice. Well, many people want to live in more dense developments with multiple transit options. What is Conservative about cutting these people out of the same process that is used to build single family suburbs? What is Conservative about not allowing free choice in where to live and in what kind of development to live?

It is the blatant hypocrisy that bugs me.

Also there are a whole range of choices rather than either single family or high rise apartments. That is discounted in these discussion, especially among FR hysterics.


22 posted on 04/22/2013 7:19:02 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Chocolate city dwellers don’t take to kindly to gentrification efforts in the hood.


23 posted on 04/22/2013 7:25:50 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
What I have a problem with is people who complain about the process when a developer wants to build something they don’t like, but don’t complain when a developer wants to build something they do like. NIMBYs. I have a problem with those who call themselves Conservatives who will rail on and on and on about “high rise development” and “they are going to herd us all into high rises” and other hysterical rantings, but who would support using zoning and government top-down planning as a tool to get single family developments. I say let developers develop THEIR PROPERTY which they bought (and anyone else could have bought) they way they wish and if it is a financial success fine, if not then fine as well, they will lose out.

No city can just let a developer develop their property the way they want. Local government has too many other considerations. I can understand from the developer's perspective with all the grief they go through - and a very siginificant amount of money invested before they ever get the green light from city government.

That is the way it is and that is the way it will stay. It is a condition developers will have to live with.

Regarding NIMBY, that is a pejorative that ignores real concerns of those objecting to a project. I've seen the NIMBY card pulled several times. Each time it was used in an attempt to divert attention from the true issues at hand.

You seem to keep saying that residential developments get an automatic pass from residents. Hope I am not mistaken on understanding your point.

I've see plenty of problems with residential developments that have led to fights at the planning commission level. Usually those are over density requirements - a developer wanting as much density as he can get and others pushing for deeper set backs and the inclusion of open space inside the development.

I think we are probably boring the rest of those in this thread but I am enjoying this conversation. You obviously come to this discussion with experience and expertise. And I sense a bit of frustation over the process. On that point, if it is any consolation, there is much frustration also on the part of those battling developers.

24 posted on 04/22/2013 10:54:25 AM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

What about NIMBY’s who don’t want any more single family suburban development (and the strip malls etc that go along with them)?

Do their protests count?

The point I am trying to make is that no matter what you support or don’t support, to be credible you have to be consistent.

I don’t see the consistency. I see people applauding top-down planning when it supports what they want to see and when it doesn’t it’s the hysterical response (”We’re all going to be herded into high rise apartments).

No perspective at all. Just hypocrisy.


25 posted on 04/22/2013 4:02:10 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

What you see as hypocricy may simply be people playing the game. You have the perspective of continuity. Any other audience, however, is not paying close enough attention to see it. Those playing that game you object to may see it exactly as you do but are simply saying who besides you is going to notice.

NIMBYS are concerned citizens who have organized for right and justice, most often against the corrupt money interest carpet baggers. The allegation of NIMBY is not effective in a local fight. Ive never seen it sway a local decision, especially when a room full of NIMBYs have managed to pack a city council chamber.

The cards the developers hold are one hundred dollar bills at campaign time.


26 posted on 04/22/2013 4:32:40 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

Again, I agree that the developers hold the cards.

But where were the protests against their unequal sway with politicians when it was for projects that some people liked? Wasn’t it still wrong to shut out the opposition then?

What I am talking aobut is peoople like here on FR who go on and on and on about Agenda 21 and “herding us into apartments” and top-down government control ... but these same top-down government control is what build suburbia. The same politically connected developers built suburbia ... they got the sweethear deals, the tax abatements, sticking the taxpayers with the bill for infrastructure and all the rest of it ... but when the shoe is on the other foot, and developers are using their influence to build more densisity, then all of a sudden they are up in arms about it.

They are the same damn thing. The only difference was these people liked it when politically connected developers were throwing their hundred dollar bills at campaigns for development patterns they agreed with. Now it’s all a conspiracy to “herd is into high rise apartments”

It’s the hypocrisy that I am calling out.


27 posted on 04/22/2013 5:25:19 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

I’m starting to get a clearer picture. The points you are making are good. You are correct that it is getting hard to find consistency these days. I think that is because people have lost their conservative ways, the ones calling themselves conservative anyhow. Do I have it about right?


28 posted on 04/22/2013 11:16:54 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

If anyone wants to be on or off the Agenda 21 ping list, please notify me by Freepmail. It is a relatively low volume list in which we have been exploring the UN Agenda21 and related topics. We have collected our studies with threads, links, and discussions on the Agenda 21 thread which can be found here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2738418/posts

NEW ACTION THREAD:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2863065/posts

Post 128 of the Action Thread is a summary of the history of Agenda 21, “what they are doing”, “what to do about it” and a good bibliography for further reading.


29 posted on 05/12/2013 9:58:34 AM PDT by TEXOKIE (We must surrender only to our Holy God and never to the evil that has befallen us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson