Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Remember_Salamis

Issues like New Urbanism and antisprawl measures are part of conservative environmentalism.




Not part of my movement.

Read the anti-sprawl literature. The Sierra Club recommends a housing density of 500 families per acre. That's nearly twice the population density of Calcutta. That's stacking people like gerbils in boxes.

The eco-fascists want people off the land so they can control people. New urbanism is all about socialist control and theft of private property.

Every survey shows that more than 80% of Americans want to live on an acre with a white pickett fence. It's called elbow room. It's the American dream.

The fact that this writer doesn't recognize that anti-sprawl is anti-free market and anti-freedom is troubling.


10 posted on 07/18/2004 6:42:27 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: sergeantdave; farmfriend; calcowgirl; Carry_Okie
"Issues like New Urbanism and antisprawl measures are part of conservative environmentalism."

The only sentence in this entire epistle I had any real trouble with. One of our very own FReepers has the very best overall concept in print I've ever read right here!!!

11 posted on 07/18/2004 7:18:01 AM PDT by SierraWasp (Down with Diabolical Demonicrat Socialistic GovernMental EnvironMentalists!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: sergeantdave
I have mixed feelings about anti-sprawl. Of course, 500 families per acre is ludicrous (I don't remember ever hearing that number). And I have no trouble with suburbs, indeed I am a suburbanite (but I live 1.5 miles from where I work). But I find the idea of revitalizing urban areas very attractive, we should do something to encourage cleaning up our cities.

Here's a good example: Portland, Oregon. In Portland, they have an urban growth boundary that has forced developers to stay closer to the city center. This caused property values to rise enough that many dilapidated neighborhoods got rehabbed.

If living in the city means living in grimy, overpopulated districts with high crime, then I'm not in favor of "anti-sprawl" or "New Urbanism" either. But if it means living in clean, attractive areas with lots to do, where you can walk to shopping or restaurants or nice parks, fine! Portland is like that. (I myself do live in the suburbs, but only 1.5 miles from work; I would actually prefer living closer to the city center but that would lengthen my commute. I live near Louisville, Kentucky, which is making progress in its efforts to clean up its downtown.)

15 posted on 07/18/2004 10:39:19 AM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: sergeantdave

I think he's talking more about urban renewal than new urbanism. After all, it's not very conservative to hollow out the city then move on to somewhere else.


18 posted on 07/18/2004 11:46:19 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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