WHAT’S BEHIND “THE VISION” in YOUR TOWN?

Advance Bulletin ^ | Feb 15, 2005 | Susanna Lynton Jennings

[sageb1]

In re: my post earlier today #34: I finally wrote the following to my local newspaper. It is irritating that they just cut number of words allowed. And yes, I will admit to a second agenda. The paper has run 2 articles in the past month on New Age one "religion" spirituality and I took advantage of the fact that one of the members of the Socrates Cafe is the owner of the Gnosis Center to get a dig in there as well.

I hate being sensationalistic, but sometimes when your town is half-asleep, you have to wake them up. I could also have taken a "wait and see what they do" approach, but again, later could be too late. If I can cause citizens in my area to be wary of the group itself, perhaps they will keep the facilitator from controlling the Common Council meetings.

Editor:

In Thursday's article on the Socrates Cafe, Steve Johnson is quoted as saying, "Maybe the people of Glens Falls are self-directed" and "They do what they want, and they go around the law if they want to."

I would be interested in knowing what prompted this comment and if he can offer specific examples where the good citizens of Glens Falls are "going around the law." What law? Some law he'd like to see created in the near future?

It was of particular interest to me that this article should appear the day after I had a discussion with friends about how the Delphi Technique is used by facilitators to manipulate citizens into a consensus in regard to the "Smart Growth" agenda. The process begins in groups such as this one.

What makes a desirable community? I suppose that depends on one's view of how independent-minded we American citizens should be "allowed" to be. The character of a city is not to be found in collectivist visioning, but in eclecticism and in working together while respecting the rights of the property owner.

Yes, the goal is "to get people thinking differently." It is an attempt to coerce citizens into collective behavior and thinking. The goal of the Delphi Technique and the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (the "new" thesis) is to bring all participants to a "oneness of mind" (toward the goal of the facilitator). Neo-gnostic gurus use similar techniques.

Just a word of warning to the "independent-minded" (law-breaking?) citizens of Glens Falls. Is it "cleanliness" on South Street that is an issue? Or is it something else? Is your street next?

(note..."friends" is you:) and South Street is a bar-filled street and home to many of the area's indigent. OTB is there, as well as the Food Pantry. Not a particularly dirty street- these people are more concerned with getting rid of the people who frequent the area). I can walk on South Street safely.

I'm sure I'll get blasted, but I'm too old to care.

[hedgetrimmer]

The character of a city is not to be found in collectivist visioning, but in eclecticism and in working together while respecting the rights of the property owner.

A very good point.

Formerly Americans prided themselves on their civic responsibility, which meant giving of themselves of their own free will, as well as their respect for the property of others.

[hedgetrimmer]

My concern is that when conservatives start defending the status quo as the "free market," we box ourselves into a corner.

I don't think anyone has done that on this thread. But there have been a few posters who insist that living in high density mixed use situations is peachy keeno boss, while studies show most Americans don't want to live like that. It has been explained that the goverment will coopt the building permits that are issued on a limited basis, so that the only kind of housing that gets built is as described above, and the individual hoping to build a private home on a little piece of land cannot compete with the government for those building permits.

When the only housing built is the high density properties you describe, and they are funded by taxpayers because the free market does not support that kind of development its true that this is a fairly recent development. People leave cities because they don't like the noise, crime, congestion and because they can build personal wealth by owning property instead of renting an apartment, they can raise families in a way that the children have access to the outdoors and fresh air without going to a public facility or park, and they have less impact on the environment because they are spread out, what's not to like about getting out of the cities?

[texastoo]

Very interesting article and responses. Thanks for the ping. So far I haven't seen anything like this that has been mentioned here in south Texas but I wil keep my eye out for it.

[hedgetrimmer]

Check out the Austin area. They have been heavily hit by the planners.

[sageb1]

Did you see this? This is great!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345670/posts

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks for pinging me. There is a group of us here in Santa Cruz County CA that are very interested in the goings on in Washington state, particularly King County.

Their critical areas ordinance is one scary piece of work.

Citizens need to unelect some of their elected officials in a hurry.

[djreece]

I understood your very first post to say that we currently have a free market in housing. If I misunderstood, I'm sorry.

In general, you sound like a country person who doesn't understand that there are people who simply enjoy living in the city because of the vitality, the culture, the ability to get around without a car, and the wealth of job opportunities. When you mentioned earlier that it might be pleasant to live and work on a ranch, it made me smile because frankly a lot of city people find the smells of a ranch pretty off putting. People are different. There should be room in America for people to be able to choose what they want from among vibrant and healthy cities, towns, villages, suburbs, and country life.

I would also submit that the cities are full of crime and congestion because of decades of zoning and redevelopment that have split the cities into business districts, shopping districts, and residential districts. Whereas historically, cities were often made up of street-level shops and businesses with people living above and were safe and vibrant places because lots of people were always around. Government ruined that. Many people don't flee the city because they hate city life. They flee the chaos government created. In addition, current development methods soon bring the very thing they were fleeing to them once again. And so the cycle goes.

I would also like to see the studies about most Americans wanting to live in the suburbs. If the choice is presented as living in the ruins of government's hubris of yesteryear versus a shiny new suburb, then of course they will say the suburb. On the other hand, given options that include a community where you can walk to work, walk to the corner grocery store, hit a bookstore, and then go home and walk the dogs in a vibrant, safe community, I would expect that many Americans would like that choice.

What's not to like about getting out of the cities is that job opportunities are typically very limited. So many times the price of that life is hours in gridlock. I know too many Californians that never get to enjoy their piece of the country because of the commute they have to endure.

[hedgetrimmer]

"Smart Growth" is a Dumb Idea to Lower Crime
Daily Policy Digest

Environmental Issues / Environment

Thursday, April 22, 2004

Author Douglas Morris and other "smart growth" advocates claim that suburban sprawl contributes to increased violent crime rates. But a comparison of crime rates among cities characterized as "smart growth" and "sprawlers" reveals a different story, say the National Center for Policy Analysis' H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., and Pamela Villarreal:


In 2002, Los Angeles' violent crime rate of 1,349 per 100,000 was more than double that of the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area, considered the country's most sprawling area by Smart Growth America.
Portland's violent and property crime rates of 828 and 7,127 per 100,000, respectively, were much higher than sprawling Raleigh-Durham, N.C., with rates of 455 and 4,416.
Seattle's violent and property crime rates of 705 and 7,298 per 100,000 outpaced sprawling Denver's rates of 534 and 4,994.
In addition, both violent and property crime rates in Portland, Seattle and Los Angeles are much higher in the central city than in the wider metropolitan area including the suburbs. In fact, according to FBI crime statistics there are no suburbs in the country with a higher murder rate than their associated central city.

Smart growth policies have produced mixed results at the neighborhood level as well:


A Raleigh, N.C., study showed that street robberies were less likely in neighborhoods with sprawl-associated features like cul-de-sacs, high rates of home ownership and single family homes.
In New Bedfordshire, England, neighborhoods designed using Europe's equivalent of CPTED averaged more than twice the number of crime and disorder incidents per year (5,200) as traditional neighborhoods of comparable size (1,800).
Even in the face of high impact fees, suburbs continue to grow and develop - because consumers demand them. Market forces, not bicycle paths, create villages, say Burnett and Villarreal.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., and Pamela Villarreal, "Smart Growth = Crime, Congestion and Poverty," Brief Analysis No. 473, April 22, 2004.

[hedgetrimmer]

For smaller communities, this spiel is especially appealing. It offers the comfort of a more controlled environment, replete with sidewalks and mom-and-pop shops – like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting. It’s difficult not to be drawn in, especially when the salesman claims that it will actually save you money.

That’s the pitch, but here’s the reality: The tighter land use controls that smart growth advocates push would actually increase housing costs for all Californians. This is due to the fact that they ignore market forces by necessity.

If planners mandate construction of high-density housing projects, they will be creating an artificial supply. After all, if the market was demanding that type of housing, no government intervention would be necessary; developers would be scrambling to meet the demand, and would only desire that bureaucrats get out of the way.

Now supply can affect price, but it doesn’t fundamentally change demand. The simple truth is that most California families aren’t demanding apartments, condos, and lofts, with the result being that prices are higher for what they do want, namely single-family homes. Adding insult to injury, the prices of these are made even higher by the efforts of smart growth advocates curb any development that utilizes more land.

As a result, average housing costs increase, and there’s a glut of housing the likes of which nobody asked for to begin with. That’s smart growth in a nutshell.

http://www.rppi.org/smartgrowthsnakeoil.shtml

[hedgetrimmer]

Smart growth is a threat to freedom of choice, private property rights, mobility, and local governance. Although smartgrowth policies seem drastic, they are really a natural extension of the zoning laws that cities have adopted since the 1920s. Those zoning laws have been made increasingly restrictive over the years, and smart growth will make them even more prescriptive. Smart growth is clearly an example of creeping social regulation, if not creeping socialism.

Is New Urbanism Creeping Socialism?
--RANDALL O'TOOLE, Thoreau Institute

[djreece]

Thank you for all the information; but as I've said several times, I both understand and OPPOSE smart growth. Mr. O'Toole, whom you quote, wrote an article saying virtually the same thing I am saying. http://www.ti.org/neotrad.html

I'm not convinced he has come up with workable solutions, but at least he sees government planning is and has been the problem for most of the past century.

Contrary to what you say, a spokesperson for a large developer said in a meeting that I attended that demand for condos in California is very high. But she said that developers are not willing to take the risk because current law allows the developer to be sued twenty or thirty years later. In addition, I've had real estate agents tell me that townhomes near where I live are always snapped up (even in severely depressed markets and even though it's not a particularly nice area). If I had the time, I would be interested in running the numbers on the prices per square foot people are willing to pay for condos and townhomes compared to single family homes. I know I've been shocked by the prices of the condos and townhomes in my area when compared to the homes. Such high prices would suggest pretty serious demand.

The current structure of municipal funding and zoning and regulation favor the suburban tract development so that is what we keep getting more of.

[geopyg]

Many of us would love to live in a neighborhood where we could work, live, and shop all within walking distance

I think they were talking about latte servers, music store owners and book stores.

[djreece]

Here's an example of the demand (and price) for condos.

"Indeed, between the third quarter of 2002 and the third quarter of 2003, condominium prices rose a whopping 16.6% to a median price of $167,200, according to the National Association of Realtors. Single-family home prices rose 10.1% over that period, by NAR's estimation, and some economists believe the appreciation rate of single-family homes was even lower. The median price of a single-family home was $177,000, only modestly higher than the median price for a condo."
Source: http://www.realestatejournal.com/columnists/housetalk/20031219-barta.html

[djreece]

An interesting article that goes into depth on these issues:

"Why Sprawl Is a Conservative Issue"
by Michael Lewyn
Source: Part 1 -- http://verbatim.rutgers.edu/lewyn/archives/000155.html
Part 2 -- http://verbatim.rutgers.edu/lewyn/archives/000156.html

This is the first I have heard of the man, but I will have to learn more about him. He sees many of the same issues I do with the current debate on growth and planning.

[hedgetrimmer]

The article Marquette law review II reveals some interesting facts about the author. The author clearly has problems with private transportation and automobiles.

He says the government "forces" people to buy cars. This is so far from the truth that its hard to continue reading the article.

People buy cars for the same reason they used to by horses and wagons. It gives them ability to go places and carry the stuff they want to bring along with them.

In medieval times, and even up to the industrial revolution, the very wealthy and the aristocrats had personal transportation, the peasant class was forced to walk or if they could afford it, ride a stage or other type of public transportation.

What made America different from Europe is that when people started emigrating here, they brought horses with them and they used them to get about. It was very egalitarian here, because anybody who could get a horse could have one-- the vast distances and lack of established transportation systems equalized everybody. You could buy a horse, or out west, catch a wild one and tame it for use. If you were by a waterway, you could build a boat to get you up and down stream with your farm product or other goods.

When the industrial revolution occurred, people moved into cities for work, but it didn't take long for them to want to have a way to get out of the city on their time off and visit the country and just relax. When the automobile came along it was city people first who bought them, precisely for the freedom of travel they afforded.

The tyranny of the automobile arises in part from a second tyranny: the tyranny of suburbia

So automobiles create a tyranny? This is very Orwellian, peace is war etc. No one is forced to buy a car. People buy cars because they like them. Kids go out and get their drivers licenses because they want to, not because the government is forcing them to. Its simply not true that automobiles create tyranny, in societies where the automobile is rare, you have tyranny. How many years did it take to buy an automobile in the old USSR? You could order one and wait 8 years to get it. Why did people pay the price and wait and wait and wait? Because the automobile gave them freedom. I would think many of the former residents of the USSR and eastern bloc countries would find this statement completely laughable.

Government has further rigged suburban life in favor of the auto by building roads for drivers but providing minimal public transportation to nondrivers.

If there were a demand where someone could make a profit for public transportation, then there would be public transportation everywhere. But the fact of the matter is, that it is not a constitutional function of government to run bus and train services. What if they charged the true cost to the rider for the rides they do get? Who would pay $40 for a 90 mile trip to San Francisco, when you can drive a car that distance for just a few dollars? To say conservatives should be promoting this idea, shows a misunderstanding of conservatism, I think.

we can take a significant bite out of both sprawl and big government by eliminating sprawl-generating highway spending.

This person is not just anti-car, but maybe anti-human. Highways have contributed to the nations wealth and commerce. The interstate system was one of the reasons America's economy took off like a rocket after WWII. Russia on the other hand has no interstate system. When the USSR dissolved, many Americans went to Russia thinking to make money and help them get their economy going. Those in agriculture soon found that even though Russia has vast tracts of farmland, there will always be shortages in Russia. Why? There are NO ROADS. NO HIGHWAYS. NO WAY to get produce to market in a timely fashion. To deny the American people a transportation infrastructure that allows ANYONE to participate in commerce by giving them a way to get their goods and services where they need to go, is cruel and destructive. No conservative or anyone who advocates free enterprise would ever ever want to shut the highway system, yet that is what is happening in this country because the sustainable developers know it will kill our economy and it won't take too long to do it. With California looking a billions of dollars to fix their criminally neglected roads and bridges, we are sensitive to the anti-human agenda behind the decay of our highway system.

If I were you, I'd re-read these articles carefully. There is an anti-human and anti-freedom agenda behind the "anti-sprawl" movement, and it shows in this article.

[djreece]

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I have known people who much prefer to walk and bicycle who have had to buy a car because life in much of the U.S. simply isn't doable without. When the author speaks of tyranny, he simply means that in general Americans HAVE to have automobiles to function in daily life.

I have lived in a European village and known the pleasure of being able to walk two blocks to reach the countryside, the grocery store, the train station, the bank, coffee shops, and restaurants. Your idea that such places squash individuality is laughable. I probably have never felt so free. In addition, most people had cars and enjoyed driving on the Autobahn. It was just that they didn't have to spend money on gas just to do their daily chores. They could enjoy fresh air and the exercise of walking as they did them instead, if they so CHOSE.

I also stayed in several Eastern European countries soon after the Iron Curtain fell. Believe me, I know the tyranny of the Soviet-style block apartments and being cut off from the farmland. The Smart Growth movement will lead there because it is central planning and has a definite agenda. I am advocating a return to a truly free market with an absence or minimum of zoning, so that those who want walkable cities will have that choice once again.

If sprawling cities and automobiles are so critical to freedom, then L.A. should be the freest, most "American" city. But when I drive by gated community after gated community there, it reminds me of medieval fortresses.

The "vision" of the planners of the 1950s clearly had some serious flaws, and it's time for a change. I don't know why allowing some cities to once again be walkable is so threatening. Government planners need to get out of the way, and let the market work.

[hedgetrimmer]

I don't know why allowing some cities to once again be walkable is so threatening.

This isn't threatening in itself. The threat comes from the goverment force and corruption that is going on to corruptly use eminent domain to rob people of their properties, the public private partnerships which are unconstitutional, where the AIA and new urbanists are paid by the government to create designs that stifle individuality and force people to accept community rights over individual property rights, and the fact that the taxpayer and the private individuals are forced to fund it through taxes and cost shifting. Thats the problem. If you find a little apartment by the railroad tracks go rent it. If someone wants to open a shop next to you, don't use phony stakeholder rights to stop him or force him to open a bookstore istead of a machine shop. If someone wants drive their car out of the city, or have a place to park one in the city, don't stop them either. But most of all, don't make the government do it for you.

[hedgetrimmer]

If sprawling cities and automobiles are so critical to freedom, then L.A. should be the freest, most "American" city

LA is free. Anybody from any country in the world can enter it without papers and find housing, medical care and schooling for their children without lifting a finger.

[djreece]

Haha good point. Unfortunately, their "freedom" drives the citizens out.