THE SMART GROWTH FRAUD

NewsWithViews.com ^ | July 15, 2003 | Michael S. Coffman

[NMC EXP]

Nice analysis by Mike Coffman of the latest pseudonym of "sustainable development".....they now call it "smart growth" and I can practically guarantee that your city , county and state planning commissions are up to their eyeballs in it using federal taxdollars to help the plans along.

Regards

J.R.

[Support Free Republic]

Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[NMC EXP]

Property rights ping there 'pod.

Regards

J.R.

[Young Werther]

Issac Asimov's Robot stories with a focus on "Caves of Steel" point to the ultimate "land use" property philosophy. Humanity that doesn't move off planet and become "Spacers" are doomed to remain on Earth and live like ants in the Caves of Steel.

This is why we must go "Ad Astra!"

[dixiechick2000]

"Portland, Oregon, the model for urban planning, has had the most stringent land-use plans in the U.S. since the 1970s. In implementing its plan, Portland has stopped building highways and instead has built two light commuter rails that failed to achieve their goals. Transit commuter use actually dropped 20 percent from 1980 to 1991. Additionally, in spite of the severe hardship imposed on those who want to use automobiles, the Portland area experienced the largest increase in automobile use per capita from 1990 to 1999 of any U.S. urban area with more than one million people."

It took 5 1/2 years, but we finally found one acre outside the Urban Growth Boundary on which to build our house. The bonus is that, since it is zoned RR, we don't have to farm it or keep cows in the front yard. Sadly, they are doing away with the RR zoning, if it's not gone already.

One more thing...light rail is an expensive joke. The people voted it down, but the powers that be decided our votes don't count.

[NMC EXP]

His position is way too extreme. He appears to be advocating an end to all urban planning. If that is his goal, what's to stop someone from building a factory next door to my house?

You framed a false choice: (1) no planning and zoning or (2) "smart growth/sustainable development" as envisioned by advocates of the "Wildlands Project" which is being designed and implemented by unelected and unaccountable stakeholders and bureaucrats.

If you want a look at the plan I suggest you read "Sustainable Development -- a New Consensus" (the report by Clinton's Sustainable Development Council) and "Our Global Neighborhood -- the Report of the uN Commission on Sustainable Development" (note: Bush wants to start funding UNESCO again). If you're interested, I can provide the ISBN numbers of the books.

Regards

J.R.

[wideminded]

I am frequently in Portland, Oregon and recently joined someone on a trip to camp near the coast. It was kind of nice to so quickly be out in the country as we passed the urban growth boundary. Without the UGB, there would obviously be development all the way to the Coast Range. Is there such thing as a great city that doesn't do any city planning?

[reed_inthe_wind]

The last thing we need is a diatribe that screams chicken little about property rights. Some morons want people to live on top of one another. Just use common sense and vote it down.

Unless you are an anarchist, you must acknowledge that there exists some role for government. Building roads, parks, designating school zones, yield signs, stop lights, damns, locks, bridges, waste water treatment, landfills and sewers is not that different from zoning restrictions.

I live on a cul-de-sac about 200 yards long that grants access to about 12 homes. We could have forgone the street and leased Jeep Wranglers.

The real issue for discussion is the taking of property that occurs with zoning laws. Property is a bundle of rights. Therefore a zoning restriction takes some of those rights. It is perfectly constitutional to take the property - but how is it that property owners are not compensated. Doesn't the 14th amendment forbid that?

[Bob J]

ANN COULTER on NOW!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[NMC EXP]

It was kind of nice to so quickly be out in the country as we passed the urban growth boundary. Without the UGB, there would obviously be development all the way to the Coast Range...

OK....your drive was more scenic and enjoyable.

Don't forget, the "country" you drove through is private property and is now nearly worthless to it's owners because it can never be developed.

Was the view worth it?

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

It took 5 1/2 years, but we finally found one acre outside the Urban Growth Boundary on which to build our house.

I'll bet the price of that patch of ground went up as much or more than the value of the ground inside the boundary dropped.

Regards

J.R.

[Alberta's Child]

The author raises many excellent points here, but the basic premise of "property rights" isn't exactly relevant in many cases these days. A person's right to control his or her own property pretty much ends when they agree to have it serviced by a public water system, public roadway, public sewer, etc.

[NMC EXP]

A person's right to control his or her own property pretty much ends when they agree to have it serviced by a public water system, public roadway, public sewer, etc.

I don't really agree with the specifics you mention relative to property rights. But if we take it to the top level just don't pay your property taxes for a couple of years and you will find out who actually owns your property.

Regards

J.R.

[Alberta's Child]

But if we take it to the top level just don't pay your property taxes for a couple of years and you will find out who actually owns your property.

That's exactly my point. The local government would take your property because you failed to meet the terms of your "lease" (i.e., paying for the public roads and utilities that service your property).

[Skywalk]

Uh, he's not advocating erecting chemical factories next to residences. That would go under traditional zoning.

Open space laws and "smart growth" planning CAUSE more problems than they solve. Worse than that, they cause the problems that they purport to solve. But perhaps it's all a brilliant scheme to drive up property costs and push the peasants out of these areas? That's what ends up happening.

[Skywalk]

But there's also the problem of government crowding out potential private suppliers and then demanding that they then have the right to regulate every aspect of your property. The same argument could be made with homeschooling and other private education. Just because the government assigns itself a role does not mean that they then have the right to dictate to you in that area of your life.

I'm not talking about competing sewer lines, of course, but in general there's no reason why utility fees are not enough to cover the cost/privilege of having sewer lines and other services.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

what's to stop someone from building a factory next door to my house?

C'mon man, you're a FReeper, you should know better than to resort to an illogical strawman argument.

[tubebender]

Property Rights PING...

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.