I don’t think the point is really that government spending doesn’t promote sprawl.  It probably does.  But let’s not forget, government doesn’t pay for anything. Taxpayers do.  And if indeed the taxpayers prefer to spread out their living arrangements, a responsive government will support that preference. 

 

Hell, one could call Section 8 government promotion of “sprawl”.  It’s an attempt to spread out public housing recipients.  Obviously, this was developed to meet their preferences.  There’s also little doubt that Section 8 housing has led to deterioration of neighborhoods which has caused more affluent residents to move out, often to suburbia.

 

People’s anecdotally stated preferences can’t be given precedence over their preferences documented by their actions.  When someone claims that they’d love to live in an urban neighborhood, the chances are good they have an idealized view of same.  A neighborhood where the neighbors keep the same quiet hours they do, where parking is plentiful (or public transportation is clean, frequent, and never overcrowded), and of course there’s no such thing as street crime.

 

If indeed such neighborhoods exist, they are expensive.

 

Are Americans naturally sociable?  To a point.  Inevitably, on their own terms.  They like convenient socialization, and convenient escape from same.  Hence our living patterns of suburbs surrounding central cities and steadily growing both geographically and demographically.

I did - I even quoted from one of them.  So something you accept as fact is flat out wrong.  Therefore I'm concluding other items you accept as fact could also be wrong.

 

Differences of opinion do not constitute one as being wrong.

 

I've got news for you. The data "60-70 percent of highway funding coming from users" and the rest "from subsidies" is information from the National Highway Users Federation -- i.e. the nation's pre-eminent highway lobbying organization. This would be like me telling you that you're not remembering your life history correctly.

 

The highway subsidies come from non-users. These are dollars paid by people whether they used roads and highways or not. What they're saying is that the user fees (gas tax, license fee, etc) are 30-40 percent lower than they what should be. And that doesn't include externalized costs that are a direct result of auto use (law enforcement, air pollution, water pollution, health care costs, stormwater run off from too much pavement, economic isolation and exclusion of low-income and elderly people, oil dependency, trade imbalances, military/defense costs of preserving oil trade routes, etc. etc.).

 

Check out http://www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12

EDIT: Let's try to keep this on topic.

 

That was geared to all of us, including myself.  I have been pruned a few too many times. :)

 

Government funded sprawl, but the government is funded by the people.  So the people who are using this subsidized public infrastructure are paying the government to create this infrastructure for them.

 

No.  The people who are using this subsidized public infrastructure are paying the government to create this infrastructure for them, as well as many people who are not using it.  It's no different than any other program the government runs.  It's welfare for suburbanites, funneling money from ALL to SOME, and in this case usually to those who need it the least.

 

So collectively the public is paying the actual cost while individually we are all paying market cost (which is the subsidized cost).

 

No, as I said before, make roads private and toll and you will be paying the market cost.  Here is why you are not:

 

If you drive 50,000 miles in a year and I drive 5,000, will you pay 10 times as many taxes as I will for road construction and maintenance?

 

This leads me to believe people want suburbs regardless of whether the government is subsidizing them or not.

 

"People" don't want suburbs, "some people" do.  Just because you want them doesn't mean that everyone does.  But that isn't what we are talking about, because we are not talking about forcing our opinion on others...we are talking about putting both sides on equal footing to see what the market really says.

 

Another problem is that the true costs of suburbanization to society are hidden and are felt collectively, similar to the way pollution from a company affects everyone.  For those wanting a suburban environment, there may be a large individual benefit, but the large cost is spread out amongst everyone, so for the individual it is worth it.

 

Just because some people want something doesn't mean the government should subsidize it, especially if that something is detrimental to the country as a whole.

 

Furthermore, I question how much people really like the suburban environment, or how much they are used to it being safe and like being spread out because of bad experiences in the city when they became poorer after the suburban boom started.  But that veers off into opinion-land since it is next to impossible to prove, so I know we will just work ourselves in circles if we try to argue that point.

If indeed such neighborhoods exist, they are expensive.

 

Wouldn't that indicate there is an extremely high demand for them?

 

There are hundreds more examples, but this should give you an idea of what subsidized cost is.

 

I understand what you are conceptually saying.  My point it, there isn't going to be a situation where I personally along with only other users are going to have to soley be resposible for the cost of building a road, at least not a public road.  So the public did pay to build the public road at market cost.  Granted the sole users of that road aren't equally paying for it per usage or are entirely paying for it by themselves but that practically just isn't possible.

 

Government housing and public infrastructure are two different things.  Public roads, utilities, etc can be used by anyone and the public pays for it so its more like an indirect cost.  Subsidized housing is only available for those who qualify.  I see that more as a true subsidy.

 

When you're pooling money to build public infrastructure, you're paying market cost to live in a society.  That's just how I look at it.

 

Then your concept of "market cost" is actually the definition of subsidized.  Everyone pays for something that some people use more or less of, thus reducing the cost of actually using it.

If indeed such neighborhoods exist, they are expensive.

 

Wouldn't that indicate there is an extremely high demand for them?

 

Look at any urban area -- no doubt you'll find the highest value (other than waterfront) residential tracts are often located in either prewar first ring suburbs or even older gentrified neighborhoods in the city proper. Yes the demand is there.

 

Modern land use concepts that gained favor in more recent decades prevent these types of neighborhoods (until recently) from being built. Just about every effort at social architecture via policy has unintended consequences. The idea of single use zoning as a tool to eradicate certain bad conditions that existed in our original urban cores had the unintended consequence of preventing us from building traditional neighborhoods with mixed uses that market evidence show people still value today.

 

My answer to those who say sprawl is what the market demanded is that the market was constrained and skewed for decades. Constrained in land use options, lot sizes, setbacks. Skewed in that urban areas have infrastructure costs that must be borne by the population base that suburbs/exurbs do not have, at least for the initial wave of out migration. Then there are subsidized mortgages (think FHA/VA after WWII) -- stay in the old neighborhood or move out with a break from Uncle Sam. Yes "US" taxpayers will help you buy that new tract house for less than you would pay in a market without government intervention. Add in the desire in our culture for "the new" vs. "the old", plus much of what has already been mentioned, and the pressure for outward migration was/is inevitable.

 

So many variables, but there's no doubt that subsidies and unintended consequences of social engineering played a key role -- not just market forces.

Great post redbrick.  This is such a great point that really does take the character out of new construction in suburban sprawl:

 

 

The idea of single use zoning as a tool to eradicate certain bad conditions that existed in our original urban cores had the unintended consequence of preventing us from building traditional neighborhoods with mixed uses that market evidence show people still value today.

 

The highway subsidies come from non-users. These are dollars paid by people whether they used roads and highways or not.

 

Who doesn't use roads and highways?

 

Even if you live downtown, have a grocery store in your building, and shop at Tower City, the stuff you are buying wasn't grown or made there.

And are not trains being used increasingly more than roads and highways?

 

Regardless, KJP probably should have said "those who use roads or highways very little".

Who doesn't use roads and highways?

 

Even if you live downtown, have a grocery store in your building, and shop at Tower City, the stuff you are buying wasn't grown or made there.

 

I've heard that argument before, and it's still a lousy one. The externalizing of costs of using highways is how they became a monopoly in the first place. Now that it is a monopoly, why should we still continue to underpay the costs of using the system? If you owned a store and you competed against the guy across the street, but your competitor doesn't have to pay 30-40 percent of the costs of business that have to pay, is it fair that his business is more popular? How many people would come to your store if your competitor's prices went up 30-40 percent? Probably a lot, wouldn't ya think??

 

And not everyone uses highways. Yes, most of the products people buy come by truck for at least part of the trip. But what about the 25 percent of households in the city of Cleveland that don't own cars? Or the 5-15 percent of households in Cuyahoga County suburbs that don't have cars? Is it fair for them to pay what amounts to billions of dollars in subsidies to motorists WHEN SIMILAR SUBSIDIES FOR TRANSIT ARE DENIED? I put that part in caps because that is the issue, not that motorists are being subsidized. Because we have isolated more than a quarter million people from fully participating in the economy.

 

That's Third World stuff, the kind that we like to pretend doesn't happen in this country, where the streets are paved with gold and everyone can work and live a great life if only they choose to. Well, it ain't that simple. And I get sick of mean-spirited, ivory tower conservatives who always blame poor people for their problems, when in reality conservatives need to look in the mirror or walk a mile in the shoes of poor people. Otherwise they need to shut the hell up.

 

Now I know why the first casualties of revolutions are usually the rich people.

I've also never understood why conservatives haven't jumped all over the subsidies for sprawl. I mean, this is your issue, unless the conservatives aren't really about trimming government funding. Instead, I think they're all about reserving government funding for the corporate elite and for those who prefer not to live near "less desirable people." Those are probably root causes for some (my still unshaken belief in the goodness of humanity prevents me from saying that all conservatives are elitists and racists). Either way, it further underscores my point that sprawl ultimately benefits the select few who originally lobbied for it and fight to preserve at the expense of the masses.

^It's politics; the Republicans derive their base from exurbs and rural areas, the Democrats from urban centers. Each party does its best to look after its flock, but one flock is monopolizing all the grass.

Good point.

 

BTW, your avatar has frightened me ever since you activated it.

I lost my Barton Fink avatar with the server switch. I'll get it back yet.

Who doesn't use roads and highways?

 

Well, I suppose you are right, everyone uses roads in some way.  I drive less than half what you're average suburbanite drives.  Yet, because of the the funding formula, I actually have to pay more per mile of use that I get out of the roads.  Even if you want to factor in the price of using roads for commercial transport to get the goods I buy to the market I shop at shouldn't that be charged to the transportation firm (through tolls or gas taxes) who will in turn cost that out to the client, who will charge me more at the checkout counter?  Wouldn't that be fairer than having it come out of my income?  What if I walk everywhere and buy only locally produced goods?

.

SOHIO DID WHAT????

He's probably referring to Standard Oil of California's (not Standard Oil of Ohio's) involvement with GM, Mack Truck, Firestone Tires, Phillips Petroleum and others in creating shell companies (the most famous of which was National City Lines) in buying up streetcar systems, whittling them away and ultimately dismantling them to replace them with buses.

 

But I have to disagree with oengus1963. The policies that these folks, along with Dupont, Caterpillar, Shell, Studebaker, Exxon, Ford and others, including heavy construction contractors, sought to change policies at local, state and federal levels. You forget, oengus1963, that the Federal Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 was passed by Congress. The interest-bearing Highways Trust Fund (kept and compounded by the federal government, not a bank which charged private creditors interest -- as they did the railroads and streetcar companies) was begun with a kick-start of more than $150 million from the federal general fund (not from user fees). That $150 million+ would be worth more than $1 billion today. That's a pretty nice kick start, which was added on to by the new gas taxes.

 

Awfully nice of the federal government to serve as the near-zero-risk banker for the trucking and busing companies. They took care of what was for the railroads and streetcar companies the most expensive component of their businesses -- the fixed infrastructure -- and did so at lower costs. And any time an economic downturn occurred, the public highways weren't at risk of being downgraded, abandoned or ripped out.

 

Then there's the real estate taxes. Rights of way for railroads are and streetcars were taxed at industrial rates. Highways don't pay real estate taxes. It's why railroads are quick to rip out tracks, signalling, depots or other fixed facilities that may not be needed in the short term yet add value to their properties and expense to their tax bills. More than half of all railroad rights of way have been abandoned since the mid-1900s, yet railroads still pay an annual property tax bill of more than $500 million per year. It's not a tiny cost component -- one that their competitors don't have to pay.

We are not opposed to roads - per se - rather it is the continual expansion of roads to places where people aren't, yet. It is the unneccessary expansion of the road system that exacerbates sprawl and costs too much money. Less roads with more investment would mean more pleasant trips on higher quality roads, the money left over could be used for mass transit to reduce unnecessary (usually peaktime) traffic and take the burden on the road system. If Ohio didn't have to keep building new roads at the edge of the suburbs and expanding the capacity of roads in areas that are solely residential, we could have a decent road systems with less potholes and structural deficiencies in the center cities that are used by far more people.

 

Another way to think about it is that since roads are a public good, those roads that get the most traffic - use, should get the most investment. That is not how are system is currently set up. Shifting to a realistic multi-modal system allows for better distribution of resources.

Retailers check out from Brice

 

Two decades after the I-70/Brice Road shopping area began booming, big-box stores are leaving. A revival must wait while the city helps other dead zones.

Sunday,  February 17, 2008 3:25 AM

By Mike Pramik

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

As Columbus and its suburbs sprawl beyond the Outerbelt, the trend suggests that it's only a matter of time before a once-bustling shopping district falls victim to the next hot spot.

 

The newest victim: Brice Road north and south of I-70.

 

Once the East Side's busiest shopping corridor, it is now marked by a growing number of empty storefronts and acres of barren asphalt -- and more key tenants are on the way out.

 

Read more at:

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2008/02/17/Brice.ART_ART_02-17-08_D1_SO9C4PV.html?sid=101

Retailers check out from Brice

Brice Road slowly became overbuilt, a tangled, jumbled collection of centers constructed near each other without a plan to incorporate traffic flow. And, eventually, the once-new buildings became obsolete.

http://dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2008/02/17/Brice.ART_ART_02-17-08_D1_SO9C4PV.html?sid=101

 

[COUGH]Polaris[COUGH]

^ For fun, let's pretend it's 2028...

 

Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman Jr. said he's aware of the problems at Polaris, which he called a poorly designed corridor victimized by the whims of the retail trade...

Polaris isn't nearly as badly laid out as the Brice Road retail corridor.  The shortcoming of Polaris is that when the first interchange with I-71 was opened, developers and ODOT grossly underestimated the volume of traffic speed at which land was developed. Even with the new Gemini Parkway interchange, it's not a great deal better.

 

One thing Polaris does share with Brice Road is that neither were laid out to generate any pedestrian traffic at all. Even to travel within Polaris one must drive to get from one giant expanse of asphalt to another.  And you can forget trying to walk across Polaris Parkway at any time but the middle of the night.

 

It'll be interesting to see if Kingfish's prediction comes true.

The traffic patterns are a diaster in Polaris, and I can't see it getting any better; they seem to break ground on a new development every 10 days. It doesn't help that they're literally giving away space. The company I work for just relocated from the corner of I-71 & Polaris (Columbus proper) 2 miles up the road to a new build at Polaris and Cleveland Ave (Westerville), and one of the clinchers was low interest loans from Westerville that convert to grants after a certain period of occupancy. The landlord in the old building couldn't come close to matching the prospective's incentives, which sucks for him even more now that his building and its twin next door are at 33% occupancy.

 

Will my prediction come true? That's one of them rhetorical-type questions, right?

Feb. 14, 2008

 

Urban sprawl is crashing into farms, fueling cars

Write of Way

Ken Prendergast

 

  Just as they have for decades, investors are snapping up farmland at Greater Cleveland’s urban fringe in Lorain, Medina, Summit, Geauga and Lake counties.

 

  But in the last couple of years, investors ranging in size from individuals to big private equity firms aren’t seeking to bulldoze some of the world’s best farmland to plant rows of McMansion-style homes. Instead, they’re buying land to actually use it for agriculture — for corn in general and ethanol in particular.

 

  “With the boom in ethanol, farmland has value again. High commodity prices driven by biofuel production may stop the loss of farmland to urban sprawl,” wrote energy-agriculture consultant Cliff Bradley in a 2007 report, ’Saving the Poor and the Planet with Biofuels.’

 

  Cities have been growing outward for thousands of years. But since the mid-20th century, governments began building Interstate highways and big sewer systems, subsidizing oil prices, granting tax abatements to hop-scotching companies and enacting low-density zoning codes.

 

  Urban areas expanded outward so quickly that overall metro area population densities fell. It meant that at least one community had to shrink for another to grow. That’s the difference between growth and urban sprawl.

 

  The Greater Cleveland-Akron area suffered some of the nation’s worst sprawl; its developed land area doubled in size since 1960 but its population stayed stuck at 2.9 million people. Some call this the free market at work, even as Northeast Ohioans spend more of their tax dollars per capita to extend public infrastructure and services over longer distances and among smaller population densities.

 

  At the same time, the urban poor are isolated from new jobs, mostly in the suburbs, incurring taxpayer support for social programs, law enforcement and prisons.

 

  But a more genuine example of the free market may impose an end to sprawl — the rising value of farmland appears to be an example of it. Admittedly, ethanol is highly subsidized and new federal laws mandate an increase in ethanol production from 7 billion gallons a year to 15 billion by 2015. Ethanol is also a poor source of energy; it has a low net return on energy invested (an issue for another column).

 

  There is a great irony at work here in the early 21st century. In the last century, the outward growth of car-dependent suburbia was nourished by incredibly cheap gasoline and subsidized roads. Today and into the foreseeable future, ethanol and farmlands are being nourished by the rising cost of oil based on flattening global production rates and rising demand.

 

  According to a Feb. 5, 2008 USA Today article, “demand for grain for food, fuel and export, along with low interest rates and a weakened dollar have raised farmland prices by double digits the past two years. Average values have doubled since 2000.”

 

  No longer are farms easy pickings for real estate speculators seeking to build another housing subdivision. And no longer are farmers appealing to Willie Nelson and his Farm Aid concerts to bring attention to their plight, not when an Ohio farmer can get up to $500,000 for his 100-acre property and remain a tenant on the farm.

 

  In the 1980s, a farmer might get half as much money, only to see his farm succumb to housing. More than 6.9 million acres of Ohio farmland met that fate between 1950 and 2000, according to the Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force.

 

  Today, real estate developers are having a harder time justifying paying double for farmland. They can still build in wooded areas, but must compete for the land with conservancies funded by the Clean Ohio Campaign which voters approved in 1999. Still, developers must pay higher costs of building materials and for operating gas-powered construction equipment.

 

  The situation is made worse by the sub-prime mortgage crisis and high gas prices that are discouraging people from buying homes farther from work and shopping. The world’s tightening oil market suggests we’ll be paying even more for gas in the near future. Emerging trends in real estate markets suggest some are betting on that future.

 

  According to the real estate firm Grubb & Ellis, office users in 2007 snapped up 145,327 square feet of office space in downtown Cleveland compared to just 121,370 square feet in all of Northeast Ohio’s suburban markets.

 

  The overall residential real estate market has slowed to a crawl, except in and near downtown Cleveland. More than $2.5 billion in new construction and renovation projects are planned, underway or recently completed. Developers are creating a low-mileage lifestyle where people can walk, bike or take transit amongst an intimate mix of offices, housing, restaurants, entertainment and shopping.

 

  “I won’t say downtown real estate has been immune to the housing crisis, but it’s doing better than real estate elsewhere,” said Cleveland’s Ward 13 Councilman Joe Cimperman, who represents downtown and the neighborhoods of St. Clair-Superior, Ohio City and Tremont.

 

  It appears our car-crazy, oil-addicted lifestyle and the urban sprawl it fostered has collided with itself. The only reason it has is because we chose corn-based ethanol as a means to keep on driving as if nothing has changed. I love ironies.

http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=2732

 

Can We Stay in the Suburbs?

Thoughts on suburban agriculture, peak oil, and climate change

By Aaron Newton in Green Living, Peak Oil, Simple Living | March 4, 2008

 

There is little doubt that during that last 60 years we here in America have transformed our manmade landscape in a way that is fundamentally different from any form of human habitation ever known. While many have flocked to this new way of organizing the spaces in which we live, critics have noticed the shortcomings and have loudly pointed them out. It’s been suggested that the development of the suburbs here in the U.S. was a really bad idea. Author James Kunstler describes suburbia as, “the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.” The ability of most citizens to own and cheaply operate an automobile means we’ve had access to a level of mobility never before experienced. The outgrowth of which has been a sprawling pattern of living that changed the rules about how and where we live, work, and play and how we get there and back. We are now more spread out than ever before, mostly getting back and forth from one place to another by driving alone in our cars. This could turn out to be a really bad thing.

 

As the cost of fueling those cars increases, it’s becoming obvious we’ve foolishly put too many of our eggs into one basket. And as America wakes up to the realities of a changing climate, it’s also painfully obvious that soloing around in a huge fleet of carbon emitters isn’t the most thoughtful way to transport ourselves from one side of suburbia to the other. The question is, as the expansive nature of suburban life becomes too expensive, both economically and ecologically, what will we do with this great “misallocation” of resources?Will we, as some suggest, simply abandon this experiment? The likelihood of moving everyone out of suburbia and into mixed use, walkable communities is quite remote. Likewise moving everyone from the suburbs out into the countryside and onto farms is unlikely. To be sure many, many people will move. Some people are already choosing to move to places where they can safely walk and bike to meet more of their daily needs. Others are choosing to reruralize, but completely depopulating suburban America is a project we have neither the fiscal resources nor the fossil fuel energy necessary to accomplish. It seems reasonable to assume that lots of people are going to continue to live in the suburban communities we’ve created all over this country during the last 60 years.

 

Will these places simply devolve into slums with roving bands of thieves stripping building materials and other valuables from abandoned homes and formerly homeless drug addicts burning them down while trying to keep warm? They’ll probably be some of that especially if the housing crisis worseness (and it will) and the government continues to address it largely by bailing out banks. From a recent article in The Atlantic,

 

...

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/NEWS33/803200370/-1/NEWS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article published March 20, 2008

 

Lucas County exodus persists Some move to outlying areas

By ALEX M. PARKER

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

Urban sprawl, declining job opportunities, and a host of other factors are conspiring to rob Lucas County of its population - for the eighth year in a row.

 

While Ohio gained population between 2006 and 2007, Lucas County and northwest Ohio lost population during that period, according to estimated population figures released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

 

Lucas County's population declined from 444,230 in 2006 to 441,910 in 2007, according to the figures.

 

Read more at:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/03/cuyahoga_countys_population_dr.html

 

Graphic "Where did everyone go?":http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/03/20adCUYAHOGA.pdf

I really wish some group like Sierra Club would really step up and fight sprawl through advocacy and public education. I still think most people are oblivious to the issue.

 

Consider pollution. Every one seems to know about it. Some people don't seem to care about pollution, but at least everyone knows the issue out there. I don't think the same can be said about sprawl.

 

Everyone is complaining about gas prices and the economy. Sometimes I just want to tell people to shut up and move to Lakewood.

I really wish some group like Sierra Club would really step up and fight sprawl through advocacy and public education. I still think most people are oblivious to the issue.

 

Consider pollution. Every one seems to know about it. Some people don't seem to care about pollution, but at least everyone knows the issue out there. I don't think the same can be said about sprawl.

 

Everyone is complaining about gas prices and the economy. Sometimes I just want to tell people to shut up and move to Lakewood.

 

As a long-time member of the Sierra Club, I can tell you they do try to fight this but the efforts are usually at a much higher level where consumers don't tend to see them, such as governmental offices or via congresspeople or senators.  Both the local chapter newsletter and the magazine highlight these efforts as well as offer "educational" pieces; this month's issue has a detailed description on buying the most "green" car, for example.  Come join us and get your free subscription.

Make the polluters pay the cost of the pollution, such as increasing the gas tax to pay the medical and health costs of bad air. But in this country we don't like to make people pay the direct costs of their behavior and instead force everyone to pay for it.

I really wish some group like Sierra Club would really step up and fight sprawl through advocacy and public education. I still think most people are oblivious to the issue.

 

Consider pollution. Every one seems to know about it. Some people don't seem to care about pollution, but at least everyone knows the issue out there. I don't think the same can be said about sprawl.

 

Everyone is complaining about gas prices and the economy. Sometimes I just want to tell people to shut up and move to Lakewood.

 

Very true.  Many people in this state are oblivious and don't want to recognize that there pretty little cul-de-sac home is contributing to the decline of the cities 35 miles away. 

 

"It will never reach as far as my neighborhood." they say.

 

Ohio largest regions are not bulletproof by no means.

As a long-time member of the Sierra Club, I can tell you they do try to fight this but the efforts are usually at a much higher level where consumers don't tend to see them, such as governmental offices or via congresspeople or senators.  Both the local chapter newsletter and the magazine highlight these efforts as well as offer "educational" pieces; this month's issue has a detailed description on buying the most "green" car, for example.  Come join us and get your free subscription.

 

As an agreement, Yes they are very active. Pope's sister who has her masters in environmental and public policy, has worked on behalf and with Sierra Club in her previous and current roles at the state government level.

I know sprawl is one of Sierra Club's issues. I'm saying that I'd like sprawl to be more out there as a grass roots issue and public campaign. I applaud lobbying efforts and government action, but it is about time the issue go mainstream.

 

"Sprawl" unfortunetly isn't out there with the public with the likes of "pollution" or some other causes. 

Sprawl is such a concatenation of forces that it's hard to rail against on its own, and at the end of the day, it's the cumulative effect of a million little decisions, many of which, on their own, are very popular at the local level: commercial development, job creation, high-profile housing starts.

 

Short of highly contentious Oregon-style growth barriers, I think the only single force that can curb sprawl is biofuel production.

Sprawl is such a concatenation of forces that it's hard to rail against on its own, and at the end of the day, it's the cumulative effect of a million little decisions, many of which, on their own, are very popular at the local level: commercial development, job creation, high-profile housing starts.

 

Short of highly contentious Oregon-style growth barriers, I think the only single force that can curb sprawl is biofuel production.

 

As I've said, fighting "sprawl" is ultimately fighting something fundamental in, perhaps not human nature, but the nature of Americans.  Most of us prefer some elbow room whenever possible.  Look anywhere where people congregate and there isn't a strong center of attention.  It's considered the height of rudeness to crowd in on people you don't know. 

 

P. J. O'Rourke once compared Portland's anti-sprawl measures to trying to prevent weight gain by wearing a concrete girdle.

 

"this month's issue has a detailed description on buying the most "green" car, for example."

 

 

Couldn't resist.....  :evil:

Portland's land use restrictions, combined with strong urban development, have been very successful.

 

Columbus has chosen to cash in on sprawl (pay as you grow) rather than cap it, but  even with aggressive downtown development, the sprawl travels faster than the inner-city can grow, resulting in ghastly middle ring suburban dead zones.

 

More than any imaginary social tic, Americans choose the carrot over the stick, and thus far, they've been offered an unsustainable quantity of carrots. Like it or not, they're going to be dining on sticks for the foreseeable future.

Lexington KYs urban service area used to be an effective boundary to sprawl, which actually resulted in denser suburbia withing the usa boundary, but also sprawl in outlying counties. 

 

In the areas where the usa boundary was the same as the beltway round town ("Circle 4"), one had the uncanny impression of the beltway acting as sort of a wall around the city, pass it and =boom= immediatly into open country.

 

However, I think Lex abandoned the usa and they are sprawling more now, into rural Fayette County.

 

 

I think sprawl is a result of how much we assert our individual rights. Americans are obsessed with private ownership of assets and being independant of other people. We go so far to protect our own rights that we have 5x as many lawyers per capita as European countries.

I have no problem with us exerting our individual rights. I would never argue otherwise. I do believe, however, that we should pay the direct costs of exerting those rights. Then we'll see how many are willing/able to live a lifestyle that would otherwise be beyond their means.

I have no problem with us exerting our individual rights. I would never argue otherwise. I do believe, however, that we should pay the direct costs of exerting those rights. Then we'll see how many are willing/able to live a lifestyle that would otherwise be beyond their means.

 

Most already are!  I was an editorial meeting and the discussion was about moving to larger homes/preparing a home to sell/things people do to prepare their home for sale.

 

We had an expert real estate agent, an architect and a stager in on the conversation at different times and do you know what all three said in different terms.

 

Agent:  

Most people who claim they want a bigger home for their family to grow into don't need it, what they need to do is to CLEAN up their current home and get organized.  They would find the extra space they claim they need.

 

Architect:

I'm constantly being called by home owners to evaluate a home addition or how they can enlarge their current home.  If they cleaned up the space the currently have they wouldn't need to enlarge. People who say they want add on to a home don't really look at the factors added square footage adds on to a cost of a home.  Most people don't properly use the living space they currently occupy, but want to expand and increase expenses.  It's stupid.

 

Stager:

Most people can't see the asset that their current house is, but think by moving out and up to bigger and better they are somehow ahead of the field.  I find that if you can't manage to keep clean or proper place and furnish the home you currently live in, they are not going to be able to do it in a larger home.  Buying a bigger home further out is the same as running away from a problem, when you haven't dealt with the issue.

 

Short of highly contentious Oregon-style growth barriers, I think the only single force that can curb sprawl is biofuel production.

 

Biofuels still cause problems on par with sprawl. Monoculture plants are a detriment to animal habitats. We're basically looking at farms converted into oil fields and with such mass consumption, we would outsource much of it. We're already depleting rain forests for that very reason. The U.S. use more energy than we get yearly from plants. Top soil erosion from soy beans and corn in the midwest is ecologically unsustainable. I would rather see land use policies change and spend biofuel subsidies on sustainable energy technologies that increase efficiency on appliances, cars, buildings, etc. as well as tax the hell out of people for consumption. Except for my Duke energy bill. It's way too high in the winter. Maybe they could give student discounts!

 

 

I have no problem with us exerting our individual rights. I would never argue otherwise. I do believe, however, that we should pay the direct costs of exerting those rights. Then we'll see how many are willing/able to live a lifestyle that would otherwise be beyond their means.

 

Most already are!  I was an editorial meeting and the discussion was about moving to larger homes/preparing a home to sell/things people do to prepare their home for sale.

 

We had an expert real estate agent, an architect and a stager in on the conversation at different times and do you know what all three said in different terms.

 

Agent:  

Most people who claim they want a bigger home for their family to grow into don't need it, what they need to do is to CLEAN up their current home and get organized.  They would find the extra space they claim they need.

 

Architect:

I'm constantly being called by home owners to evaluate a home addition or how they can enlarge their current home.  If they cleaned up the space the currently have they wouldn't need to enlarge. People who say they want add on to a home don't really look at the factors added square footage adds on to a cost of a home.  Most people don't properly use the living space they currently occupy, but want to expand and increase expenses.  It's stupid.

 

Stager:

Most people can't see the asset that their current house is, but think by moving out and up to bigger and better they are somehow ahead of the field.  I find that if you can't manage to keep clean or proper place and furnish the home you currently live in, they are not going to be able to do it in a larger home.  Buying a bigger home further out is the same as running away from a problem, when you haven't dealt with the issue.

 

So it's not the size that's important, but rather, how you work it  :laugh:

I have no problem with us exerting our individual rights. I would never argue otherwise. I do believe, however, that we should pay the direct costs of exerting those rights. Then we'll see how many are willing/able to live a lifestyle that would otherwise be beyond their means.

 

I have a huge problem with individualism to the point where community life suffers. The desire to be left alone and lead a private life is dangerous on many levels. This is what fuels preferences for the automobile versus public transit, single detached family homes versus multi-family, mp3 players versus radio, automated checkout versus cashier, and so on. Not only do these preferences create a public "cost," but it erodes a sense of community and makes one more mistrusting of other people.

 

Well said.

 

Nothing brings out the egotistical self-centric American like road rage.

 

I shoveled my neighbor's driveway (since it was 5 ft away from my house anyway) as well as doing a favor for the guys that live upstairs from me when I shoveled ours. Their trust manifests in the form of delicious sugar cookies that were surprisingly even better than Kroger's. That was the second time this year I've recieved baked goods from neighbors. It's also nice to see people who work at stores you frequently go to in your neighborhood, walking down the street. Forced interaction is great.

Anyway, I think a lot of people on Urban Ohio would enjoy communitarian literature. It provides an ideology for diverse, densely populated and walkable communities.

 

"Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam (very anti-suburb)

"Democracy on Trial" by Jean Elshtain (shows link between staunch individualism and poor democracy, very short read)

"Habits of the Heart" by Robert Bellah (exposes individualism as a myth)

 

Or, if you aren't into reading I'd recommend watching the film, "Me, and you, and everyone we know"

Anyway, I think a lot of people on Urban Ohio would enjoy communitarian literature. It provides an ideology for diverse, densely populated and walkable communities.

 

"Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam (very anti-suburb)

"Democracy on Trial" by Jean Elshtain (shows link between staunch individualism and poor democracy, very short read)

"Habits of the Heart" by Robert Bellah (exposes individualism as a myth)

 

Or, if you aren't into reading I'd recommend watching the film, "Me, and you, and everyone we know"

Don't forget the one as my avatar :-D

I never read that book, but maybe I'll read it when the weather gets nicer. I need a good book to read while sitting on a park bench in Public Square this summer.

The story above about Brice Road decline and further sprawl did not include a brilliant letter to the editor from a keen observer of these things:

 

 

More retail sprawl is bad for central Ohio

Sunday,  March 2, 2008 3:30 AM

 

The decline of the Brice Road shopping cluster ("Retailers check out from Brice," Dispatch article, Feb. 17) is an illustration of why Ohio needs updated land-use policies. If all that retail activity moves farther east to Licking County farmland, it will be at great cost to central Ohio taxpayers and will cause continued damage to the overstretched budgets of Columbus and the state.

 

...

 

BRIAN WILLIAMS

Ohio state director

 

American Farmland Trust

 

Columbus

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/index.html

 

 

 

I have a huge problem with individualism to the point where community life suffers. The desire to be left alone and lead a private life is dangerous on many levels. This is what fuels preferences for the automobile versus public transit, single detached family homes versus multi-family, mp3 players versus radio, automated checkout versus cashier, and so on. Not only do these preferences create a public "cost," but it erodes a sense of community and makes one more mistrusting of other people.

 

You forgot internet vs. public library.  :)

 

Seriously, I would absolutely profess a very strong preference for all of your "bad choices", except the automated checkout, which is a waste as long as someone has to verify your receipt anyway. 

 

What you failed to do is establish why these preferences are “dangerous”.  If you’re talking about resources, “wasteful” might have been a better word.  Of course, there’s two solutions:  one is conservation and the other is getting ahold of more resources where possible.

 

As a conservative leaning libertarian, of course I’m going to have objections to communitarianism, both of the left and the religious right’s version.  Indeed, at some point I wouldn’t be surprised to see “conservative” and “liberal” become meaningless terms as our part of the right and “liberal” civil libertarians line up against the part of the left I call the “nanny staters” and the moral majorettes.  However, what really irks me about communitarianism is the use of weasel words like “society” and “the community”.  Those entities, armed with the power of compulsion, already have a name:  government. 

 

I would say that it is clear that most Americans dislike “forced interaction” (although few despise it as much as I do).  Pretty much every innovation that reduces it has become successful and is in wide usage.  You may claim that reduces “trust” in other people, and you might be right.  But I would also say that it also leads to an increase in tolerance for the personal choices of others.  The old proverb “good fences make good neighbors” comes to mind.  The stereotypical “small town” may have had lots of forced interaction, but it wasn’t a very good place to differ from the norm.

The "Nanny State" is a wan conservative buzz word and little else, but even if it were a real concept, it wouldn't be nearly as dangerous (or wasteful) as the "Spoiled Desocialized Fat Kid Sitting Slack-Jawed In His Bedroom State," which is an actual concept we're in danger of becoming.

I have a huge problem with individualism to the point where community life suffers. The desire to be left alone and lead a private life is dangerous on many levels. This is what fuels preferences for the automobile versus public transit, single detached family homes versus multi-family, mp3 players versus radio, automated checkout versus cashier, and so on. Not only do these preferences create a public "cost," but it erodes a sense of community and makes one more mistrusting of other people.

 

My "desire to be left alone" has nothing to do with why I choose any of these things.  It's more convenience and availbility of options.  Actually I hate the automated checkout, so not sure about that one.  But I listen to an iPod at times over the radio because when "Love Song" comes on for the 15th time in the past 2 hours, I'd rather listen to something else.  Even when I listen to my iPod on shuffle songs, there are times when I don't want to listen to one of the songs I put on my own iPod.  That has absolutely nothing to do with being left alone.

 

I drive to work vs. taking the RTA b/c instead of a 55-60 minute commute on the RTA, I have a 20 minute drive.  If public transport was more practical, I would use it more, but it's not.  I would still want a car regardless.  Living in Europe where public transport was awesome there were still times when I wished I had a car because it was just easier.

 

I think, as someone else said, it is more of a cultural thing and an availability thing.  In Europe I travelled all over the place.  I lived in Utrecht, Holland.  I made it to most of Western Europe plus many other cities and most trips took the same amount of time it would take for me to drive across Ohio.  My Dutch roommates or people I went to school with?  Most of them had never left the country.  Why?  Because those places were far away to them, despite being a cheap and short train ride away.  I lived in a flat with a common area and 5 bedrooms.  It's not like everyone was hanging out in the common area all the time, or really at all.  Some of the roommates didn't get along with each other and did things that annoyed the other.  You think they wouldn't have moved out to a single family home if it was available?  Somehow I doubt it.  Americans have that choice and take it.  Sometimes choices are made to excess but there is an extreme at the other end too and social issues are going to exist regardless.