Suburbs a sin to Smart Growthers

[POLA]

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1377918.php

STEVEN GREENHUT
Sr. editorial writer and columnist
The Orange County Register
sgreenhut@ocregister.com

I'm always dumbfounded when ideologies take firm root among everyone who is anyone, even when those ideologies fly in the face of everything we see around us. During the Soviet era, it was self-evident to most average folks that freer societies were more prosperous, more affirming of human dignity and altogether better places than totalitarian regimes, yet a good bit of elite opinion preferred the promises of left-wing utopias to the everyday reality of the democratic West.

These days, I am a bit bewildered by the degree to which another ideology – granted, one far less noxious than communism – has taken root in America, even though it so obviously stands athwart everything we see all around us. Who you gonna believe, your own eyes or the grandiose statements of ideologues? Well, many Americans, especially those in positions of power, are choosing the ideologues.

I'm referring to the ideology of Smart Growth and New Urbanism. Basically, these philosophies argue that traditional suburbia of the sort that has evolved since the 1950s is a terrible thing. They say it promotes isolation, hopelessness, despair, social turmoil, leads to deep divisions among classes and races and is unsustainable. "Unsustainable" is one of those words that defies precise meaning, but those who throw around such a term are suggesting that suburbia is causing irreparable harm to the environment.

The Smart Growth/New Urbanist crowd has a solution to the terror of suburbia. We should all live packed into apartment buildings. Our kids should play on the street like in the old days of the glorious New York City tenements. We should not drive, but depend instead on mass transit. Every urban area should be surrounded by a green zone – i.e., a no-growth area of farms and woods and parks. Government will exert complete control over development decisions so that only the "right" types of things are built.

Fortunately, there's plenty of evidence to debunk this nonsense. I highly recommend "War on the Dream," by Wendell Cox, an Illinois-based consultant who writes and speaks extensively about transportation and housing. Those who believe that this fracas over urban planning is some ivory-tower debate with little or no real-world consequence need to keep Cox's words in mind: "The principal purpose of this book is to highlight the serious consequences of currently popular land-use policies. The urban planning community is implementing – and proposes to expand – strategies that are already seriously eroding housing affordability and intensifying traffic congestion. This could result in substantial economic reverses, because homeownership is so central to the creation of middle-income wealth and because traffic congestion reduces productivity."

As Cox points out, the restrictive land-use policies advocated by Smart Growthers and New Urbanists result in a dramatic loss of housing affordability. Those cities with the most restrictive rules have the highest housing prices, whereas those with fewer rules have relatively lower prices. Those of us who own homes have enjoyed watching prices, and our equity, soar in California. But the effect is devastating on people trying to get onto the economic ladder. It's always been ironic to me that the so-called spokesmen for the poor and minorities often advocate the most meddlesome government restrictions that make it nearly impossible for lower-income people to buy homes, start businesses and build wealth.

Homeownership is not only fundamental to wealth creation, as Cox argues, but to the sense of community that New Urbanists supposedly want to foster. Homeownership creates investment in a community and is fundamental to the notion of the American Dream. The issue also is one of freedom. As Cox explains: "People who are allowed to do what they want will be generally happier and more productive. ... To preserve the maximum latitude for people to act as they prefer, regulations and laws must be limited to what is genuinely important and should not be based upon flimsy research or flawed analysis."

Unfortunately, Smart Growth and New Urbanism are based on faulty foundations. Those of us who grew up crammed into row houses in dirty East Coast cities (in my case, Philadelphia) scratch our heads at the otherworldly arguments and analyses these ideologues make. When we moved to the suburbs, we found: a) less political corruption; b) better schools; c) more open space; d) friendlier neighbors; e) a more free-flowing transportation system; f) cleaner air; g) less crime, etc. The suburbs might not offer the nightlife, restaurants, architectural splendor and cultural pleasures of the city, but they hardly are the fonts of despair that the Smart Growthers claim.

One of the most commonly used arguments is that suburbs breed anomie – i.e., loneliness and isolation. Because suburbanites have so much private space and so little public space, we supposedly have little contact with one another and have not developed complex social skills like people have developed in the city. That view is opposite of the one I have experienced. When I lived in Philly and Washington, D.C., I knew few of my neighbors. Street life was more menacing than cozy, and I kept to myself and my social circle. I went to museums and such but was not intimately involved in what one might call community life.

In the suburbs, I know many of my neighbors. Some of this is driven by my age and the fact that I have kids, but I am deeply involved in community activities. A new study by Jan Brueckner of the UC Irvine Economics Department and Ann Largey of the Dublin City University Business School in Ireland took an empirical look at the issue. They confirm the points Cox makes.

I talked to Brueckner, who said he didn't know what he would find from his research. The results? "Social interaction is higher in the suburbs, contrary to what many people believe." He said suburbanites are more likely to talk to their neighbors, to have more friends, to be involved in social clubs. His research didn't explain why that occurs, but he had some speculations.

For instance, urban dewellers are "bombarded with people all day," so they tend to withdraw into their personal space. Suburbanites are out mowing the lawn and working on their houses, which might provide more oppotunities for chatting with the neighbors, compared to just walking by someone in an apartment hallway.

He also thinks there's more crime in urban areas, which makes people less social and there's more to do in cities, which makes people less dependent on their neighbors for entertainment.

Don't expect the Smart Growthers or New Urbanists to change their views in light of the evidence. This is – as I've called it before, and Cox calls it in a book chapter – a theology that has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with faith. These planners and their disciples believe in their hearts that suburbia is evil, and they are going to use the power of government to save us all. If you are not in the mood for being saved, then Cox's book will delight you.

Contact the writer: sgreenhut@ocregister.com or (714) 796-7823

[1Post2]

Here's why Wendell Cox himself is following an ideology instead of a reality: Article from Denver's Westword Newspaper (http://www.westword.com/Issues/2006-11-30/news/feature.html)

[glowrock]

Any time I read the name Wendell Cox, I immediately stop reading anything after that point. Cox is a schmuck, has no idea what "new urbanism" really is, and worships everything sprawl and automobile related. He's tiring, dull, and obnoxious.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[BnaBreaker]

"packed into apartment buildings"...this guy has no idea what New Urbanism even is if he thinks it is about that. I see now that glowrock just stated that lol, but nonetheless, is it any wonder why many smart growth proponents get frustrated with and sometimes talk down to stubborn suburbanites like this guy?

Shouldn't this douche bag be required to read at least one book on the subject before he writes an article about it in the newspaper? He very literally has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

[WesTheAngelino]

God why do we even post stuff from Kotkin or Cox anymore. It's always the same. I mean it's not as if I look at my shit every morning to confirm there's nuts in it.

[brickell]

Let's see how many bad stereotypes of smart growth we can cram into one article. This seems like the antithesis to C103's pro city rants. Neither is right.

Suburbs aren't the sin (unless your from Chicago), bad planning and sprawl is.

[wong21fr]

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1377918.php

The Smart Growth/New Urbanist crowd has a solution to the terror of suburbia. We should all live packed into apartment buildings. Our kids should play on the street like in the old days of the glorious New York City tenements. We should not drive, but depend instead on mass transit. Every urban area should be surrounded by a green zone – i.e., a no-growth area of farms and woods and parks. Government will exert complete control over development decisions so that only the "right" types of things are built.



Hmmm, there's a stereotype that's just as misleading as the supposed viewpoint on surburbia by urbanists. And oddly enough, this sounds a lot like the ideal of suburbia: everyone should live in McMansions, depend solely on the automobile for transit, have green-space and fences separating the subdivisions, and HOA's determining that only the "right" types of things are built.

It's funny that supporters of the norm on suburbia have only one man to quote.

[scribeman]

I don't think that Greenhut is making the extreme claims I have seen on both this messageboard and in city council meetings:

SUBURBS ARE THE EVIL EMPIRE WE CAN'T SPEAK WITH SUBURBAN PEOPLE THEY'RE NOT HUMAN LET'S STEREOTYPE THEM IN THE WORST WAY POSSIBLE I HATE MINIVANS I'M A SUPERIOR CITY PERSON.

You get the picture.

Frankly, Greenhut is accurate in his judgments. He also makes a very good point about the price of Californian housing and the dramatic failure of good government intentions. Because there really ARE bad things about living in a city. Not everyone sees the merit of being cram-packed into an apartment building.

[Steely Dan]

SUBURBS ARE THE EVIL EMPIRE WE CAN'T SPEAK WITH SUBURBAN PEOPLE THEY'RE NOT HUMAN LET'S STEREOTYPE THEM IN THE WORST WAY POSSIBLE I HATE MINIVANS I'M A SUPERIOR CITY PERSON.


that was beautiful.

someone needs to steal that for sig. ;)

[Buckeye Native 001]

On a side note, (and forgive me, I'm an English major) is "growther" even a word? :shrug:

You have Biff's support, Dan.

[Chicago103]

Let's see how many bad stereotypes of smart growth we can cram into one article. This seems like the antithesis to C103's pro city rants. Neither is right.

Suburbs aren't the sin (unless your from Chicago), bad planning and sprawl is.

The difference being that even though I overdramatize, overgeneralize (and admitedly so) to make a point at the very least alot of what I say is backed up by facts and more importantly well sounded logic and claims that are hard to refute. When I rant about suburbs I am talking about the worst of the worst and isnt meant to be directed at every soul living outside of the city limits of a major city. I see car culture for what it is, I make outrageous claims that are outside the mainstream but there are still true regardless if 99% of people have never put much thought into it. We live in a welfare state of sprawl, no its not welfare in the sense that there is a check with an individual's name on it given every month but rather it is welfare in terms of MASSIVE subsidization of a unsustainable lifestyle and seeing it as an entitlement. I think that people who live an auto-centric existence AND (notice the qualifier) see it as an entitlement that the government owes them and demonizes funding of alternatives (public transit) are just as bad as lazy welfare addicts that sit on their ass in a trailer park and refuse to work. Actually I would say that auto-dependent entitlement activists are far worse for this country than welfare addicts because at least traditional welfare addicts are criticized by mainstream society wheras the former is often paraded around as the "all american freedom loving" brigage.

Now the dude that wrote this article and people like him (Cox, Contlin, etc.) is that they dont back up their arguments with logical and sound arguments or facts in any real sense. When they talk about smart growth advocates wanting people to live in "packed into apartment buildings" they are either trying to decieve their audience as whores to their libertarian think tank pimps, selfish pricks that care only about themselves and their lifestyle with the mentality of a five year old, or they are just plain ignorant of the facts, or perhaps all of the above. Also the academic or otherwise qualifications of these people are often very questionable, claiming they are trained professionals in a field when they are not, they only have peripheral knowledge in the field at best. Then on top of that these people have the absolute GAUL to turn around and call people like me that have a Master's Degree in Urban Planning as Ivory Tower liberal elites that just want to tell everyone else how to live.

[Buckeye Native 001]

All in all, I'm kind of embarassed this article came from the same newspaper I work for. :(

What's "logic and rational" to one person can very well be "asinine and insane" to another.

[DeadManWalking]

Unfortunately, Smart Growth and New Urbanism are based on faulty foundations. Those of us who grew up crammed into row houses in dirty East Coast cities (in my case, Philadelphia) scratch our heads at the otherworldly arguments and analyses these ideologues make. When we moved to the suburbs, we found: a) less political corruption; b) better schools; c) more open space; d) friendlier neighbors; e) a more free-flowing transportation system; f) cleaner air; g) less crime, etc. The suburbs might not offer the nightlife, restaurants, architectural splendor and cultural pleasures of the city, but they hardly are the fonts of despair that the Smart Growthers claim.

This paragraph sums up all of the problems that a lot of people have with the city. I look at the problems he lists and realize that my city, KCK, also suffers from every single one of these problems. Its no wonder we face population decline.

[niwell]

Yay, another article that puts everything in black and white terms!

Obviously there is no middle ground between typical auto-oriented single family housing and 1920s era tenements. None at all. It's either one or the other.:rolleyes:

[Chicago Shawn]

This guys premise for his whole argument is flawed. He claims that the status quo is correct, and therefore what you see is what is right. It wasn't that long ago when every average american Joe smoked, and everywhere you went you saw people smoking, that of course didn't mean it was a good thing for you. I'm sure if this guy was writting back then he would of accused the doctors as being a group of liberial eletists. Public preception and the status quo isn't always right, and its so unproffesional for this guy to write a whole article on that premise without any real proof to back it up. Then he cites the anti-thesis of the suburbs such as the crowded tennemints of Lower Mannhattan from 100 years ago, with little relivance to that same environment today or any level of gray area in between. He obvously has no idea what sustainability is, or even the New Urbanist principles, and therefore has clearly not even researched the issue at had before publishing this article. And he calls himself a senior editor on top of it. How sad.

My biggist concern though, is not the effect on rational thinkers who can easily call out this garbage for what it is; but rather the people who do not have any educational background in the realm of the built environment who will accept this as truth because "the writters must know what they are talking about", and will in turn continue to support sprawl and dismiss all of its negitive attributes.

What really peves me the most is how he, like Cox, Cotkin, and O'Toole lump all the urban planners together as urban elitists who will use the power governement to take away "rights" of suburbanites. Its this labeling and scare tactict that is only working to continue the growing rift between people that is tearing the nation apart. Its almost as if Academic credentials don't even matter any more to these idiots, they just abide by the formula: Americain Way of Life = Best in the World, Conservitive= Someone to protect that way of life and knows how the world works; Liberial = Idioligical nimwits out to destroy our way of life and turn America into a socialist third world country. They use this to lable everyone, assort them, and then form thier stance on a issue.

[BnaBreaker]

What really peves me the most is how he, like Cox, Cotkin, and O'Toole lump all the urban planners together as urban elitists who will use the power governement to take away "rights" of suburbanites. Its this labeling and scare tactict that is only working to continue the growing rift between people that is tearing the nation apart. Its almost as if Academic credentials don't even matter any more to these idiots, they just abide by the formula: Americain Way of Life = Best in the World, Conservitive= Someone to protect that way of life and knows how the world works; Liberial = Idioligical nimwits out to destroy our way of life and turn America into a socialist third world country. They use this to lable everyone, assort them, and then form thier stance on a issue.

I agree. Hey, they are just like their conservative counterparts in the government. When you can't win with facts, slime slime slime the opposition, appeal to the ignorance of your base, and try to win dirty. Power is what is important to people like that. Not truth.

[crisp444]

The difference being that even though I overdramatize, overgeneralize (and admitedly so) to make a point at the very least alot of what I say is backed up by facts and more importantly well sounded logic and claims that are hard to refute.

I don't freak out when I read your generalizations anymore because I know you're exaggerating. You parody sprawl - we get it, and sometimes I actually chuckle at some of what you say because either a) it has some grain of truth to it, or b) it's just crazy. However, do you really think you base your arguments on facts? I don't think so - it's just opinions "justified" by speculations. Where are the "facts" that living in auto-oriented sprawl, dining at Applebees, and shopping at Walmart makes one "soulless?" Or, that this type of develpment "isn't sustainable?" It's okay to speculate, but please don't say that such things are facts.

PS - I like your rants, but they aren't that "hard to refute." :)

[BnaBreaker]

I don't freak out when I read you're generalizations anymore because I know you're exaggerating. You parody sprawl - we get it, and sometimes I actually chuckle at some of what you say because either a) it has some grain of truth to it, or b) it's just crazy. However, do you really think you base your arguments on facts? I don't think so - it's just opinions "justified" by speculations. Where are the "facts" that living in auto-oriented sprawl, dining at Applebees, and shopping at Walmart makes one "soulless?" Or, that this type of develpment "isn't sustainable?" It's okay to speculate, but please don't say that such things are facts.

PS - I like your rants, but they aren't that "hard to refute." :)

Well, the social consequences of sprawl are harder to prove with solid facts, although from my vantage point the effects are pretty evident. As far as sustainability is concerned though, there is all sorts of information out there that proves that point if simple logical thought doesn't already bring you to that conclusion.

By the way, regarding the article, I find it ironic that this guy lives in Orange County and is ranting about New Urbanists supporting 'overcrowding', when in reality, most single-family New Urbanist developments likely allow for more space to spread your legs than the monotanous tightly packed sub-division he likely lives in now.

[BnaBreaker]

By the way, I sent this guy an email about this article. Here is his response.

Dear whatever your name is,

Actually, I have read much about New Urbanism and spoke at the Congress for
the New Urbanism in Pasadena, where I presented my views and was rebutted
by Norquest, Bess, Duany, etc.

Frankly, I find that when emailers such as yourself have to resort to name
calling -- money from the oil lobby, idiot, etc. -- that you probably are
the one with no real argument ... just the emotionalism that I have found
from advocates for this theology.

:jester:

[Chicago103]

I don't freak out when I read you're generalizations anymore because I know you're exaggerating. You parody sprawl - we get it, and sometimes I actually chuckle at some of what you say because either a) it has some grain of truth to it, or b) it's just crazy. However, do you really think you base your arguments on facts? I don't think so - it's just opinions "justified" by speculations. Where are the "facts" that living in auto-oriented sprawl, dining at Applebees, and shopping at Walmart makes one "soulless?" Or, that this type of develpment "isn't sustainable?" It's okay to speculate, but please don't say that such things are facts.

PS - I like your rants, but they aren't that "hard to refute." :)


Its not so much that the speculation about suburbs being soulless, of course stuff like that is harder to factualize. What I am more refering to is how it is unsustainable and there have been many well doucmented studies on that and when I talk about auto-dependent development being subsidized by the government heavily and the historical context of how big corporations and the government banded together to stop streetcar companies and attempt to dismantle public transportation in this country is factual. When I call it a welfare state I am saying looking at those facts how can one argue that it is any different than the traditionally defined welfare state? The only difference being is that in traditional welfare checks are written out to individuals from the government on a regular basis whereas that is not the case with sprawl, you personally dont recieve an SUV maintenence compensation check with your name on it from the government and tract McMansion subdivisions are not run by government housing authority but in terms of tax dollars spent to indirectly subsidize there isnt much of a difference in fact I wouldnt be surprised if more tax dollars are spent to maintain auto-dependent sprawl than food stamps, section 8, public housing and welfare expenditures combined. I wont state that as a fact for now but it would be nice if an academic somewhere could research that.

Also when I go off on my rants I am not seriously stouping down to their level but rather I am doing so in a humerous sense. I want to see how I am percieved if I make some of the same type of generalizations they do except from the exact opposite perspective (hence my McMansion, Applebees, SUV's and Wal-Mart is what suburbs are rants all the time which akin to this douche and many others calling anything urban as being crowded turn of the century tenments). Now look how them and I are treated differently, they are viewed as upholders of the all-american way of life out to protect the people from the liberal elitests wheras someone like me is viewed as a nut by even some on this fourm.

[BnaBreaker]

-delete-

[roner]

Obviously there is no middle ground between typical auto-oriented single family housing and 1920s era tenements. None at all. It's either one or the other.

I agree. The argument always gets framed this way and it's fucking tiresome.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Obviously there is no middle ground between typical auto-oriented single family housing and 1920s era tenements. None at all. It's either one or the other.

I agree. The argument always gets framed this way and it's fucking tiresome.

Even if its meant to be an exaggeration, its gotten really fucking annoying.

[vid]

«Obviously there is no middle ground between typical auto-oriented single family housing and 1920s era tenements. None at all. It's either one or the other.»

There is, but the Pro-Suburban side thinks it too urban and the pro-urban side things it is too suburban.

I think the city that comes closest to the idea would be a Victoria, BC, with a few more high rises and less exurbs.

[CGII]

The Smart Growth/New Urbanist crowd has a solution to the terror of suburbia. We should all live packed into apartment buildings. Our kids should play on the street like in the old days of the glorious New York City tenements. We should not drive, but depend instead on mass transit. Every urban area should be surrounded by a green zone – i.e., a no-growth area of farms and woods and parks. Government will exert complete control over development decisions so that only the "right" types of things are built.
He says that like it's a bad thing.

[Altauria]

^I was thinking the same thing. I don't think he's thowing all the stereotypes in there.....he's actually reading my mind in how I want to live! Well, except the "tenement" part, of course.

[westsider]

Jesus Christ people. Nobody is trying to force you to live in a mcmansion or drive everywhere. The whole backlash aginst "new urbanism" is because people don't want to be forced into buying a condo because of artificially high land prices, and don't want to be forced to take the bus because a disproportionate amount of transportation dollars go to mass transit instead of road improvements. Its about freedom. Anyone who wants to live in a apartment and ride the bus around is more than welcome to, just don't try to penalize those who don't by encourging congestion to get them out of their cars, and creating minimum zoning and growth boundaries to force pc development.

[westsider]

I would be more than happy to live in a urban condo but everyone should have the freedom to choose how they want to live without being herded into something they might not want.

[Frisco_Zig]

Westsider

You realize the same argument could be made against traditional zoning. Certianly the free market would have produced more density and walkable neighborhoods without all of the asinie zoning laws even in places like San Francisco where I live

Sure I am pissed that I have to pay 1 million to buy the same house that my Mexican uncle bought as a bricklayer in Noe Valley in 1965

Sure seems to be a lot of demand but a limited supply of these sorts of pre WWII "streetcar suburds" in the Bay Area. Anywhere they exist the prices are through the roof. Odd to me that in much of the Bay Area zoning won't allow for the market to supply more

So looking at the whole country who is really limited in choice?

[BnaBreaker]

Jesus Christ people. Nobody is trying to force you to live in a mcmansion or drive everywhere.

Of course nobody is forced, but come on, look at the options in the typical American city...if you don't want to live in sprawl you are usually extremely limited.

The whole backlash aginst "new urbanism" is because people don't want to be forced into buying a condo because of artificially high land prices

They wouldn't be forced to live in a condo.

and don't want to be forced to take the bus because

They wouldn't be forced to take the bus.

a disproportionate amount of transportation dollars go to mass transit instead of road improvements

LOL, do I even need to point out the unbelievable irony here?

Its about freedom.

Of course it is. The freedom to drive your car, or walk, or ride the bus, and the freedom to live in a single family home or an apartment, or a flat, or a mansion in a variety of engaging environments. New Urbanism is about freedom. New Urbanism is about options and choice. Conventional Suburban Development is anything but. Which style of development is really more "anti-freedom"?

Anyone who wants to live in a apartment and ride the bus around is more than welcome to, just don't try to penalize those who don't by encourging congestion to get them out of their cars...

Damn man, where do you read this stuff? The Libertarian Times? Who is trying to force anyone to live in an apartment or get rid of their car? Like I said in my email to the author of this article, a few minutes of actually reading up on the topic (as opposed to simply basing your opinions on the rhetoric of talking heads) can go a long way in helping you actually understand the motives behind it.

...and creating minimum zoning and growth boundaries to force pc development.

Uh, this isn't about political correctness at all. Look, every solid fact on the subject shows that conventional sprawl is damaging in a variety of ways. Either we continue with the damaging behavior in the name of pseudo "freedom", or we make a few small changes to soften the blow. You can continue sticking your head in the oven if you want, but from my perspective it'd be better if you didn't.

[niwell]

If people really want freedom they should be willing to pay the true costs of their lifestyles. Then we'll see what's more and less expensive. It's no coincidence that municipalities and regional governments are struggling to simply pay for maintenance on roads and toehr utilities.

[crisp444]

If people really want freedom they should be willing to pay the true costs of their lifestyles. Then we'll see what's more and less expensive. It's no coincidence that municipalities and regional governments are struggling to simply pay for maintenance on roads and toehr utilities.

I will start by saying that I realize you've said that people SHOULD be willing to pay the true costs if they really want freedom (as opposed to that they are not willing).. however I am going to address the issue of them NOT being willing because others on this forum have said that in the past and it is not a logical assumption.

In order to conclude that people "aren't willing to pay the true costs of their lifestyles," we need to calculate these costs and implement policies to impose them on their "offenders" in order to see how many of them would pay these costs or refuse to do so and move. Only after we turn this theory and speculation into numbers, policy, and action can we conclude that suburbanites refuse to pay the true costs of living in suburbia. This argument is repeated over and over in this forum but it really has no basis in reality. Although I love living in the city, in the future, I would gladly pay higher taxes in order to live on a large piece of land with a garden, pool, and yeah, maybe even two cars. I would bet that most suburbanites WOULD be willing to pay higher taxes in order to maintain their lifestyles. It's not logical to assume that just because they aren't paying for their choices that they wouldn't be willing to pay for them in order to maintain their comfortable lifestyle. No one will volunteer to pay more taxes because urbanites want them to, but if these taxes actually were imposed, I would not be surprised if a majority of suburbanites just grumbled about them and paid them anyways.

[niwell]

^I'd be willing to bet that if the property tax structure (as it is in Canada, dunno about how it works in the US) was to be reorganized so that users were paying based on cost to service the land they live on development patterns would be somewhat different. Sure, people still would have single family homes and all, but probably on a smaller scale. I simply can't see everyone just paying double (triple or more?) the costs of living in a big house on a big lot just for the sake of it. Enough North Americans are mired in debt as it is.

Besides, we do have real world examples. See what realistic gas prices do other parts of the world, say Western Europe. Hell, we're starting to see it in Canada with rising costs of living; IRRC over 50% of new units in metro Toronto are townhouse or apartment developments. Almost as high in Ottawa in new areas.

And it's not urbanites who desire taxes on suburbanites. It's municipalities losing money, lots of it. Again, I don't know how it works in the states, but in Ontario municipalities don't have the power to set different tax rates by area.

[Altauria]

I would bet that most suburbanites WOULD be willing to pay higher taxes in order to maintain their lifestyles.

Sort of like Plainfield, IL, a prime example that is repeated throughout many of Chicago's south/southwest suburbs. In 1990 there was a population of around 4,000. Now, there's over 30,000. It is every bit of sprawl hell one could imagine. Back to the point: They keep voting DOWN school referendums. Troy School District actually had to relinquish their band program that was very well known for its excellence throughout the area. They're building shopping, however the town has absolutely pitiful infastructure and next to no amenities of its own.

No, these people are voting down cultural and educational institutions because rather than trying to be human, they'd rather have thier 60" TVs in their piss-poorly built homes (yes, whole subdivisions suffered bad denting on their siding after a small hail in the recent past). I think billboards posted on I-80 sum it up......."Big Homes, Less Money!"

[Chicago103]

Sort of like Plainfield, IL, a prime example that is repeated throughout many of Chicago's south/southwest suburbs. In 1990 there was a population of around 4,000. Now, there's over 30,000. It is every bit of sprawl hell one could imagine. Back to the point: They keep voting DOWN school referendums. Troy School District actually had to relinquish their band program that was very well known for its excellence throughout the area. They're building shopping, however the town has absolutely pitiful infastructure and next to no amenities of its own.

No, these people are voting down cultural and educational institutions because rather than trying to be human, they'd rather have thier 60" TVs in their piss-poorly built homes (yes, whole subdivisions suffered bad denting on their siding after a small hail in the recent past). I think billboards posted on I-80 sum it up......."Big Homes, Less Money!"

Thats the societal depravity I am talking about, these people are part of an entitlement culture, there isnt much to distinguish themselves from welfare addicts and/or white trash, except these people have a little more money and can BS themselves (or have politicians that do the BSing for them) better than people and politicians from areas that are poorer and more urban. The entitlement culture exists through all layers of society, its just that the poor bear the brunt of the criticism. The only difference is that with traditional welfare individuals recieve checks with their name on it but in the suburban welfare state its more indirect and thus a more insidious form of welfare.

Sure if the true costs of the sprawl lifestyle were out there would still be some people that would be willing to pay but there would be alot fewer than now. Many of the people living the sprawl lifestyle can barely afford to live how they currently do, they just buy a huge house they can barely afford to show off and are in debt up to their eyeballs just one step away from their lifestyle collapsing in on itself. Thats why these people are so scared and expect the government to bail them out at the pump and continue to support their lifestyle and not tax them for stuff they dont use like public transportation.

Honestly I think the free market (the true free market and not the faux one these libertarians worship) should determine the cost of an auto-centric lifestyle and thus living that way should be seen as a luxury and not a birthright. Thats how I veiw massive subsidization of sprawl, its like welfare to help people purchase luxury items. Regular welfare to me could always be reformed or made more efficient but at least with that its helping people survive whereas subsidation of sprawl is welfare so people can easier live in luxury. Libertarian minded people love to say how they dont want to pay with their tax dollars for other people's health care, education, food well I say to them that I dont want to pay with my tax dollars for their Hummer, their parking spot, or the infrastructure for their wastefull subdivision and McMansion and offramps for their clusterfuck retail.

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

Plainfield used to be a rather quaint small town out in the prairies (well, ok, cornfields). Some nice period antebellum architecture there.

[Altauria]

^You're absolutely right. It used to be a nice humble town with good schools.

And Chicago103: your last paragraph nailed it on the head. It's interesting to me, though, your outlook on Libertarians. I used to consider myself Libertarian a while back, however never considered what you say their beliefs lead to. Perhaps that's why I drifted away, haha.

[westsider]

Damn man, where do you read this stuff? The Libertarian Times? Who is trying to force anyone to live in an apartment or get rid of their car? Like I said in my email to the author of this article, a few minutes of actually reading up on the topic (as opposed to simply basing your opinions on the rhetoric of talking heads) can go a long way in helping you actually understand the motives behind it.



Except for extremely dense citys like NYC or SanFran it used to be that practically anyone with gainfull employment could afford a single family home if thats what they wanted. My grandfather was a logger with 5 children and life wasnt always easy for him but he could at least afford to own the roof over his familys head. Today many familys need 2 working people to afford the 50 year ARM morgage, and its not because of inflation or the country running out of buildable land. (according to a study in the 70s the entire current US population could have fit into the area of Florida with room to grow crops.)

I know I live in one of the most liberal citys in the country but I don't think this is unique to us- The various state and local transportation agencys have decided that a constant near gridlock level of traffic is acceptable, and a benefit of this policy is that people will be forced off the road and onto the trains we spent billions of dollars constructing.

[Altauria]

^I as well become frustrated at what previous generations were able to afford with housing, and with more children, than we do today. However, we have to think about lifestyle....as opposed to inflation. Think about what previous generations had paid for. Basic necessities, and that's all for the most part. They didn't have 4 phone bills per family, computers, cable bills, internet bills, super-high insurance rates that don't cover anything while still funnelling huge amounts of tax dollars into medicare/aid and social security, and airlines that charge 9/11 fees (yes, they're actually stupid enough to label and itemize it). Our automobiles cost so much more as well because of all the extra electronic parts gizmos that come with them....that most of us don't even want to begin with. The cars also break down much more often than their predecessors (along with every other product we buy).

We should each take the time someday and tally up all the extra charges and 'luxuries' we pay for in a given year. I think we'd be surprised.

[CGII]

Except for extremely dense citys like NYC or SanFran it used to be that practically anyone with gainfull employment could afford a single family home if thats what they wanted. My grandfather was a logger with 5 children and life wasnt always easy for him but he could at least afford to own the roof over his familys head. Today many familys need 2 working people to afford the 50 year ARM morgage, and its not because of inflation or the country running out of buildable land. (according to a study in the 70s the entire current US population could have fit into the area of Florida with room to grow crops.)
New urbanism is a strategy for 'smart growth,' no more irresponsable, poorly built McMansions, but reasonably sized, well built single family homes with good transit and auto access. New urbanism will be the key to the new, affordable working class house, not tearing up the country side and putting up massive, overpriced cardboard boxes.

I know I live in one of the most liberal citys in the country but I don't think this is unique to us- The various state and local transportation agencys have decided that a constant near gridlock level of traffic is acceptable
So, here's the point. You DO have a choice. If you take a car, you will gain the total freedom of mobility nothing else gives you. However, you have to put up with traffic and lots of money to keep on the road. Take transit, and while it might not be as convenient, you will save lots of money and probably make better time. Seems pretty fair.

You have to understand that while transit may not make a difference to you, the automobilist, transit is ALL the difference to those who either can't afford a car or don't want to drive. THEY need a choice, too, and THEY are all too often penalized by city gov'ts who completely ignore public transit in favour of new (and most often unnecessary) freeway projects.
and a benefit of this policy is that people will be forced off the road and onto the trains we spent billions of dollars constructing.
So, the trains were a pretty good investment, no?