Posted on 04/20/2013 1:49:03 PM PDT by Twotone
"If you really believe that suburbs are going to die, then let them die, and let the market address the situation" says Joel Kotkin, Chapman University professor and urban planning specialist.
But letting the market work is far from ideal for California's regional planners and local politicians, who want almost 70 percent of new housing over the next 25 years to be multi-unit apartment-style dwelliings, despite the facts that more than half of Southern California households reside in a single-family home and that more people are leaving California than are coming in.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Not sure what you mean by having it both ways. I’m inclined to think we agree on this one more than we agree. I’m certain that if we shared our particular circumstances we would agree with each other’s complaints.
Certainly there is not a development that someone somewhere will not object to. And there are always those people that are cozy in their suburban home that will be the first to complain about any more of them being built around them.
On the process though, developers can play by the rules and have great influence. If bad public decision making comes about as a result, it is the fault of the elected officials or their appointees on the planning commission.
Can’t blame a developer for trying to get what they can. In my view, though, the system is generally speaking (legally) very corrupt.
I don’t blame a developer for wanting to develop HIS PROPERTY they way he wishes.
What I have a problem with is people who complain about the process when a developer wants to build something they don’t like, but don’t complain when a developer wants to build something they do like.
NIMBYs.
I have a problem with those who call themselves Conservatives who will rail on and on and on about “high rise development” and “they are going to herd us all into high rises” and other hysterical rantings, but who would support using zoning and government top-down planning as a tool to get single family developments.
I say let developers develop THEIR PROPERTY which they bought (and anyone else could have bought) they way they wish and if it is a financial success fine, if not then fine as well, they will lose out.
The problem is that a lot of so-called conservatives have a problem with any type of development other than single family car-dependent suburbs. Yet they supposedly believe in the free market and free choice. Well, many people want to live in more dense developments with multiple transit options. What is Conservative about cutting these people out of the same process that is used to build single family suburbs? What is Conservative about not allowing free choice in where to live and in what kind of development to live?
It is the blatant hypocrisy that bugs me.
Also there are a whole range of choices rather than either single family or high rise apartments. That is discounted in these discussion, especially among FR hysterics.
Chocolate city dwellers don’t take to kindly to gentrification efforts in the hood.
No city can just let a developer develop their property the way they want. Local government has too many other considerations. I can understand from the developer's perspective with all the grief they go through - and a very siginificant amount of money invested before they ever get the green light from city government.
That is the way it is and that is the way it will stay. It is a condition developers will have to live with.
Regarding NIMBY, that is a pejorative that ignores real concerns of those objecting to a project. I've seen the NIMBY card pulled several times. Each time it was used in an attempt to divert attention from the true issues at hand.
You seem to keep saying that residential developments get an automatic pass from residents. Hope I am not mistaken on understanding your point.
I've see plenty of problems with residential developments that have led to fights at the planning commission level. Usually those are over density requirements - a developer wanting as much density as he can get and others pushing for deeper set backs and the inclusion of open space inside the development.
I think we are probably boring the rest of those in this thread but I am enjoying this conversation. You obviously come to this discussion with experience and expertise. And I sense a bit of frustation over the process. On that point, if it is any consolation, there is much frustration also on the part of those battling developers.
What about NIMBY’s who don’t want any more single family suburban development (and the strip malls etc that go along with them)?
Do their protests count?
The point I am trying to make is that no matter what you support or don’t support, to be credible you have to be consistent.
I don’t see the consistency. I see people applauding top-down planning when it supports what they want to see and when it doesn’t it’s the hysterical response (”We’re all going to be herded into high rise apartments).
No perspective at all. Just hypocrisy.
What you see as hypocricy may simply be people playing the game. You have the perspective of continuity. Any other audience, however, is not paying close enough attention to see it. Those playing that game you object to may see it exactly as you do but are simply saying who besides you is going to notice.
NIMBYS are concerned citizens who have organized for right and justice, most often against the corrupt money interest carpet baggers. The allegation of NIMBY is not effective in a local fight. Ive never seen it sway a local decision, especially when a room full of NIMBYs have managed to pack a city council chamber.
The cards the developers hold are one hundred dollar bills at campaign time.
Again, I agree that the developers hold the cards.
But where were the protests against their unequal sway with politicians when it was for projects that some people liked? Wasn’t it still wrong to shut out the opposition then?
What I am talking aobut is peoople like here on FR who go on and on and on about Agenda 21 and “herding us into apartments” and top-down government control ... but these same top-down government control is what build suburbia. The same politically connected developers built suburbia ... they got the sweethear deals, the tax abatements, sticking the taxpayers with the bill for infrastructure and all the rest of it ... but when the shoe is on the other foot, and developers are using their influence to build more densisity, then all of a sudden they are up in arms about it.
They are the same damn thing. The only difference was these people liked it when politically connected developers were throwing their hundred dollar bills at campaigns for development patterns they agreed with. Now it’s all a conspiracy to “herd is into high rise apartments”
It’s the hypocrisy that I am calling out.
I’m starting to get a clearer picture. The points you are making are good. You are correct that it is getting hard to find consistency these days. I think that is because people have lost their conservative ways, the ones calling themselves conservative anyhow. Do I have it about right?
If anyone wants to be on or off the Agenda 21 ping list, please notify me by Freepmail. It is a relatively low volume list in which we have been exploring the UN Agenda21 and related topics. We have collected our studies with threads, links, and discussions on the Agenda 21 thread which can be found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2738418/posts
NEW ACTION THREAD:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2863065/posts
Post 128 of the Action Thread is a summary of the history of Agenda 21, “what they are doing”, “what to do about it” and a good bibliography for further reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.