BOWERS: What's so bad about suburban sprawl anyway?

A well-made, raised-relief map is a beautiful thing. You know what I'm talking about, don't you? It's a map mode of molded plastic, so that mountains protrude into your personal space. This is handy when you are riding your bicycle across America. You can see where the tough climbs will be. Avoid Gunnison, Colo.

My map of the 48 states is made by Kistler Graphics Inc. in Denver. Not only the texture but also the colors are delightful: a rich mix of tans, greens and blues.

The artist uses one other color, yellow, to mark urban areas. I think about those splotches when I hear gloom and doom about suburban sprawl, and you know why? Because compared to the entire land mass of the United States, they are tiny.

A lot of cities you would consider large do not even merit their own yellow splotch, but merely a black square. For example, Portland, Las Vegas, Indianapolis, Salt Lake City, Miami and Phoenix.

In fact, in the entire western two-thirds of the nation, between the California coast and the Mississippi River, there are just four yellow splotches, and you have to look really hard to find them. They sit unobtrusively next to mountains and rivers. Can you guess them? I'll tell you at the end of this column.

On my map, the distance from San Francisco to New York is 50 centimeters. The distance from International Falls, Minn., to Brownsville, Texas, is 30 centimeters. That means my America comprises roughly 1,500 square centimeters. It looks to me like all the yellow splotches combined could fit into Vermont.

My seat-of-the-pants analysis is confirmed by Steven Hayward, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. He writes: "Developed land accounts for less than 5 percent of the total land area in the continental United States. The amount of land developed each year, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, is 0.0006 percent."

The answer, to me, seems obvious. There is no crisis. Suburban sprawl is just another hoax that liberal governments use to try to stop us ordinary Americans from doing what is natural.

In this case, we want to find a roomy place to live and have a little money left over after paying the mortgage. But social engineers, trying to perfect humanity, don't want us to spread out. They want us crammed together in dense cities to keep us in line and take away our Swiss Army Knives.

In this sense, the suburban sprawl myth is similar to the global warming hoax. Al Gore types begrudge us the freedom that cars provide, so they scare us with threats like "You're destroying the coral reef of Mexico!"

Well, so what if we are? I didn't even know Mexico had coral reef. As I have asked before: Who ever promised us an Earth that would never, ever change? Who ever said coral reef should exist forever? Ask a dinosaur: Species come and go every day.

In other words, if coral reef does die out, soon enough it will be replaced by some other interesting organism. Did you know there were no bats on Earth until we emerged from the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago? That's right: If not for global warming, there would be no such thing as these fascinating, sonar-equipped flying mice.

This is how the world's climate works, you see. You lose a reef, you gain a bat. Deal with it, OK?

Now some more about suburban sprawl. It is not the evil that it's made out to be. In the New Democrat a few years ago, Fred Siegel wrote that sprawl is "an expression of the upward mobility and growth in homeownership generated by our past half-century of economic success. ...

"An unprecedented 67 percent of Americans now own their own homes. Black homeownership has been increasing at more than three times the rate for whites, and today a record 45 percent of African-Americans are now homeowners.

"Sprawl is part of the price we're paying for creating something new on the face of the earth: the first mass upper-middle class."

The writer Thomas Sowell adds: "In some places housing prices are astronomical -- three times the national average in much of California, for example. Despite the old rule of thumb that housing should cost no more than one-fourth of your income, there are parts of California where tenants and new homebuyers pay at least half their incomes for housing."

So what are middle-class people supposed to do in cities such as San Francisco? Pitch a tent in Golden Gate Park? No, of course not. They move eastward, building communities in the undeveloped land between Oakland and exurbs like Stockton.

And what if they do? As Sowell points out: "You could double the size of every city and town in America, and still nine-tenths of the land would be undeveloped."

Steven Hayward, the researcher quoted above, has found a rich analogy to the suburban sprawl panic in Chapter 7 of "Alice in Wonderland":

"There was a table set out under a tree in front of the house, and the March Hare and the Hatter were having tea at it: a Dormouse was sitting between them, fast asleep. ...

"The table was a large one, but the three were all crowded together at one corner of it: 'No room! No room!' they cried out when they saw Alice coming. 'There's PLENTY of room!' said Alice indignantly, and she sat down in a large armchair at one end of the table."

Readers may send email to mbowers@starnewspapers.com. The four yellow splotches between the California coast and the Mississippi River are Denver, San Antonio, Dallas and Houston.

"Developed land accounts for less than 5 percent of the total land area in the continental United States. The amount of land developed each year, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, is 0.0006 percent." So I have to ask: Where in the heck is this suburban sprawl crisis?

The crisis? It's a two part deal. First, people cramped in together, crowded and angry vote dem. Think "inner city".

Then dem elitist want the country-side to be their own private Sierra Club type estate. (On our dime) They can bike and sail without the great unwashed messing up their fun. We get shoved into dirty cities so the John Kerry's of the world, the Teddy Kennedy's of the world, can have MORE. More space, more view, more fun, and more power.

I like the old buildings myself, but your attempt to paint me as part of the problem was lame. I am stating the fact that unless you own that building, you have no say in what happens to it. Or are you a liberal who believes you have more rights than the owner?

I like the old buildings myself, but your attempt to paint me as part of the problem was lame. I am stating the fact that unless you own that building, you have no say in what happens to it.

You are correct....property owners, developers and the city council decide what you and I get to look at now.....

Unfortunately, you and I can buy most of them for pennies on the dollar. Not what I would call a heritage for my children. Then again, if you have enough money.....you don't have to look at it at all......

Did you know there were no bats on Earth until we emerged from the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago?

That statement is sufficiently idiotic to put a big red "IGNORE" stamp on the entire article, and a provisional stamp on anything churned out by this author.

I looked to see that you are in Oklahoma. Do you have a local or regional group that works to preserve Historic Sites? You might consider contacting such a group to try to keep any remaining older buildings. When I lived in West Texas there was a pretty active group that, unfortunately, gathered after the beautiful old courthouse was demolished to make way for a bright new ugly shiney one.

Good luck with your town. I honestly hope you can spare some of the original beauty, but I do believe in free enterprise and if someone wants to sell their land then I believe it is their right.

Good luck with your town. I honestly hope you can spare some of the original beauty, but I do believe in free enterprise and if someone wants to sell their land then I believe it is their right.

I agree....my property, my choice. Until the last few years, many parts of western Oklahoma were going ghost town. Now we have a natural gas boom on the Anadarko basin.....they can't drill wells fast enough out here. The economy is thriving, jobs are plentiful.....we even have starbucks (rolling my eyes). I believe in capitalism and free enterprise but, hey, I want MY kids to see the old brick banks and museums also.......the big corporations can keep their damn hands off a few small buildings in the middle of nowhere, IMHO.

I think you and I are going in circles here. You are happy that there are jobs, happy that more tax money is coming into town, right?

Let's step back - suppose someone had owned a small store in town. It supported his family nicely, then his kids moved away. He retired, no one wanted to buy the building so it sat and fell into disrepair.

None of the kids live in town any longer but Starbucks wants that piece of property, and makes an offer.

Do you really think that just because you'd like your kids to see the old buildings that you have any right to complain when the legal owner of that property sells it?

What we don't want is another Starbucks across the street and tearing down the old museum so that Eckerds can compete with business from Walgreens. Understand? It's called urban planning and it's out the window in most suburbs. Unregulated sprawl is a blight, I don't need 5 new drugstores within 1/2 block, at the expense of the historic 100 year old buildings and neither do you.

So...you want to be king? Get your own fiefdom. Who are you to say there should not be another drugstore? Keeping historic buildings is one thing; you deciding how many of any one retailer is another. The market will decide whether the town needs another drugstore, or apartment or Starbucks. If the people in your town don't want a certain retailer, the retailer will go away. People vote with their feet and pocketbooks. There are towns where there are only one drugstore, one department store, one restaurant. One example is the old company mining towns; the other is in socialist countries. Competition is frowned upon there, also.

Do you really think that just because you'd like your kids to see the old buildings that you have any right to complain when the legal owner of that property sells it?

No. I'm revealing emotions on this thread, bad thing for old time FReepers. You are correct, and many times tearing down old property is a blessing.....

My entire premise on this thread is.....grow fast, grow large but, by the lord, have a plan! Most city governments can't find the restroom, let alone devise a city layout that is nothing more than a taxing nirvana.

And what the heck is a Texas gal doing in PA?

So...you want to be king? Get your own fiefdom. Who are you to say there should not be another drugstore? Keeping historic buildings is one thing; you deciding how many of any one retailer is another.

Ooooof. You're going to start this too? Get a clue, your city council is bought and paid for by developers, get it. How many walmarts and home depots do you need in a 5 mile radius......get it. In Fort Worth I could walk between home depot's, loews and walmart's....get it. It has zero to do with "your living quality" and everything to do with tax revenue....get it...?

I believe in capitalism and free enterprise but, hey, I want MY kids to see the old brick banks and museums also.......the big corporations can keep their damn hands off a few small buildings in the middle of nowhere

Then, why don't you get off your butt and buy them and preserve them, instead of whining about the good old days. Maybe you can figure out how to make them pretty and useful. See how easy it is. I've been there done that and had people like you trying to tell me what to do with my buildings even though they didn't have an economic stake in it. I own them now and have preserved older buildings. It's not cheap to do. There are incentives, but frequently those are not enough. Jump on in.

Get a clue, your city council is bought and paid for by developers

aw jeesh!! another conspiracy theorist. How'd you get so familiar with Cow Town? You know the city council, do you? FYI, it's one of the best run cities in the country.

I've been there done that and had people like you trying to tell me what to do with my buildings even though they didn't have an economic stake in it. I own them now and have preserved older buildings. It's not cheap to do.

Good for you. Try the Stop Six neighborhood of Fort Worth next, mr. land baron. 1/2 million dollar homes are sold for pennies on the dollar, a perfect opportunity for moguls such as yourself. Bring bodyguards....

The problem I have with long commutes is that, typically, you choose to do it.

After commuting first 52 miles one way, then 127 miles *shudder*, I finally moved to a suburb that is close to my work.

My commute is a whopping 2.5 miles now. Even with my gas guzzler muscle car, I still spend 10 bucks a week getting to work.

In a nutshell, there are suburbs and there are suburbs.

Choosing wisely is the issue.

Cheers,

knewshound

http://www.knewshound.blogspot.com/

aw jeesh!! another conspiracy theorist. How'd you get so familiar with Cow Town? You know the city council, do you?

Unless you're one of the Bass brothers themselves, you're just another small time realtor in my book. Move into Stop Six or perhaps prime locations off Camp Bowie.....or would that take infrastructure...perhaps law and order? Yea, whatever.....tell it to someone who doesn't know.

The key is good zoning. Yes, Houston, Fort Lauderdale, and suburban Atlanta are practically indistinguishable, but places like New York (including many of its inner suburbs), Chicago (ditto), and even smaller metro areas like Pittsburgh still have alot of character.

Here in Seattle, its a mixed bag. You have a-s ugly sprawling communities like Kent, Lynwood, and Marysville, but such communities are cheaper to live in. Well-zoned towns such as Kirkland and Edmonds are, conversely, more expensive to live in.

As a native New Yorker, I am sickened by some of the exurbs that I see on the I-80 corridor (Western New Jersey through the Poconos in eastern PA), or in eastern Suffolk County. Most of the folks who choose to live there, however, do so because it is cheaper than living in Morris or Somerset counties, where many commute. Nevertheless, you get what you pay for (ugly developments, no character, long commutes, etc.).

"Planning is the key,.."

Yes, planning is the key. It's the key for someone else to plan how you will live your life. Once government gets to power to plan communities, then you'll have to fit the plan won't you?

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.