Posted on 09/21/2007 2:16:14 PM PDT by republicpictures
Don't want to fork out for a Prius? Can't see tanking up with ethanol? Can't afford solar panels for your roof?
Not to worry, you can still do something to fight global warming: Live closer to work.
That's one conclusion of a major national report published Thursday by the nonprofit Urban Land Institute.
...A hotly contested bill sponsored by Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) would require regional planning groups to set targets for reducing greenhouse gases, and could stop millions of dollars in federal, state and local transportation funds from being spent on roads that could encourage sprawl.
...two-thirds of the structures in the U.S. in 2050 will have been built between now and then. Construction will include 89 million new or replaced homes, and 190 billion square feet of new offices, stores and institutions. If only 60% of that development is clustered in mixed-use, compact areas, it could slash greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 7%, the report said.
...The California Chamber of Commerce and the California Building Industry Assn. declined to comment on the report, but James Burling, litigation director for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative group that has battled environmentalists over land-use issues, dismissed "the latest anti-sprawl crusade based on global warming" as "no different from every other anti-sprawl campaign from Roman times to the present."
"So long as people ardently desire to live and raise children in detached homes with a bit of lawn, there is virtually nothing that government bureaucrats can do that will thwart that," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Yeah, but is it anywhere near where one needs to be to work?
It does raise a good question - is it worth it to have a detached home with lawn to spend 3 or 4 hours a day commuting in your car? I used to have a round-trip commute of about 120 miles and 3 hours, and it really took it out of me. However, like a lot of other people, I hate apartments and I’m lukewarm about flats, townhouses, condos, etc - probably because I was raised in the typical suburban home myself. It’s a conundrum. Still, as long as they’re not suggesting the government do something to force (or “encourage”) people to make this choice, I can’t see anything wrong with advocating it.
Out where I lived in a neighborhood with 1 acre lots, just down the road (with plenty of land available) they are either building townhouses or the above described homes with a postage stamp yard.
The reason is because the 'rats that run the state do not want us sprawling out and ruining their scenic Sunday drives. This is all done under the direction of the state's Growth Management Act. Meanwhile these developments have every tree and every smidgen of greenery bull dozed away.
>> I really don’t get why people tolerate such long commutes. Most of the people I work with drive over 25 miles, which can take an hour in traffic.
I cannot speak for most people ... but I’ll gladly let you know why I am fine with my hour-long commute.
I live in Houston, TX.
First, I don’t like urban-style living. I don’t want to live in a high-rise, a condominium, or an apartment ... and I like having as much space between houses as possible. I like for my family and I to be as secluded as possible when I get home.
To me, suburban life is the American dream. White-picket fence, two car garage, large lawn, reasonable property values, friendly neighbors of similar incomes and values. The suburbs offer small-town living within driving distance of large-city life.
Urban homes are more expensive, smaller, closer together, in higher-traffic areas, and tend to be higher in crime, and overtaxed.
Schools. At least in Houston, the best public schools are in the wealthier suburban neighborhoods ... where the median income is high, the crime and drug rate is low, and there’s not much gang activity. Anytime someone tries to create a nice lifestyle in urban Houston, they get accused of “gentrification” and putting in non-affordable housing. Well ... I don’t want to live in “affordable housing”. So, inner-city neighborhoods have become high in crime, low in small-town values ... and simply lousy places to live.
As for the commute itself ... I don’t mind it. I drive about an hour one-way, and it gives me time to decompress before spending time with my wife and daughter in the evening ... and, it allows my lovely wife to make dinner before I get home.
I simply pop open a Coke, turn on sports-talk or music radio ... and relax.
H
This worked for remote logging and mining and other resource extraction, but it was also common for mills to have housing.
Back then, though, it was implicit that as long as the company was solvent and you worked, you had a job.
I know people who got nifty jobs in Palmdale CA, then due to business decisions of others, got transferred to LA, Redondo Beach, or Hawthorne CA, which is a heck of a commute from Palmdale (and housing costs three or four times as much).
I can’t see how we could get back to the Factory Town easily. But it would save a lot of energy for sure.
We live about 7 miles or so from my husband’s job. Anything closer was more than we can afford. The funny part is my husband drives for a living, so that cancels everything out.
If fewer people lived in cities, and more lived in small towns — then we could have the lawn without the long commute.
With modern communications technology, there’s no reason for most workers to be concentrated in large urban areas.
Telecommuting is your friend.
Live in a free state, work from home and drive to the office once or twice a month for meetings. Saves on gas, wardrobe and leaves more time for FReeping.
Not to worry, you can still do something to fight global warming: Live closer to work.
Yep - but more importantly, it's a good way to cut down on traffic congestion. People want to live in quiet neighborhoods, but want to work in the city. Then they complain about having a two hour commute.
I fully agree with you. I live 1.5 miles from work and this was done by design. I simply refuse to lose hours of my life in a car each day. I am in an area that offers my companies in my profession. If I move on from this job I will still be able to become employed close to home.
I don’t even get into the shower until 15 minutes before needing to be at work. The savings on gas is nice too but not my primary objective to work close to home.
Time is indeed a true finite commodity.
With the internet and high-speed cable, the best alternative is staring us in the face.
Also, de-centralizing "headquarters skyscrapers" away from the major cities would be almost as effective.
With modern technology, that no longer makes any sense whatsoever.
Unless, of course, the doofuses and "climate change" idiots succeed into forcing us all back to the 18th century.
Just saying.
I gave up at least a 1/3 increase in lifetime income to achieve that back in 1963; for a 5-minute commute.
Never regretted it. Never looked back.
I work in Pikesville, MD, an inner suburb of Baltimore. We will opt to buy closer to Baltimore than DC (where my wife works) since she’ll likely stay home with the kids once kids are in the picture.
One main reason my wife and I may well opt to live 20 miles out is to get far enough out to be away from the McNeighborhoods.
Sure as hell aren’t living in the city of Baltimore with children, (which we plan to have) that’s like living in Darfur or Baghdad. So that leaves the suburbs. The inner ‘burbs are as bad as the city. And the Baltimore County schools are mediocre at best. We may homeschool but that’s another topic. So then you’re looking at the “newer” suburbs, which are all McMansionville. So you’re left with going out yet further into Howard, Carroll, or Anne Arundel counties.
If cities weren’t an odd concoction of crime ridden, crowded welfare cesspools and elitist, childless-yuppie highrise havens, we might be more likely to live in them. Admittedly, there are nice neighborhoods in the city of Baltimore, but I still don’t know about the long-term viability.
then bitches when people move further out (”sprawl”).
Yep, Liberals.
You left off the corollaries...
Sustainable development.
Urban planning in the suburbs.
"Green space".
The EQA.
"Swamps" as the salvation of the earth.
Bugs and vermin vs people.
Ad infinitum.
I’m the same way. I’d be OK in a townhome if it were in a decent community and the HOA not too nuts, but I grew up in a traditional suburban rancher home...and I guess my bias is in that direction.
It’s so simple, why didn’t I think of that? Wow, these libruls are so smart.
I see telecommuting as the wave of the future in many industries. In my business, I can’t do it all the time but with a fax/email/scanner/business line at home I could at least telecommute a few days a week, most likely.
“This just makes sense.
Many people have already figured out that spending hours a day commuting just doesn’t pencil out .... economically,...
The DC/metro area is now from Shepherdstown, WV to DC down to Fredericksburg and heading toward Richmond. The cost of living in the metro is prohibitively expensive.
Even Gaithersburg is too much and now Frederick, MD is going out of sight.
There aren’t enough affordable living spaces closer to work in many places that you would want to live in, and that is the key.
Granted the metro is going farther and farther out, but it’s still a monster drive.
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.