Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To go green, live closer to work, report says [anti-"sprawl"crusade]
LA Times ^ | Sep 21 2007 | Margot Roosevelt

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: agw; suburbia; zoning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 last
To: republicpictures

by the way I didn’t mean YOU...I was referring to the person who wrote the article or the ones who try to be “big brother” to the rest of us. Just wanted to be sure you didn’t think I meant you. :)


81 posted on 09/22/2007 7:04:41 AM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hemorrhage
I agree. People should live closer to work. It’d certainly make it easier for me to complete my 35 mile commute in my beautiful, black, ultra-luxurious Hummer H2.

It would also be nice to wave while passing you in my beautiful black M5 with nobody hogging the left lane...

82 posted on 09/22/2007 7:07:06 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: republicpictures
"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,"

Oh the horror! We know face the threat of: Nuclear war, terrorism, Ebola, ... and suburban family-raising. These folks are nut-cases. Living a decent life is a bad thing to them.

83 posted on 09/22/2007 9:37:03 AM PDT by WOSG (I just wish freepers would bash Democrats as much as they bash Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
I have a 1/2 mile commute... close enough?

It has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with having more family time.

Amen. I moved about a year ago to within 4 miles of where I work because the commute was killing me. I've gained at least 30 hours a week. You can't pay any amount of money for time like that. 

However, requiring people to move or some other such silliness is just stupid. Little wonder it is supported by environmental whackos.

84 posted on 09/22/2007 10:17:40 AM PDT by zeugma (Ubuntu - Linux for human beings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Let’s see... Someone passes laws/zoning that restricts height of housing complexes, mandates “green space”, puts caps on rent (which decreases availability), then bitches when people move further out (”sprawl”). Yep, Liberals.

ANother factor is environmental laws themselves. The liability that comes along with buying previously used property ( especially that which has been used commerically or industrially) in urban areas requires expensive testing and clean up.

Not that it's so polluted, but the laws are so strict, that even one property owner whose poured something "hydrocarbon" down the drain into a septic tank can throw up a red flag.

SO developers naturally want clean farm land or pasture, located out in the far suburbs.

85 posted on 09/22/2007 12:12:15 PM PDT by Red Boots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

read painfully


86 posted on 09/22/2007 12:14:42 PM PDT by sauropod (You can’t spell crap without the AP in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson