Unhealthy development - Sprawl development

Boston Globe ^ | January 20, 2003 | staff

[Cincinatus' Wife]

GOVERNOR ROMNEY should follow through on his campaign promise to fight sprawl development, since it adds to traffic congestion, uses up open land, pollutes the air, and saps ground water sources by paving over so much of the surface. But there is another important cost to sprawl: It fosters a sedentary, auto-based lifestyle that is harmful to the health of both adults and children.

[THE Aardvark]

They probably get jealous because people have enough money to build big houses. We should not have sprawling neighborhoods with big houses, but tear them down and put smaller, more affordable houses on those lots. Of course, if you do that, you greatly diminish property values, leading in a loss of property tax revenue which usually goes to schools, quality of life goes down because of the concentration of people, leading to problems of crime, pollution, etc, and you even harm the environment because you don't have big yards filled with trees which provide homes for wildlife and make neighborhoods a better place to live. I could think of others, but I need to go to work.

[Kay Ludlow]

Sprawl is an aesthetic issue to many, and a religious issue to gaia worshippers. As far as obese children (and adults) seems to me that there's some correlation with the food pyramid. You know, that scheme to get people to minimize eating meat (offends the evironmentalists) and eat more grains. The school lunch programs are all geared to the food pyramid now, and at recess actual excersize is very limited (so no one gets hurt), unless it's team-building activities... Thanks for the ping - the anti-sprawl people really get on my nerves. They are spreading from the cities to the rural areas insisting on growth boundaries around every little town and village. They want make all our communities into little identical utopias, which is anathema to us rugged individualists! The EPA is helping them too - EPA Greenkit

[JeanLM]

I have yet to see a working definition of "sprawl" that I could comprehend, yet here in New Jersey the Governor has made it his personal goal to fight it at every turn. Sounds quixotic to me.

Where I live the locals have raised the minimum lot size to 6 acres, in the most densely populated state in the US. Those who live here don't want the rural landscape defiled, they say, yet the farms being developed haven't been economically viable for two generations. Now the farmers can't sell their property to pay the inheritance tax as easily any more. The land preservation schemes run by the State involve we taxpayers buying up the developable land at builders cost and reselling it at auction (at a loss) to wealthy people who use it with restrictions as large estates. There are lots of horse farms and Christmas Tree farms now. Aesthetically I can't see much gain in all this.

The people who want suburban homes already exist. We can't wish them away. If you restrict the supply of homes for them, the price will go up so that only the most wealthy can afford to live there. That's true now but it will only get worse.

The result will be rolling open land with choked roads carrying commuters on hours-long trips to work from places they can afford.

Those already resident benefit and the value of their property goes up. I think that's what's behind the anti-sprawl movement. It's good old self interest.

[E Rocc]

"Sprawl" is what individuals do left to their own devices. Put 100 random people on a football field and they will spread out, into small clusters. They won't voluntarily crowd themselves into the end zone for no reason.

Of course, spread out populations are harder to control, so "sprawl" is evil and government has to "do something" about it.

P. J. O'Rourke had some good comments about anti sprawl" measures.

-Eric

[Lorianne]

Good post and absolutely right. What's wrong with having well planned walkable communities? Those who don't want to live in them don't have to!

[Lorianne]

Private property ownership and better planned communities are not mutually exclusive as you try to portray. I owned my own home single family home in a traditional neighborhood with schools, shops etc within walking distance. It's not about making people live in "cities". Anyway, more and more suburbs are more like "cities", noisy with dangerous traffic and congestion.

[OBone]

That is what America is all about. Choice!!

OB

[backhoe]

this link?

-The Thoreau Institute Urban Growth and Transportation Studies--

has a lot of info & opinion refuting the "urban sprawl," "Lite rail/mass transit" and related items...

And more here:

-Independence Institute--"Rights" Research

[Cincinatus' Wife]

BUMP!

[backhoe]

Cincy, "Sprawl" is just one more ploy by that nasty sub-group of "People who want to use the might & majesty of the government to force a different group of people into doing what they want them to do."

IMO, it is unconcionable meddling- we have zoning laws by the thousands, and that ought to be more than enough for anyone. Except control freaks.

[DugwayDuke]

My friend, it certainly is about "making people live in cities". Just examime Algore's campaign call for billions in grants to cities to establsih "Green belts" of several miles depth around the cities to preclude roads and housing development in those areas. Perhaps you should do some research on the Wildlands Project....

[backhoe]

...do some research on the Wildlands Project....

Exactly- the more you look, the worse it seems to be.

I've tagged the 1990's as "The Decade of Fraud(s)..." not just thanks to the likes of the clintons and dot-bombs, but stuff like this.

We have a guy in my town whose SUV proudly sports a "Altamaha RiverKeepers" bumper sticker... and I presume what it really means is his group gets to Lord it over other groups less favored.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Cincy, "Sprawl" is just one more ploy by that nasty sub-group of "People who want to use the might & majesty of the government to force a different group of people into doing what they want them to do."

Yes it is! Social Engineering 101.

[RightOnline]

"In 1996, the surgeon general reported that a sedentary lifestyle is a primary factor in more than 200,000 deaths each year, about 10 percent of all deaths in the United States. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and some cancers are all related to physical inactivity, which the report said is second only to smoking as a lifestyle risk factor for disease."

Gee. I get it. "Suburban sprawl" is responsible for "sedentary lifestyle" and this list of various maladies.

Where DO these droolers come up with this stuff? Do they not realize how truly ridiculous they look to the rest of us??????

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Free time must be a no-no. They'd rather everyone be like the British housewife of days past, who to keep viable health and hearth, spent her day walking from store to store.

[backhoe]

Do they not realize how truly ridiculous they look to the rest of us

I really don't think that they do, and it gives me some little hope that we can enlighten our fellow citizens as to just how extremist & obstructionist these little groups of fanatics are.

Every excess committed by PETA or ALF or ELF counts against them, and they just can't seem to quit. May they continue to push the limits of common sense and decency.

[sphinx]

It not really about sprawl its about the free market and choices. Communities typically don't allow dense develepment even though a sizable segment of the population would prefer it. Suburban government planners have subverted the natural market for this housing style.

Add in subsidies for road building and suburban water and sewer projects, including the use of eminent domain. Cities used to grow organically, through street extensions and gradual expansion of existing neighborhoods to take maximum advantage of existing infrastructure. Today, large state and federal bureaucracies pave the way for sprawl as we've shifted the infrastructure costs up the chain. Without those subsidies, development would tend to be much more compact.

[DugwayDuke]

Where do they come up with this stuff? They're logic is straight forward. If you design a neighborhood without streets then evey one is forced to walk every where. Gets rid of those nasty SUVs too.

Their ideal city would have evey one living in 400 sq ft high rise condominiums located adjacent to their work place. Of course, the elites would live in a more suburban setting. Think Dachas.

[RightOnline]

"Their ideal city would have evey one living in 400 sq ft high rise condominiums located adjacent to their work place. Of course, the elites would live in a more suburban setting. Think Dachas."

Precisely. We of the Unwashed Masses should live in Soviet-style concrete people-cages, no doubt. How dare I live in a house that has nearly 4000 square feet, fercryinoutloud? How selfish can I get??

Think I'll move..........hand the house keys over to a properly-bred Liberal elitist. It's only right.

[RightOnline]

Oh yes........almost forgot. I'll take the Suburban to the junkyard as a sign of goodwill.