Rolling fields of concrete? Pressure grows on urban fringe

showmenews.com/ ^

[Arkinsaw]

My father-in-law purchased his home in the country. He has had a measure of freedom, keeps animals and horses. In the last few years the nearby farmers sold out to developers. The developers built a golf course with a subdivision around it. Deals were struck and before long the city reached out and annexed it and the surrounding area including his land. Now of course his taxes are going up and he is subject to all the petty restrictions that go with living in the city.

I'm no environmentalist, but part of the conservative tradition is the attachment to the land, rural values, the outdoors, sport hunting and fishing, etc. It looks like sooner or later we are just going to be a nation of connected urbanity. The death knell for the red zone.

[hedgetrimmer]

If we stop illegal immigration, the population of the country will actually decline.

[Lorianne]

It is usually conservative Property Rights people who champion develpers and land owner's rights to develop their property ..... until that development is going in near THEIR little piece of psuedo-rural homestead.

Smart Growth and New Urbanists want to curb the rate of sprawl, ad advocate building more land-efficiently so as to preserve our rural areas or at least curb them disappearing at a fast pace. The thing that confuses me is that Conservatives are usually opposed to New Urbanist proposals and Smart Growth development policies ... again .... until development threatens to urbanize their rural lifestyle.

[Lorianne]

Developing the Philips property might be acceptable, if it’s done right, they say.

Translation: If the property is divided into large parcels.... thereby pushing sprawl outward to other areas ..... where of course, they don't care if it is "done right" or not since it's not next to them. This is called "leapfrogging" and is one of the main components of sprawl to begin with.

Most likely another community did the same thing which put pressure on their area to be developed to meet housing demand. (Larger parcels mean fewer people served).

[supercat]

It is usually conservative Property Rights people who champion develpers and land owner's rights to develop their property ..... until that development is going in near THEIR little piece of psuedo-rural homestead.

The conservatives don't want people to be told what to do with their property. Their problem with nearby development in many cases is not that they want to control what developers can do with the developers' property, but rather that developers want to put restrictions on the farmers' property.

[Lorianne]

Big business (including the home building sector) doesn't want the population to decline. They want more consumers.

[GOPJ]

Democrats need folks jammed into cities, disgruntled, and angry. Misery is the voter base the liberal elite's live off... Don't fall for their bull...

[GOPJ]

Democrats need folks jammed into cities, disgruntled, and angry. Misery is the voter base the liberal elite's live off... Don't fall for their bull...

[Tailgunner Joe]

It doesn't surprise me that you defend Smart Growth. Are you a feminist or a socialist? Is there a difference?

[antienvironmentalist]

Easy solution. The neighborhood association pool their resources and buy the land from the developer at a price that will equal the profits he could make from developing the land. Either that or they shut up.

What you have to remember is that every one of the members of the association built their house on what was once an untouched piece of pristine land, but somehow they find it wrong for others to do the same. It is hypocricy at it's finest.

I hope the developer can find a way to prevent the members of the neighborhood association from earning their livelihood, the same way that they are preventing him from achieving his

[GOPJ]

Joe, I agree with you. It's the mindless stuff we're used to hearing from liberals. Do you think they work in pairs?

It doesn't surprise me that you defend Smart Growth. Are you a feminist or a socialist? Is there a difference?

[GOPJ]

Joe, I agree with you. It's the mindless stuff we're used to hearing from liberals. Do you think they work in pairs?

It doesn't surprise me that you defend Smart Growth. Are you a feminist or a socialist? Is there a difference?

[Lorianne]

I do defend Smart Growth, but I'm not hypocritical about it as those who are opposed to it are.

The reason I defend it is that we don't have a free market system in land development NOW and haven't had since the mid 20th century. Zoning laws are just as restrictive to property owners (and probably more) than Smart Growth policies. Smart Growth policies are nothing more than revised zoning and land use codes.

If you don't defend Smart Growth then you're against older zoning codes too aren't you? Or is there more hypocrisy on that score?

[Lorianne]

I agree with you.

[Lorianne]

It's not just Democrates who wish to impose their will onto other property owners. You're the one who's fallen for the bull.

[Tailgunner Joe]

I would be hypocritical if I was for zoning, but I'm not.

I'll bet you for it are though.

[Lorianne]

That's not what the article says and that's not my experience dealing in this area. Property owners want to control what's done on adjacent property they DO NOT own. I've seen it dozens of times. The first ones to organize against "development" are the NIMBY property owners nearby.

[Lorianne]

Actually I would go for no zoning. It couldn't possilbly be worse than the last half century of intrusive zoning has done to this country.

And people like Jane Jacobs (author or the Death and Life of Great American Cities) have been argueing that less zoning and goverment interference prior to the 1950's actually lead to better designed communities. She wrote that book in the 1960's.

But since it's not very likely zoning will be eliminated wholesale, I'd prefer SMART zoning to the stupid zoning laws we've had for over 50 years.

[Tailgunner Joe]

I guess you think that restricting the use of private property is just another right of the states as per the tenth amendment. Just like a Democrat to take the position of States Rights in defense of tyranny.