July 24, 2006
Despite planners' best efforts ...

Saturday's Seattle Times had an interesting article about the fact that so many people choose to live far from where they work -- "Despite planners' best efforts, many people choose the commute" The article cites Prof. Dan Carlson of the Evans School. Carlson makes some reasonable observations about the diversity of people's choices and notes that "Not everyone wants the same kind of lifestyle." Yet he also offers this value judgment:

Still, the region would be better off if more people worked and lived in the same place, he says.

"It's more efficient and it builds community in richer ways," Carlson says.

Carlson commutes to his office at the University of Washington from his home on Vashon Island.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 24, 2006 02:26 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Well, if that doesn't typify the left!

Posted by: Fred on July 24, 2006 03:01 PM
2. Obviously the U-District community is enriched enough and he took his enriching powers to Vashon Island where there is much greater need.

Elitist bastard!

Posted by: Jeffro on July 24, 2006 03:04 PM
3. It's not magic or hard to understand. Most people buy where they can afford a home. They trade commute time for purchase price based on the size of home they need/desire. It's as simple as that. Given that the median price of a home in Seattle is 300K+, more people can't afford to live there unless they come from places that have equally high home prices (like California).

You will see that Mr. Calson doesn't follow his own advice. Fancy that.

Posted by: G Jiggy on July 24, 2006 03:07 PM
4. the chart I saw was STUPID...

basically showed the areas with Jobs or no Jobs..

Woodinville; shows people who live there don't work there (duh....gobs of suburbs and few jobs)

Weak bit of data analysis

Posted by: righton on July 24, 2006 03:11 PM
5. Prof. Carlson is a member of the elite. He is allowed to live and work where he pleases, thus his choice of his dacha on Vashon island. YOU, however, are a member of the proletariat (as opposed to the vanguard of the proletariat) and thus should live in a 600' apartment with your extended family and ride the bus to the factory. Do you simply refuse to understand what the nomenklatura is all about? Sheesh.

Posted by: Cliff on July 24, 2006 03:12 PM
6. related to no jobs in suburbs, also no great schools in the cities

today's Newsweek list of top schools; Bellevue, Redmond, etc, only 1 in Seattle
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12532678?s=0&np=13&sort=std

Posted by: righton on July 24, 2006 03:45 PM
7. Stefan, too funny.

You need to do a point/counterpoint like the old Thanks and a Tip of the Hat by Hatlo. This would have been a good one.

Posted by: swatter on July 24, 2006 03:56 PM
8. The only way this could ever work would be if companies were incentivized to incentivize their employees for living close to the facility where they work. Outside of a tax credit or direct compensation, people will choose where they want to live by either it's proximity to a certain lifestyle, schools or relatives, or else based on the bang for the buck that they can get for a house. It's useless to expect people to move closer to their jobs without any compensation. And many, like Carlson, have established some sort of life in an otherwise remote place, that they want to preserve, even at the cost of a difficult or expensive commute.

Only in the elitist progressive world is there a dream utopia where everyone lives in dense urban settings, near to where they work.

Liberal gobbledygook.

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 24, 2006 04:01 PM
9. Oh, what a surprise! A liberal professor telling others how to live while he ignores his own advice. For people with kids, schools are a huge factor. It will be interesting to see if Garfield stays on the national list as the district tries to loosen up the AP criteria.

Other folks might want a yard bigger than a postage stamp or perhaps their choice of abode in a compromise between two workplaces. Plus people change careers over the years and they may not want to uproot the family.

If anyone is serious about implementing this, then all government workers should be required to live within 10 miles of their department. I worked with people from Whidbey Island, Marysville, Spanaway, Bremerton, and Bainbridge when I was at the county (I lived a few miles away--I don't like long commutes). They all had their reasons for living where they did.

Yet another example of government officials not understanding the real motivators. Sound Transit, anyone?

Posted by: Burdabee on July 24, 2006 04:04 PM
10. The last line of Stefan's post just says it all, doesn't it?

Posted by: Michele on July 24, 2006 04:14 PM
11. Wanna see how this works? Go to any army base and check into enlisted quarters.

We all work and live very close together. Quarters are "provided" at a level that hasn't changed since the late '40s. Maintenance is "deferred". Quarters are assigned based upon the bureaucratic rules in force at the time (or based on who you know??!!) Pay is decremented for the privledge of occupying the quarters regardless of the quality of the quarters assigned. School districts?? No choice. But by golly, we were happy to live and work in the "company" town! Of course the professor probably never served, so he wouldn't really know. The professor needs to be moved back into grad level housing to experience what happens when the bureacracy takes more control of family lives!

Posted by: Soldier(ret) on July 24, 2006 04:17 PM
12. This whole idea of being able to live close to work is such socialist societal engineering garbage. I spent 20 years working for the same company. Initially the office was 5-minutes from my house in Lake City. An easy 15-minute bike ride, which I did frequently. Suddenly the company relocated to Redmond. A 30-minute commute that got steadily worse as time went by. About an hour bike ride on the Gilligan Trail. Just as suddenly we were moved to Everett for a few years, then back to Redmond. I'm sure a lot of other folks can spin similar yarns. If you work for someone else you're always at their mercy in terms of where you'll be working. And why would you want to locate your business in the Socialist Republic of Seattle, anyway?

As for Professor Carlson, he's just another example of snooty liberal hypocrisy, as others have mentioned. These guys always remind me of the Soviet leaders enjoying their country dachas while the masses lived in their miserable concrete block apartments. I wonder if he takes the bus from Fauntleroy. Nah, but I bet he drives a hybrid, from his picture he looks exactly like the guys I see driving those things.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 24, 2006 04:19 PM
13. ...Well, maybe what he meant was "YOU all should live close to where you work, but I will live in my rural haven."

Reminds me of not too long ago, when liberal Barbra Streisand was posting tips for saving energy on her website. People were supposed to do things such as hang-dry their laundry and other like things to save energy, etc.

When someone pointed out that Streisand didn't seem to be following the suggestions she was telling others to do, her spokesman actually replied "WELL, SHE DIDN'T MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD APPLY TO HER."

Posted by: Michele on July 24, 2006 04:20 PM
14. Oh, and Swatter (#7) thanks for the reference to the late Jimmy Hatlo, my favorite cartoonist/humorist of all time. One can only try to imagine how he would look at today's political scene.

To those of you too young to remember Hatlo, my condolences.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 24, 2006 04:28 PM
15. Wow, I don't see the problem with Carlson. He's making observations. He's not arguing how people should live.

From a transportation perspective, the region would be better off if people lived closer to their jobs. Communities and people in them might benefit from familiar faces and common issues. Efficiency in the use of tax dollars might improve with less a focus on moving thousands of people 25-50 miles or more every day. Carpools and vanpools would actually work and flourish.

But Carlson admits that one size does not fit all. Even if it did, pure housing economics is sufficient to coerse people out of the fantasy that people will choose commute over everything else, not limited to choosing good versus bad schools, coste, age and style of communities, and the types of lifestyles available.

If Carlson is wrong, perhaps some examples how a community benefits from people living far away from where they work can be cited?

People don't "choose" to live far from where they work. They choose where to live based on a variety of issues, including their willingness to sacrifice time travelling between their home and work.

Posted by: MJC on July 24, 2006 04:33 PM
16. And then there are the zoning laws. Ah. The imagination can now soar. I live in one of many "environmentally sensitive" areas. We are restricted as to what small, home businesses can be allowed. No dentists. No hair dressers. Too many bad chemicals. (really!) So, if we are to live close to our occupation.... we are now zoning the population by occupation.

Posted by: ljm on July 24, 2006 04:39 PM
17. This is lefist conceit exposed in yet another disaster for our communities in many of our nation's cities.

Central Planning never resolves the needs of millions of personal choices that people make every day per their jobs, homes, schools, shops, recreations, etc. That's why it often leads to forced uniformity---yeah, that's right, Totalitarianism in one form or another.

Furthermore, taxing businesses so much that they are forced to leave while restricting land use via "Growth Management" such that housing is no longer 'affordable' (which rental housing owners in King County know very well and that's why they charge $900/month for dumps) is untenable too.

Posted by: Kevin Leo on July 24, 2006 04:59 PM
18. You all have totally missed the point.....Carlson is trying to get the UW relocated to Vashon Island.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 24, 2006 05:12 PM
19. More do as I say not as I do Democraps!

Thanks for the laugh Stefan

Posted by: GS on July 24, 2006 06:06 PM
20. Read his bio you know the man...
http://evans.washington.edu/fac/Carlson/#cv

UC Berkeley 1972...an authentic flower child. IMAGINE THAT!! IN SEATTLE!!!

"...Dan draws on thirty years' experience in the public and non profit sectors as a big city mayoral aide, foundation executive director, county planner, educator, applied researcher and small businessperson." The only small business I could find referenced in his bio is consulting business....to non-profits....

If he had to earn a living in the private sector where results (translate that net income) are the measure of success, where do you think he would be living?


Posted by: Old Faithful on July 24, 2006 06:31 PM
21. Regarding Soldier(Ret)'s comments on base housing. Things have changed considerably in the last 10 years. Take a look at http://www.belvoirfamilyhousing.com/ and take the virtual tour. There was even a grand opening today for the new Starbucks! Yes, even the most powerful military in the world is nothing compared to the might of Starbucks...

Posted by: rbb on July 24, 2006 07:20 PM
22. Dan Carlson, on the White Center Advisory Board. What a laugh. This arrogant bureaucrat has never lived anywhere near White Center,never had a real job, never met a payroll, never had to deal with WA Dept of Revenue, WA Dept of L&I, WA Dept of Employment Security. This horses behind is utterly unemloyable in the private sector. Then this Bezerkley grad has the testicular fortitude to lecture the rest of the unwashed masses on how and where they should live their lives, while he plants his tush on Vashon. Kiss my rosy red conservative White Center Rat City behind...........Danny Boy

Posted by: Hank on July 24, 2006 07:51 PM
23. Dan's CV reminds me of the line uttered by one of the GhostBusters after they got kicked out of academia, and were talking about getting a job in the private sector...

"But they expect results!"

Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 24, 2006 08:30 PM
24. "About an hour bike ride on the Gilligan Trail."

For the love of God (or Gilligan)--I hope there's a coconut cream pie waiting at trail's end.

"Reminds me of not too long ago, when liberal Barbra Streisand was posting tips for saving energy on her website."

I first heard of this appalling situation on The O'Reilly Factor. Streisand's monthly electricity bill was something super OBSCENE like $10,000 a month. (Yeah, and Michael Moore never owned Halliburton stock). Do these people have a conscience??

"...while the masses lived in their miserable concrete block apartments."

My concrete block apartment is quite festive. Thank you very much. 'Specially since I scored me sum plastic Darigold milk crates to elevate muh tower speakers from Pacific Stereo off the floor.

"To those of you too young to remember Hatlo, my condolences."

Alas, too young to remember Hatlo. But, I DO recall Hatlo 2 (Xbox, right?).

"Carlson is trying to get the UW relocated to Vashon Island."

The University of Washington at Vashon. Has a nice ring to it--don't you think?

"UC Berkeley 1972...an authentic flower child. IMAGINE THAT!! IN SEATTLE!!!"

Hey now, Faithful. My dear Aunt Connie is from TUKWILLA (of all places) and is a Berkeley alumn ('74). Of course, she resides in Fremont...CA. Heh.

"Yes, even the most powerful military in the world is nothing compared to the might of Starbucks..."

Fuzzy-cheeked, testosterone-amped, QUADRUPLE Venti Mocha-juiced, young men fresh out of AIT and armed to the teeth with light/heavy automatic weaponry + various explosives?? Gawd, I love America.

P.S. My apologies for being a smart arse. I pimp software for a developer on the Eastside. Spend most days humoring "Seymour's" (As in: I need to "see more"..."see more" data before I make a decision that I'll never make 'cause I can't risk making a decision--classic liberal mindset).
P.S.S. Don't hate me 'cause I live exactly 1/2 mile from the office. Hate my elitist CEO in his country dacha.

Posted by: Your Life Is MY Fault on July 24, 2006 09:11 PM
25. This is the lady who says she feels it for the "Poor"

"Sen. Hillary Clinton has put together an army of 50 staffers and more than 20 consultants as she prepares to do battle for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.

Included in those ranks is acclaimed Washington, D.C., hairstylist Isabelle Goetz, who has collected $3,000 in recent months to clip the former first lady's locks.

Federal fund-raising records reveal that Clinton paid $1,500 to Goetz in April and another $1,000 in May.

She passed off both sessions as "media production" expenses, according to the New York Post."

More do as I say not as I do by the demoncraps!

Posted by: GS on July 24, 2006 09:14 PM
26. Dan's CV reminds me of the line uttered by one of the GhostBusters after they got kicked out of academia, and were talking about getting a job in the private sector...

"But they expect results!"
-----------
Oh, too funny. I thought of the SAME scene from G-busters and neglected to mention it in my post (so much sarcasm...so little time). Dan Akroyd said that, by the way: "I've BEEN in the private sector. They expect RESULTS." Classic. Kudos, Your Obi-Wan-Ness

Posted by: Your Life Is MY Fault on July 24, 2006 09:21 PM
27. The article misidentifies Daniel L. Carlson as a UW professor. He is not a UW professor; he is a senior lecturer. This means that he is untenured and on a 1-5 year contract. (You can click the URL to get his page at UW.) It's likely he doesn't even have a PhD. He seems to be basically someone with a lot of public sector experience who teaches at UW half-time and does consulting on the side. Maybe most of his work is closer to Vashon Island than to UW?

I am a real live UW (assistant) professor, and I can't afford a house anywhere near the U District. In my view UW is a very lean operation--we don't fly business class, our raises don't keep pace with inflation, and they don't even give us letterhead anymore to write letters of reference for our students. Is this an "elite" lifestyle?

Posted by: A Real UW Prof on July 25, 2006 12:02 AM
28. Correction to the my previous post: it is not the original article that mistakenly calls Carlson a UW professor, but the post above by Stefan Sharansky.

The academic-bashing in the previous posts is really amazing. Did any of you actually attend UW? We have many inteligent, hard-working people on the faculty who could be earning higher salaries in other jobs but have taken a pay cut in order to pursue their intellectual interests. Is anything wrong with that?

Posted by: A Real UW Prof on July 25, 2006 12:22 AM
29. Real UW Prof -- As the proud son of a bona fide full professor (emeritus), I do know the difference between a professor and a lecturer. I beg your forgiveness for my inexcusable generosity of extending to Mr. Carlson the undeserved honorific of "professor".

By the way, my last name is Sharkansky, not Sharansky. Hint: one way you might remember is that my nickname is "The Shark", not "The Shar".

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 25, 2006 12:40 AM
30. Sorry for the misspelling. I must have been thinking of Natan Sharansky, the famous Russian dissident.

I think the distinction is important. He doesn't have tenure; rather, he is there as long as the dean and professors of his school want him around. Sounds like he actually does have a lot of incentive to remain useful and productive.

Also, people have pegged him as a dweller of the ivory tower, but he does seem to have a lot of real-world experience that the students at UW can benefit from.

Posted by: A Real UW Prof on July 25, 2006 01:17 AM
31. Oh, and Dan Savage, of Stranger fame, was for a time a Vashon Island resident.

Guess the Urban Archipelago was meant for the peons and common (breeder) folk, not for the enlightened hipster elites like him.

Posted by: PM on July 25, 2006 05:43 AM
32. Real Prof - Ever consider that the reason some people are so dismissive of Carlson is that they actually ATTENDED the UW, and know exactly what the type is like?

I recently graduated with a master's degree in public policy, and I can tell you that Carlson's attitude does not surprise me in the least. That strange combination of elite liberalism coupled with a healthy disdain for the American middle classes, working classes and poor (latte NPR liberals who couldn't care less about gentrification's effects on non-yuppies or the negative effects of urban growth boundaries on first-time home ownership) is very, very common.

Posted by: lido on July 25, 2006 05:53 AM
33. A Real UW Prof: Bingo! The most scorn heaped on Dan Carlson absolutely comes from UW grads. You may be an exception to the rule, who knows-I hope for your sake you are. And, the general rule is......those who cant, teach. Carlson just might, maybe, be able to put his formidable transportation knowledge to use in the private sector-being a flagger-at best. Teaching unfortunately has become the poster child for victims anonymous; the last refuge for those terrified by the results demanded in the private sector. I know a renowned longtime nationally recognized lecturer on federal taxation that cannot, to save himself, prepare even a simple 1040 with any degree of competence. Yes, scorn for the UW-with today's admission policies drivien by victimization and you elitist academics, a White Center white boy with a 3.6 GPA has practically no chance getting into the UW; I was welcomed just fine 40 yrs ago. The UW needs real people with real world experience running the place and teaching the students, not arrogant elitists like Dan Carlson who know whats best for us smelly bottom dwellers....

Posted by: Hank on July 25, 2006 06:43 AM
34. Jim Cruchon, thanks for the hugs!! But, I think that article above anything else caused me to think later in life. People say one thing and do another. Jimy Hatlo sure showed it and in each instance, he was right. You just had to laugh.

Posted by: swatter on July 25, 2006 06:53 AM
35. I graduated from the UW. Not only are there left-wing elitist professors (and senior lecturers), but there are too many students who also make ridiculous comments, such as the kind surrounding the whole Pappy Boyington incident. Those leftwing students did not make me proud to be a Husky.

Posted by: Misty on July 25, 2006 08:40 AM
36. Real UW Professor: We have two UW grads in the family and neither one will ever donate a dime to that institution (both are very successful). I am sure there are a few decent staff members, but the Red Square on campus is aptly named. Just because a student keeps quiet when a professor/instructor is spouting off on what's wrong with our way of life and why conservatives are to blame doesn't mean that these same students won't remember these tirades after graduation.

Posted by: Burdabee on July 25, 2006 09:23 AM
37. There is a reason we have sprawl - we like it.

The leftist dictators of how you should live your life need to shut up and go away.

Posted by: H Moul on July 25, 2006 10:36 AM
38. There is a news hook on this topic of where jobs and housing are ending up. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is looking RIGHT NOW for public commentary on its incipient "Metropolitian Cities" alternative and other land use policy alternatives for regional growth through year 2040. Comments are due by July 31. I've summarized the relationship between these plans and the Sound Transit plan at www.bettertransport.info/pitf/, or you can figure out for yourself what PSRC is doing at www.psrc.org.

Posted by: John Niles on July 25, 2006 11:55 AM
39. One reason living and working close together does not work - few people hold jobs long term anymore. If you are a tech employee, you will eventually be layed off, the firm will be bought out, or with about 80% likelihood will merely go out of business. For any number of reasons, people switch jobs. When husband and wife both work, the problems double. My wife and I lived in a house for 7 years, just 4 miles from my work and 1 mile from hers. But then my employer bought a new facility and moved to about 12 miles away. Her employer bought a new facility and moved to about 22 miles away. We too moved elsewhere - and on to different jobs.

The point is - its pretty likely that at least one of the workers in the home will end up with a long commute, or maybe both, over time. Moving is not an easy task (having done it about 7 times with family) and not something that people will choose to do very often to achieve the utopian living and working close together goal.

This is the same problem with "urban villages". People will eventually be commuting between urban villages, not living and working together, as jobs, opportunities, employers and the economy all change.

If you really want people to live and work within close proximity, then promote indepedent small towns, not mega metropoli. (I assume that is the plural of metropolis?)

Oddly enough, government workers and academic employees are the only ones left with job security. For them, living close to work is actually possible. For the rest of us, its a pipe dream (aka as induced by people on drugs).

Posted by: EM on July 25, 2006 12:58 PM
40. homebasedbusiness homebasedbusiness

Posted by: homebasedbusiness on August 8, 2006 09:07 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?