(And elsewhere.) In his essay, "The Me Decade and the Third Great Awakening" (which you can find in his collection, Mauve Gloves & Madmen, Clutter & Vine), Tom Wolfe describes the goals of planners more than a half century ago.
I can remember what brave plans visionary architects at Yale and Harvard still had for the common man in the early 1950's. (They actually used the term "the common man.") They had brought the utopian socialist dream into the twentieth century. They had things figured out for the working man down to truly minute details, such as lamp switches. The new liberated workingman would live as the Cultivated Ascetic. He would be modeled on the B.A.-degree Greenwich Village bohemian of the late 1940's—dark wool Hudson Bay shirts, tweed jackets, flannel trousers, briarwood pipes, good books, sandals and simplicity—except that he would live in a Worker Housing project.
. . .
But somehow the workers, incurable slobs that they were, avoided Worker Housing, better known as "the projects," as if it had a smell. They were heading out instead to the suburbs—the suburbs!—to places like Islip, Long Island, and the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles—and buying houses with clapboard siding and pitched roofs and shingles and gaslight-style front-porch lamps and mailboxes set up on top of lengths of stiffened chain that seemed to defy gravity, and all sorts of other unbelievably cute or antiquey touches, and they loaded these houses with "drapes" such as baffled all description and wall-to-wall carpet you could lose a shoe in, and they put barbecue pits and fish ponds with concrete cherubs urinating into them on the lawn out back, and they parked twenty-five-foot-long cars out front and Evinrude cruisers up on tow trailers in the carport just beyond the breezeway. (pp. 137-138)
The details have changed since then, but the planners still want the rest of us to live in apartments or condominiums in big cities, and most of us still have other ideas, as Joel Kotkin explains.
In the meantime, [California Attorney General] Mr. [Jerry] Brown is taking aim at the suburbs, concerned about the alleged environmental damage they cause. He sees suburban houses as inefficient users of energy. He sees suburban commuters clogging the roads as wasting precious fossil fuel. And, mostly, he sees wisdom in an intricately thought-out plan to compel residents to move to city centers or, at least, to high-density developments clustered near mass transit lines.
. . .
The problem is, that's not what Californians want. For two generations, residents have been moving to the suburbs. They are attracted to the prospect, although not always the reality, of good schools, low crime rates and the chance to buy a home. A 2002 Public Policy Institute of California poll found that 80% of Californians prefer single-family homes over apartment living.
Californians, and almost everyone else.
I see no chance of persuading Jerry Brown, or very many planners, that their ideas might be wrong, in spite of the fact that very large majorities reject them. (Most of the planners, despite what they want for the rest of us, live in single family homes. Even their own choices don't change their minds on what is good for other people.) What will happen is that people will leave the places controlled by planners, and will move to places where there is more freedom.
Ironically, those moves will often produce more "sprawl" than would have occurred if the planners had not tried to force the rest of us to live in "Worker Housing", or its modern equivalents.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(For those who wonder about my own choices: I grew up on a farm and have lived in a very large city, a medium-sized city, small towns, and a suburb. I have been reasonably comfortable in all those places. Right now I live in an apartment, but would almost certainly prefer a house, if I were married. Not so much for the house itself, but for space for a garage and a garden.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 21, 2008 01:57 PM | Email ThisYes... and with the prospect of higher energy prices for the next several years, everyone wants to live in a place where you need to drive everywhere to get everything!
Your post is unbelievably stupid on three counts. First, denser development DOES NOT equate to "apartment living". Second, if the municipal government has control over the development of local services, why exactly should it encourage the growth of infrastructure that would be unsustainable for the long-term? That's just poor fiscal management. Finally, the amount of actual public housing in today's cities is small, and dwindling fast. What's going up today is a far cry from "Worker Housing".
And stop trying to associate what *some* advocates of smart growth do with the quality of the message. Otherwise, the credibility of the Republican Party's stance on family values would be completely gone. I mean, a party filled with pedophiles and adulterers would hardly be the best to lecture anyone on morals in that case!
Posted by: demo kid on July 21, 2008 02:44 PMIn other words, everyone is stupid except them and folks that agree with them.
Planners are unelected dictators who are also taught to lead elected officials by the nose...elected officals who too often run for office for the job or the glory...but are woefully unprepared to challenge the planners.
Some electged officials come in with good intentions but eventually the Kool-Aid kicks in and they become "Planner Compliant".
Planners suck!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on July 21, 2008 03:09 PMWhy did we not build a light rail line from Everett to Seattle and then into the City? How about from Snoqualmie to Seattle? Lynwood to Bellevue? No let's spend billions in Seattle only so folks can travel in the city once they drive there.
Posted by: RobBob on July 21, 2008 03:22 PMThere's bad planning and good planning, and lack of planning usually produces the intended results.
Posted by: Acid Brain on July 21, 2008 03:45 PMWhich they are doing...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008058631_soundtransit18m.html
So the question is... are you seriously dense?
Posted by: demo kid on July 21, 2008 04:00 PMAnd so on...
The real crime about these things (global warming, suburbs versus city) is that people can go around just making blanket statements without backing them up with any supporting data! Show me that a nice suburban home, with shady trees cooling it naturally and providing a backyard is less wasteful than an enclosed concrete block, 20 stories in the air, that requires elevators and hundreds of trucks to bring food and services to it!
Honestly, are you looking for proof here? Or just an excuse?
Posted by: demo kid on July 21, 2008 04:03 PMCase in point...I could design a super efficient transportation system for a highly dense city. I would have two stops, 500 ft apart. I would force everyone to live in 8x10 rooms, no families, no couples. Everyone would eat the same veggie smores and use a common toilet on the hallway. Oh yeah, you could call this community "prisonville".
See, the ideal is to build something that someone "wants" to live in...but I still maintain that all these city efficiencies are overinflated because they don't consider all factors of energy input and usage.
Posted by: John Bailo on July 21, 2008 04:17 PMYou are right in one major sense - one of the biggest flaws happening with GMAs and densification is that there is nearly zero agricultural protection/production equivalent to support the additional strain. We are apparently leaving that to the South Americans.
Posted by: Acid Brain on July 21, 2008 04:18 PMNo, I ride my bike or drive 6 miles to work. What I don't do is ride a bus where the fare only covers less than 10% of the total cost of the ride and then bill everyone else for the 90 percent of the cost.
Do I think we should have buses? Yes, in the sense that there should always be a backup transport system. But I do not think they should be the primary transport system or expect them to power the modern exurb.
And what did the government planners in NYC do? They instituted "rent control" (price controls on what landlords can charge) to ease the housing shortage, and for 60 years have never subsequently repealed it. Therefore landlords are unwilling to build new rental housing for ordinary people in NYC (would you invest in rental real estate if the city council could tell you what to charge for rent) and NYC has the worst housing shortage of any large US city.
That was bad planning.
The problem is that government planning may be good, but it often is bad because it turns out that government employees are no better at fortelling the future, understanding economics, or reading peoples' minds than those in the private sector. However, when the private person plans badly, say by building a Hummer factory in the era of $5 gas, he suffers. When the government planners get it wrong, they still get their paychecks and pensions, but we common folk still have to live by their rules, which are ultimately enforced by large unsmiling men with big guns.
Posted by: Steve on July 21, 2008 04:38 PMthe current light rail isn't even planned well and the plans now for expansion aren't either.
"Sound Transit is in a bind because the multibillion-dollar cost of building trackway through Seattle, including tunnels, consumes tax revenues that might have helped reach farther north and south"
Where do folks live and drive in from? North and South....nice planning.
Posted by: RobBob on July 21, 2008 04:58 PMSound Transit and other government bureaucracies survive because they are a government bureaucracy. They provide as little as possible in return. The same may be said of any government bureaucracy. Care to discuss the contributions of:
Education bureaucracies
Planning bureaucracies (WADOT)
Post Office
L&I
Police (any city)
Prison
Judicial bureaucracies
Insert your favorite bureaucracy.
Reagan's oft said point is best: Government is not the solution government is the problem.
Why do people believe that the governments providing social security, slug mail, Fannie Mae, Fannie Mack and a host of budget busting, corrupted, controlling bureaucracies are capable of providing a service at the advertised price?
Amazing, simply amazing. Perhaps they should visit the projects in New York City.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 21, 2008 06:34 PMBut here you've provided nothing but a false dichotomy: urban areas free of regulation and planning, or living in a box! You might as well have said that we'd be surviving on soylent green or something. Quarter-acre lots, for example, are NOT 8x10 boxes.
Furthermore, I'd be more inclined to believe you if two things didn't stand in your way. First, there are in fact studies that do look at energy use, cost of infrastructure, etc., and it would be good if I could get some comment from you on them. But they do show that even with congestion costs and urban disamenities considered, there are strong benefits to more dense forms of development. Second, the land markets in downtown areas simply have not collapsed as the result of regulation, nor have they resulted in consistent and uniform development of these shoeboxes. Even with the claims that planning results in crippling regulation, people still want to live in urban areas.
Finally, I don't disagree that there is a fair amount of projection involved with planners and urban politicians and all... but assuming that planning should be completely abolished because the Mayor is an asshat, for example, is really like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
@14: No, I ride my bike or drive 6 miles to work. What I don't do is ride a bus where the fare only covers less than 10% of the total cost of the ride and then bill everyone else for the 90 percent of the cost.
Of course, the cost to taxpayers to maintain a transportation network for private vehicles is chump change, right?
@16: However, when the private person plans badly, say by building a Hummer factory in the era of $5 gas, he suffers.
But that assumes that the actions of individuals, or a whole lot of individuals, do not have effects on public goods. If a private "person" (not usually a real one) were to build that same factory in the middle of a small town and overwhelm the local infrastructure, how is that not affecting the people in the area? Why shouldn't there be regulation to prevent that from happening?
@17: Not dense, but why didn't they do that 1st? Getting folks into Seattle is what is most important not hte SLUT or the current light rail.
I am with you on the SLUT. (Salacious, eh?) Seriously though... there's no good reason for it whatsoever. Even as a first stage in development, there aren't very many strong arguments that this was really the place where transit was needed. (Heck, I can walk faster during rush hour, when something like that would be needed the most.)
Still, as I noted above, there are plans to extend transit services into Snohomish, Federal Way and the Eastside. But service within Seattle is important as well, though... moving people from the neighborhoods into the downtown can be equally as important! And a rail link to the airport has been sorely lacking for years. Go to any city with transit to their airport and you'll be convinced. (I've tried it recently in London, DC and Chicago... and it's been pretty convenient each time!)
@18: Daniel, do you need another layer of tinfoil for your hat?
I prefer William Cohen's quote: "Government is an enemy until you need a friend."
So let me get this straight... I can understand why you might want to privatize the Post Office (and I can agree!) but I'm really wondering what your alternative for "judicial bureaucracies" might be. Shoot criminals without a trial? Privatize the legal system?
Posted by: demo kid on July 21, 2008 07:09 PMI hate to be repetitive, but this is an assertion, not a fact...in fact it's part of the Liberal Cannon, repeated endlessly, but not true...in my mind.
the land markets in downtown areas simply have not collapsed as the result of regulation, nor have they resulted in consistent and uniform development of these shoeboxes.
The types urban places that people want to live...are those cities or areas of cities that are the least "city like" and most neighborhoodish. The 3 story brownstones of Brooklyn, the 18th century row homes of Philadelphia, the Sears craftsman homes of Seattle. In other words, people want to live not in "cities", but in rich neighborhoods, but with yards and sidewalks and corner stores, but not in rabbit holes with billion dollar "light rail" systems. In other words, people want to live in exurbs...much as I do. As in today, where as I bicycled home, I took a leisurely break halfway and enjoyed a latte at Dilettante at Kent Station...I sat in the sunshine in the square and enjoyed bird watching (in Alfie's sense of the word). Just earlier I picked up two books at the Kent Central Library and read one of them at the station.
Is Kent downtown a "city"? No. Is it a slightly denser part of the exurb with a few amenities, but not so many that parking and movement become impossible. Yes (although sadly it might go that way, in which case I will find the next "kent").
Posted by: John Bailo on July 21, 2008 07:10 PMNo worries about being repetitive, and hey, it is often clouded with value judgments, I'll admit. Again, if you're game, I can forward you at least one report.. although it might be a little sleep-inducing.
Is Kent downtown a "city"? No. Is it a slightly denser part of the exurb with a few amenities, but not so many that parking and movement become impossible. Yes (although sadly it might go that way, in which case I will find the next "kent").
You're missing the point. "Denser development" isn't condo development in the middle of Seattle, and Kent is *certainly* not an exurb. (Think North Bend, Duvall or Carnation for that.)
I'm fully with you that an entire urban area with nothing but towers and 500 square foot studio condos would not be a great place to live. But hey, for some people that actually is desirable... they like those urban services readily available and are willing to sacrifice other things to get that. Market prices for condos would support the idea that there's demand for those units, too. So honestly, stating that "people want to live in [suburbs]" is just as true as "people want to live in the city". Some people prefer yards, some people don't. Different options need to be available.
But I think that the better point is this. Developing a city (and technically, Kent is a "city") in such a way as to make the things that you describe quite impossible is also a bad thing. Assuming that small, independent development projects from separate developers will result in a well-planned, well-functioning community is not reasonable, as there is no fundamental interest in individual developers to contribute to the functioning of the city as a whole. (Compare any area in Kent with a whole lot of short platting to Redmond Ridge, for example.) Setting ground rules is not a bad thing, especially for a community that lasts for longer than developers are around.
And it is funny that you should mention Kent Station! That development is there *specifically* because of the work of the City of Kent (including the planning department). Not only did they plan transportation infrastructure improvements to support the site, they also purchased the property itself and conducted the environmental reviews. The development itself was a joint venture with Tarragon, of course, but it never would have gotten off the ground without municipal intervention and, dare I say, city planners.
Oh and by the way I was in the neighborhood of Yale and Harvard a couple weeks ago and I can guarantee you that you will not find anything even remotely resembling what these vermin prescribe for the rest of us any where near where the Yale and Harvardites dwell, nor will you find it at Mt Holyoke or U. Mass which also turn out battalions of fresh urban planners (or urban schemers, as I refer to them as) every spring.
Posted by: JDH on July 21, 2008 08:09 PMNews flash to dk, how are goods brought to market? Hint, they aren't brought to market on public transportation.
So let me get this straight... private developers are creating these houses, and are quite willing to shove as many units as possible into a single subdivision to maximize their profit. Not only that, but people are buying them! I'm not seeing where evil socialist planners are coming into the picture. Ironically enough, the only way that you actually could have the large lots you seem to want is with zoning regulations that act against the fundamentals of the real estate market...
A back yard is seen as a bad thing to planners and developers because they require "wasteful watering".
Again... if *developers* want to do it, isn't that part of the free market?
oh, by the way...triple garage doors are unsightly so no more of that." I imagine that was originated by some euro-thinking elitist that believes owning a few cars is pure American opulance.
Or neighborhood HOAs, right?
That TU shows what these a$$holes in planning really think of people. It stands for Taxing Units. (now that I've said that, watch how fast it's changed)
You're talking about an accounting term, and taking things completely out of context. What does that prove?
And about that wasteful watering. I thought vegetation was really good at offsetting the polutants we carbon based beings bring into the world. Well maintained lawns do wonders for runoff water filtering.
As far as the environmental impacts? Dumping pesticides and fertilizer on lawns isn't the best thing in the world, and grass isn't the same as native vegetation.
Of course, so as not to spare anyone in this... people that are more "environmentally-minded" often dump far more on their lawns!
Another "planning wonder" is the stoplight that controls highschool access on one side and a single family residence DRIVEWAY on the other side.
That's one decision made by a DOT/traffic planner, and one that none of us can see. I'm not following how this relates to land use planning.
@27: And as far as demo kid's assertions are concerned regarding the Sounder Station siting; ST and PSRC planners lobbied, cajoled, fabricated tales of how people shop near transit stations and bribed jurisdictions into siting the stations exactly where they are. I was there and witnessed it.
And you have proof that what they're saying wasn't true?
Oh and by the way I was in the neighborhood of Yale and Harvard a couple weeks ago and I can guarantee you that you will not find anything even remotely resembling what these vermin prescribe for the rest of us any where near where the Yale and Harvardites dwell, nor will you find it at Mt Holyoke or U. Mass which also turn out battalions of fresh urban planners (or urban schemers, as I refer to them as) every spring.
Hey genius... Amherst is nothing like any of those other examples, and New Haven is stretching it. But as far as Cambridge goes, I'm a little dumbfounded as to what examples you've got to back that up. (Especially, of course, since planners, students, and professors couldn't afford large homes in the Boston area anyway...)
@28: You represent the blind mice of the world and are the lemmings, the followers of men more clever than you.
Alright genius, why don't you stop bleating and start trying to make points? Otherwise, I could just write your posts for you with Conservative Mad Libs...
@29. News flash to dk, how are goods brought to market? Hint, they aren't brought to market on public transportation.
That's not germane. You're not arguing the point that private transportation isn't subsidized, just that transportation infrastructure is used for many different things.
As a conservative, I'm not going to defend planning.
However, it really annoys me when conservatives take an anti-density position instead of the one they should take: a pro-free-market position. Some conservatives even seem to believe people only live in dense urban situations because they are forced to by others. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Zoning is government intervention that has the effect of forcing urban sprawl. 85% of Seattle is zoned for single family, so government is actually preventing, not facilitating density.
Posters on this blog who discuss tower living often seem to be imagining Downtown. In a free market, the high-rise building could be along Lake Washington, or not far from Alki, or in Madison Park, where one high-rise got in under the wire; among many other highly pleasant places.
Again, it's government that prevents the density that people--AKA the free market--want.
Second, we subsidize driving and shouldn't. In California the gas tax only pays 73% of the cost of the highway. In WA. gas is exempt from the sales tax (a subsidy), and more critically, as in CA, lots of non-user fee taxes are diverted to pay for the roadway--(don't know how many, nobody seems to be interested). So here again, despite the official rhetoric, government is actually subsidizing sprawl.
Thanks all, New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: New Left Conservative # 1 on July 21, 2008 09:27 PMEconomically, that highway freedom of movement ate the lunch of the railroad behemoth, tied as it was to one-dimensional movement. And transportation costs plummeted, and the ordinary people benefited vastly. But sure, you get a choice of directions with rails: back, or forth. But you only get one 'there' when you begin from here.
No wonder freedom of choice for citizens is poison to a planner. Given their way, they'd line us up and direct us in synchonized swimming exercises, and gush over the great time we're all having.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on July 21, 2008 09:40 PM
A. More than the voting population of the US
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obama-who-is-je.html
Q. How long will it take the MSM to question where Obama's donations come from?
A. Before or after they stop making the illegal donations themselves?
Posted by: janet s on July 21, 2008 10:16 PMA: You don't have any.
Posted by: W. Klingon Skausen on July 21, 2008 10:48 PMA. Yes, if it disproves my opinion.
Besides the FEC data, maybe logic should take over. How does Obama raise record amounts of money by lots of small donations over the internet? The FEC doesn't look at small donations (under $200), so this is a large loophole. Does none of this bother you, regardless of who is doing it?
Posted by: janet s on July 21, 2008 10:58 PMWhat do you think of John Stuart Mill?
Posted by: W. Klingon Skausen on July 21, 2008 11:00 PMCheck it out: http://www.truthout.org/article/rep-waxman-calls-hearings-halliburton-move-dubai
Posted by: W. Klingon Skausen on July 21, 2008 11:08 PM
@33: Rant all you want about subsidizing highways, the benefits to us all of a road network that allows free choice of when and where to go greatly exceed the costs. Only an urban planner would be so blind as to ignore those benefits, but they all seem to be equally devoted to the see-nothing department when it comes to freedom of movement.
I'm not ranting... but I'm just finding it fascinating that you're talking about subsidies on one hand but not another.
@34: I'm not going to debate you if you're just going to blubber.
@42: Again, let me get this straight. If you're a developer, and you're allowed by zoning to put more housing units on a single lot and make a greater margin of profit, where do you think the planner comes into play? That should be a no brainer, right?
And I'm not going to try to deflect your indignant attitude over a single term... I'm so sorry that your local community hurt your feelings, but I'm not entirely sure what you want here. Should all of these plans just denote "additional members of our valued community"?
@45: Well, assuming that it's all the fault of the planners is pretty interesting... but try to mount a campaign to end zoning in residential neighborhoods in Seattle or Bellevue, and let me know how far you get. There are other interests going on here.
Posted by: demo kid on July 21, 2008 11:24 PMA couple other points.
The buses may be full in Seattle, but they are not full in Tacoma and even less full, if not empty in the more suburban areas. Yet they go everywhere out to the furthest ex-urban boundaries. I'm not saying get rid of all buses, but merely that there are a lot of wasted public dollars on seldom used routes.
We've heard a lot lately about gas prices driving people back in to the urban areas. What nonsense. This region has very high property values and is heavily populated. People will continue to live in all populated areas of the greater Puget Sound Metropolitan area. It might change driving habits, push us towards smaller cars, or even have a positive effect on getting people to move closer to jobs and creating more suburban business parks, but it's not going to reduce suburbia at all.
If anything, I think we are going to start seeing more political division by proximity to the largest urban centers. If there are people who've bought in to the Progressive collective lie that there lives will be oh so much better in a dense urban setting, then those people will submit themselves to that world. And many others will do the opposite and move away from those urban centers knowing that is where the collectivists and their parasitic victim classes congregate.
The key will be for suburban enclaves to get their representation to opt them out of any subsidy of the urban centers. If collectivists want to live that way, fine, but they can pay for it themselves. And there will be smaller more pleasant, less regulated, more family oriented, less crime ridden, and lower cost mini-urban and suburban areas further out.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 22, 2008 12:48 AM...like Vietnam veteran James Paroline, who found himself getting killed over the watering of a traffic island by a car full of teenage troublemaking trollops and a rage filled inner city punk who couldn't leave well enough alone and drive around the cones set up so cars wouldn't run over the watering hose. You can have that picture of Utopia Libs, I'll take the suburbs. (and I lived in Downtown Seattle for 8 years when I was without a vehicle--- which of course was stolen by one of Seattles fine city youth)
Posted by: Rick D. on July 22, 2008 05:51 AMLook, you can post to your heart's content on this blog, or whichever one you prefer. You can add comments that are well-written, or comments that need a heavy dose of spell-checking. You can write poetry for all I care.
But the one thing that smacks of pathetic laziness in a forum like this is to post up items that are just useless to the conversation. The reason why I post here is to challenge my viewpoints about certain things... much better to be challenged in that way than to post in an echo chamber. And as much as some of the comments here are teeth-grindingly awful for my liberal progessive soul to bear sometimes, I feel like I'm getting something out of it.
But your post just smacked of complete right-wing ranting bull. I can disassemble it if you like:
Lets get it Straight!.....It's the Government that wants everybody living like cattle in a crowded corral.
The assumption that “the government” (local? State? federal?) is a monolithic organization is one that I just can't get on board with. It's funny that on one hand, conservatives complain about how poorly certain parts of the government function, and on another, they profess this almost paranoid fear of the unified, autocratic power that it presents. I prefer a more realistic view: I don't doubt that elements of the government can *be* autocratic, but it is really like any other social institution in this world.
The planners are employed to do their bidding to arrange such accommodations.
What is thy bidding, my Master?
Sorry... couldn't resist.
Seriously, though, planners are employed to do the work that elected officials require them to do. They do their “bidding” as much as you do the “bidding” of your employer.
The greater the numbers of people that Government can crowd together in Ghettos called Cities, the easier they can control and extract the freedoms and substance from the tax producers by forcing public transportation, excessive regulations and taxes down their throat.
I don't know what “substance” you're talking about, but again, the above discussion about efficiency and the like is important to bring in here. I'm not going to argue point by point all of the regulations that are found in urban areas that might be “excessive” (and I might agree that some are unreasonable), but we cannot all live out on five-acre tracts out in the middle of nowhere, either.
Not only that, but you're sounding as if people are being forced into such accommodations! Far as I can tell, sale prices of property in downtown Seattle are still quite high, and not because the government has instituted price controls.
Only the Libs, the Easy Believing Sucker Class, would seek such control, high taxes and Slave accommodations.
Whenever I see any conservative/libertarian use the word “slave”, I really, really have to laugh. It would be offensive... if it weren't so darn pathetic.
And again, “high taxes”? It makes it sound like you're getting nothing in return for them. Conservatives may bemoan high taxes and high social services, but there isn't a treasure room in City Hall filled with gold coins, where the Mayor goes for a dip every once in a while, Scrooge McDuck style. We can argue about the efficiency of government agencies, or the level of services that should be provided, but assuming that the city puts tax money in a big pit and burns it is off the mark.
(Yes, I know that I'm setting myself up for a wise-ass remark with that one... but still.)
The controlling Elites love this arrangement. They can do as they please with spending the inhabitants money on all their favorite things and since, the vast majority of the inhabitants are Libs, anybody else with awareness and could, have left. They have no fear of not being reelected.
I'm not going to advocate for limiting where people can move to, by any means. If you want to live in Skykomish, feel free.
However, unless I'm mistaken, we do live in a democracy, right? In a case like that, if a “vast majority of the inhabitants are Libs”, wouldn't that mean that the actions of the local government should reflect their needs and opinions?
I'll stick to the pithy comments... but this idiot required a little more verbosity!
Posted by: demo kid on July 22, 2008 11:09 AMYou've got rent control totally backwards, it was not instituted as some market response to Levittown or any other urban flight. Market controls were adopted due to skyrocketing prices that resulted from post war housing shortages. The intent was to mitigate more unfortunate but typical behaviors human beings exhibit during material shortages. They are expiring rapidly.
Totally agree that planning may be good or bad, regardless of whether it's public or private. One thing about the public sector versus private is that the public can fire or rehire the policy managers every couple of years. The thing about private entities is that they can be dismissed rapidly, or in some cases not at all.
Posted by: Acid Brain on July 22, 2008 12:27 PMDaniel's reply: Nothing that can be Debated? Then, what is the following long winded diatribe you are spewing?
You seem to be contradictory and confused.
Daniel: Lets get it Straight!.....It's the Government that wants everybody living like cattle in a crowded corral.
dk: The assumption that �the government� (local? State? federal?) is a monolithic organization is one that I just can't get on board with. It's funny that on one hand, conservatives complain about how poorly certain parts of the government function, and on another, they profess this almost paranoid fear of the unified, autocratic power that it presents. I prefer a more realistic view: I don't doubt that elements of the government can *be* autocratic, but it is really like any other social institution in this world.
Daniel's reply: Like any other social institution in this world? I see.....It's like the Boy Scouts and the same as the social fraternities of the Eagles and the Elks. Brilliant! You got that one nailed alright! You still haven't addressed the validity of my above comment. You just, write a bunch of blither blather as though you were addressing the comment. What, a phony double talker you are.
Daniel: The planners are employed to do their bidding to arrange such accommodations.
dk: Seriously, though, planners are employed to do the work that elected officials require them to do. They do their �bidding� as much as you do the �bidding� of your employer.
Daniel's reply: Then, you agree with me. Why, are you bothering to address the remark if you agree and have no fodder for debate?
Daniel: The greater the numbers of people that Government can crowd together in Ghettos called Cities, the easier they can control and extract the freedoms and substance from the tax producers by forcing public transportation, excessive regulations and taxes down their throat.
dk: I don't know what �substance� you're talking about, but again, the above discussion about efficiency and the like is important to bring in here. I'm not going to argue point by point all of the regulations that are found in urban areas that might be �excessive� (and I might agree that some are unreasonable), but we cannot all live out on five-acre tracts out in the middle of nowhere, either.
Not only that, but you're sounding as if people are being forced into such accommodations! Far as I can tell, sale prices of property in downtown Seattle are still quite high, and not because the government has instituted price controls.
Daniel's reply: You don't know what substance I'm talking about? Any reasonable person would realize that having the people living in a tight group is a lot easier to control, tax, make dependent of Government services and monitor than, being spread out over a large area. The Government may not have fully instituted price controls on land and accommodations but, they sure control the taxes that are paid on a great number of things within the city including land and accommodations. Bottom line....Governments want to grow and control and if allowed, they will grow and tax to support their growth and control till the citizens are penniless prisoners and slaves to Government.
Daniel: Only the Libs, the Easy Believing Sucker Class, would seek such control, high taxes and Slave accommodations.
dk: Whenever I see any conservative/libertarian use the word �slave�, I really, really have to laugh. It would be offensive... if it weren't so darn pathetic.
And again, �high taxes�? It makes it sound like you're getting nothing in return for them. Conservatives may bemoan high taxes and high social services, but there isn't a treasure room in City Hall filled with gold coins, where the Mayor goes for a dip every once in a while, Scrooge McDuck style. We can argue about the efficiency of government agencies, or the level of services that should be provided, but assuming that the city puts tax money in a big pit and burns it is off the mark.
Daniel's reply: You may laugh because, you aka Liberals are not aware when you are being unduly maneuvered by others to their advantage and to your disadvantage. That's why the Liberals are called the Sucker Class....They are easily Conned! The City aka Government does not give you a good deal for your taxes. Certainly, you've heard of Government waste and corruption? Plus, at the same time they extract your freedoms. Such a Deal! You have to have Government or you would have Chaos without it. But, excessive Government is a Crime against the Citizenry.
Daniel: The controlling Elites love this arrangement. They can do as they please with spending the inhabitants money on all their favorite things and since, the vast majority of the inhabitants are Libs, anybody else with awareness and could, have left. They have no fear of not being reelected.
dk: I'm not going to advocate for limiting where people can move to, by any means. If you want to live in Skykomish, feel free.
However, unless I'm mistaken, we do live in a democracy, right? In a case like that, if a �vast majority of the inhabitants are Libs�, wouldn't that mean that the actions of the local government should reflect their needs and opinions?
Daniel's reply: Yes, we do live in a Democracy. It is Sad that the unwise out number the wise and therefore the wise are usually outvoted. May GOD help us from the GODLESS blind to the truth unwise Liberals.
Demo kid: I don't care if it's more efficient. Human beings don't exist for you or your fellow leftists (who always seem to know what's best for other people) to dictate how we should live more efficiently. You have NO claim on my life, or anyone else's. That's the real problem with so-called "planning."
Leave the rest of us the hell alone.
Posted by: Richard on July 22, 2008 01:43 PMYou still haven't addressed the validity of my above comment. You just, write a bunch of blither blather as though you were addressing the comment. What, a phony double talker you are.
No, you made the point that the "Government" has a desire to do something. My rebuttal is that the "Government" isn't a single entity, but a collection of people, subject to the same politics as any other organization. And trust me, from personal experience, the government, the Boy Scouts, and the Elks are *all* subject to internal politics and divisions.
Why, are you bothering to address the remark if you agree and have no fodder for debate?
Because "doing their bidding" implies devotion or excessive obligation where none exists. And you're not debating... just slinging insults.
Bottom line....Governments want to grow and control and if allowed, they will grow and tax to support their growth and control till the citizens are penniless prisoners and slaves to Government.
Again with the "slaves" remark. Typical. Anyway, "governments" don't "want" anything. They aren't a he, they aren't a she. They're a collection of people, and you're being overly bombastic by saying that they want people (including themselves!) to be prisoners and slaves.
You may laugh because, you aka Liberals are not aware when you are being unduly maneuvered by others to their advantage and to your disadvantage.
I'm fully aware that we are all able to be manipulated. Unfortunately, I'm at a loss as to figure out how you can be above that all, or how you think that conservatives aren't subject to the same thing.
That's why the Liberals are called the Sucker Class....They are easily Conned! The City aka Government does not give you a good deal for your taxes. Certainly, you've heard of Government waste and corruption?
As opposed to what? Government agencies operate according to completely different rules. I'll agree that auditing is important, of course, and corruption is something to be on guard for, but you make the pretty big assumption that private markets are any better. Examine the manipulation of electricity markets by Enron and Reliant in 2001, for example, and you tell me which you might prefer.
Plus, at the same time they extract your freedoms. Such a Deal! You have to have Government or you would have Chaos without it. But, excessive Government is a Crime against the Citizenry.
Who defines "excessive"? I prefer to know that my drinking water is clean, that the streets are being policed, that public transit and highways are being maintained. I'd like to be sure that the development that goes on in my neighborhood won't impose unfair impacts on me without mitigation or reimbursement, and that some clod can't simply turn his entire lawn into a dirt pit that will run off into a nearby stream that runs well beyond his property. I want actions to be funded by a collective effort, since we all can benefit from them at one time or another, and since relying on the private sector for such things would compromise their impartiality and relative levels of service. And yes, I want regulation, but not to control people that know how to take care of their land, but because there are a few people that just don't and all of us can be impacted by their idiotic decisions.
Yes, we do live in a Democracy. It is Sad that the unwise out number the wise and therefore the wise are usually outvoted. May GOD help us from the GODLESS blind to the truth unwise Liberals.
Wow... that's an arrogant conceit. Can you assume that you know what most people want?
The salient point is that the government planners who dreamed this scheme up should have known better because 2 1/2 millenia of experience with price controls show they never alleviate shortages, but exacerbate them. But, unlike private sector planners who make mistakes, the rules the government planners make are ultimately enforced by the police power of the state (guns, prisons, handcuffs, tasers, ect.)
You may think I exaggerate. But if you are a NYC landlord and a tenant complains you have charged rent above the mandatory ceiling, the authorities may knock on your door. If you ignore them, or refuse to let them in, you may be summoned to court. If you fail to show up, a warrant may be issued. It may be executed by sheriffs with guns. If you don't answer their knock, they may kick your door in. If you refuse to go with them, they may handcuff you and take you to jail. If you resist, they may taser you or shoot you.
The point is that the power of the government is awesome, because in a civilized society it has the exclusive right to use force first. Therefore any act of the government and its bureaucrats including planners must be well enough thought out, important enough, and morally correct enough to ultimately justify shooting grandmothers in order to enforce them.
Much of the nonsense dreamt up by do-gooding nanny state planners fails to meet these criteria by a long shot.
Posted by: Steve on July 22, 2008 02:10 PMDaniel's reply: In general terms, Government can be used as a single entity for purpose of brevity without being cumbersome with all the collective departments and layers that make up Government. You're nitpicking on semantics to the point of being ridiculous in order to create the illusion that you have a point to make. What a bunch of Balderdash! The Boy Scouts and the Elks have nothing to do with controlling and taxing like Government. Get Real!
Daniel: Why, are you bothering to address the remark if you agree and have no fodder for debate?
dk: Because "doing their bidding" implies devotion or excessive obligation where none exists. And you're not debating... just slinging insults.
Daniel's reply: Doing their bidding is perfectly correct. Doing their bidding does not imply excessive obligation. However, it does imply obligation by the mere fact that they are being employed and paid by the Government to perform the service ordered. Again, you are out of order with you incorrect rebuttal.
Daniel: That's why the Liberals are called the Sucker Class....They are easily Conned! The City aka Government does not give you a good deal for your taxes. Certainly, you've heard of Government waste and corruption?
dk: As opposed to what? Government agencies operate according to completely different rules. I'll agree that auditing is important, of course, and corruption is something to be on guard for, but you make the pretty big assumption that private markets are any better. Examine the manipulation of electricity markets by Enron and Reliant in 2001, for example, and you tell me which you might prefer.
Daniel's reply: As apposed to the Private Sector. Yes, there is corruption in the Private Sector but, there is far less and there is the Rule of Law that can be brought against such improprieties. Much, much more difficult to bring the Rule of Law against Government. Rarely, is any government official ever held accountable let alone, Government itself. Also, you usually have a choice who you do business with in the Private Sector.....With Government...You Don't!
Daniel: Plus, at the same time they extract your freedoms. Such a Deal! You have to have Government or you would have Chaos without it. But, excessive Government is a Crime against the Citizenry.
dk: Who defines "excessive"? I prefer to know that my drinking water is clean, that the streets are being policed, that public transit and highways are being maintained. I'd like to be sure that the development that goes on in my neighborhood won't impose unfair impacts on me without mitigation or reimbursement, and that some clod can't simply turn his entire lawn into a dirt pit that will run off into a nearby stream that runs well beyond his property. I want actions to be funded by a collective effort, since we all can benefit from them at one time or another, and since relying on the private sector for such things would compromise their impartiality and relative levels of service. And yes, I want regulation, but not to control people that know how to take care of their land, but because there are a few people that just don't and all of us can be impacted by their idiotic decisions.
Daniel's reply: Excessive means unnecessary cost caused by waste, unnecessary overhead, corruption, unnecessary regulations, taxes, etc. with little to nothing to show for the expenditure. The Private Sector has and does provide clean water, highways, transportation, etc. Go to the East, you may be surprised. You can rely of the Private Sector. If a Private Company is not up to providing a good service then, you got a competitor to choose from. It's called the Free Market Place. It's called Capitalism. But then, your a Lib who doesn't believe in the Free Market Place and Capitalism. Remember, I said you need Government but, not excessive Government. If you can't understand what excessive Government is all about then, think of the Soviet Union. But again, being a Lib maybe you still won't have a Clue!
Daniel: Yes, we do live in a Democracy. It is Sad that the unwise out number the wise and therefore the wise are usually outvoted. May GOD help us from the GODLESS blind to the truth unwise Liberals.
dk: Wow... that's an arrogant conceit. Can you assume that you know what most people want?
Daniel's reply: It is not a matter of assuming what most people want. It's wanting to ensure that my basic Freedoms will remain intact. The blind GODLESS Liberals will vote those Freedoms away, not just for themselves but, for everybody. That is the fear....to be ruled by the unwise.
Posted by: Daniel on July 22, 2008 04:19 PMI think if the voters of NYC want to use public funds to help a subset of residents of the city, fine. They can pass laws to erect public housing, public grocery stores and public clothing stores and give the merchandise away if they are foolish enough to want to.
But it seems to me unconstitutional to force private parties to provide public welfare benefits, regardless of the utilitarian argument that "several hundred thousand" people benefit. This line of reasoning would justify confiscating and redistributing all of Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's (and your and my) assets because hundreds of millions of Americans would benefit to the tune of a thousand dollars each. But then again, I assume the bill of rights means what it plainly says.
Posted by: Steve on July 22, 2008 04:37 PM(Sure, at times other people here may resort to comments like that, but at least they can be semi-coherent and actually back up the things they say with some form of rational thought.)
Posted by: demo kid on July 22, 2008 06:32 PMBut I'll just end this "interesting" discussion, genius, by pointing out that when King was assassinated in Memphis, he was there to support striking public works employees. I'm doubting that this was a movement that was taken up with the local conservatives at the time...
Posted by: demo kid on July 22, 2008 11:15 PMI mean, are you thinking that his position against school prayer was socially conservative, for example? His extreme opposition to the Vietnam War? His support of Planned Parenthood and affirmative action? Heck, considering African-Americans to be human wasn't always a "social conservative" viewpoint in the 1960s, either...
Get over yourself. You're delusional.
Posted by: demo kid on July 23, 2008 07:33 AM'Tis true... MLK was a Republican. His father was a registered Republican who endorsed Richard Nixon, and only crossed over to John Kennedy because Robert Kennedy assisted in getting Junior out of jail.
And the Democrat party IS the party of racism.
Guess you don't know why the Republican Party was founded? Which party was the party of slavery and the Confederates? Which party had the KKK as its terrorist/enforcement arm? Which party supported segregation, Jim Crow laws? Which party opposed civil rights and voting rights? Which party had KKK leaders sitting in Congress?
The big lie is that the Republican party is racist; in fact, is is provably NOT! The Democrats are absolutely racist, and the ones who corrupt MLK Jr.'s dream - that all men are created equal, and that we are to be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 23, 2008 08:12 AMI have had numerous exchanges with demo kid on this forum and nothing seems to phase him when dealing with logic and Truth. He's a Proud Liberal and will cling to all that is Liberalism. Liberals stand strong in the opposition of the death penalty for murderers, even mass murderers yet, they will strongly support the right of a woman to kill her baby aka abortion. How demented can you get?
Posted by: Daniel on July 23, 2008 08:55 AMIn short, nobody is going to show up with guns and take our stuff. They will remove it through thousands of smaller nearly invisible channels. This drifts way too far from the topic, and I digress. We both already agreed that there are good plans and bad plans, but plans are not inherently bad in and of themselves. I'll defer the rest, you're a good sport.
Posted by: Acid Brain on July 23, 2008 09:51 AMHeck, why don't you go and read some of MLK's work... he himself will be better able to convince you than I. Referencing a poorly written, poorly substantiated article from the Black National Republicans does not count as "proof".
And...
I have had numerous exchanges with demo kid on this forum and nothing seems to phase him when dealing with logic and Truth.
Your delusional version of the world? It's not "truth", buddy. You can spin all the lies you want, but wishin' doesn't make them so. And if you want to debate the death penalty or abortion, fine... but stop pretending like the world revolves around you and realize that you don't actually have all the answers.
Posted by: demo kid on July 23, 2008 09:52 AMA true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
-- Rev. Martin Luther King, "Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam"
Conservative or liberal? Take your pick. I'd be very interested in how you might twist that around to serve your own rhetoric.
Posted by: demo kid on July 23, 2008 09:56 AM