25 replies to this topic

[RD Milhollin]

Did anyone else happen to see the film SUBDIVIDED by Dean Terry recently on KERA TV?

I happened onto it almost accidentally, and was blown away. This expose looks at the rise of the suburban wasteland and more importantly, offers solutions. The film features train-of-consciousness commentary from Andres Duany, William Geitema Jr., Dolores Hayden, Setha Low, Robert Putnam, and James Howard Kunstler, among other advocates of New Urbanism and planning for neighborhoods. The east Dallas neighborhood of Little Forest Hills features prominently in the film, which tries to discern what elements go together to make a vibrant connected community instead of the sterile suburban landscape so common around most American cities. Terry is a talented presenter, and his message is powerful. He pays for things like this by being employed as a professor of Art and Technology in the School of Arts and Humanities at UTD.

The next showing of SUBDIVIDED on KERA 13 will be July 03 at 11:00 PM.

I strongly urge those interested in understanding the reasoning for New Urbanism and the dangers to society presented by the proliferation of sprawl to make a date to see this fine film.

The website for SUBDIVIDED is

www.subdivided.net

[Keller Pirate]

I saw it last night. Being me, I didn't agree with many of their conclusions, whats new. However I believe people should be able to live in the kind of neighborhoods they want and the guy that made the movie wanted to live in Little Forest Hills and I say more power to him for doing it.

He just should not try to impose his values on the majority that choose other kinds of developments.

[RD Milhollin]

I saw it last night. Being me, I didn't agree with many of their conclusions, whats new. However I believe people should be able to live in the kind of neighborhoods they want and the guy that made the movie wanted to live in Little Forest Hills and I say more power to him for doing it.

He just should not try to impose his values on the majority that choose other kinds of developments.

KP,

One of the important points I heard made in the film was that there is a severe lack of knowledge among the home buying public on what sort of neighborhood might be available. The "house manufacturing" industry pushes what is most advantageous for their bottom line with no concern as to what that development will be like in the future. There is a general lack of knowledge, even among members of this forum, of what constitutes "New Urbanism" development. I think this film offers an opportunity to hear and see some of the reasoning behind the neo-traditional and sustainable neighborhood movement. Is there some emotional appeal involved in the presentation, yes of course. But the sales force pushling sprawl uses it as well. Your point about people being able to live in the sort of neighborhood they want is fine, but I would advocate for allowing them to see all the options available. You might find that with some enlightenment a "majority" might choose neighborhoods with neighborly interaction and pedestrian amenities built in over those devoted to long-distance mechanized transport.

[Keller Pirate]

As an owner of a home with 3 1/2 bathrooms I have to be opposed on principle.

On a serious note I thought that Andres Duany seemed pompous and that nothing that has gone on in the U.S. during the last 50 years is worthwhile according to him, especially architecture and planning. The movie maker, Dean Terry, even said toward the end that it was just a few people in Little Forest Hills that made it the community it was. I think that is true anywhere, I can look in my own neighborhood and identify the same people that organize the get to gathers.

The small lot, small home neighborhoods from the turn of the century to 1950 are OK but the design didn't cause the socialization. It was a time before air conditioning and TV. People sat on their front porches to keep cool because the houses were hot. All the neighbors were doing the same thing. With a much smaller country population wise, neighborhoods were economically and educationally homogenized and many people worked at the same jobs and had that in common. Today with a huge population and workforce the job factor is all over the place. Also, women almost all stayed home in the day. Now most families have two wage earners, which just leaves the kids home in the day time.

Again, nothing wrong with the idea and we certainly can do better than we have with planning but I think the times have changed so much that "New Urbanism" which is also know as NTD or Neo Traditional Development won't change society in the 21st century. I guess the phrase “New Urbanism” bothers me because it isn’t new, its old, so it appears as false advertising right out of the box.

Everyone on the forum should try and catch the show, I know I will be in the minority on the forum but I think I am joined by millions of suburban dwellers that like where they are at and how they live.

[cbellomy]

However I believe people should be able to live in the kind of neighborhoods they want [...]

The trouble with suburban sprawl is that urban dwellers end up subsidizing the external costs of suburbs in a number of ways. It's considerably less expensive per capita, for instance, to provide city services in a dense urban setting than it is in areas with low density. The taxes are the same, though, so the urban dwellers end up picking up the tab for the extra expense of providing fire, police, water and sewer to a low-density suburban area. Well, this assumes that the suburban area is in the city proper, I admit.

The other problem is with transportation. Suburban toll customers will pick up the tab for the Southwest Parkway, but who pays for the additional capacity needed on I-30 when that additional traffic arrives? Who ends up paying to have the resulting pollution problems solved -- or ends up breathing the more heavily polluted air? Again, these are external costs to suburban sprawl that suburbanites don't cover. If they had to foot the entire bill for their choice to live where they do, suburbanites probably would not make that choice.

I don't see this as being suburbanites' fault, really. There's insufficient incentive for them to change their choices. I just think the system needs substantial tweaking. Moving to toll roads to bring suburban traffic into the city is a reasonable start, as much as many hate it. Building a light rail system to move people around the urban core is another key step. The key is removing incentive to drive automobiles as their primary mode of transportation.

[safly]

But with a family of 4 (avg.), driving all about the metroplex is not an incentive, in most cases it is a NECESSITY. School districts play a huge role in FAMILIES making up the majority of suburbia. And it's a TEXAS thing (honestly) to anchor your roots in WIDER more OPEN spaces. Plus land is much cheaper here (even in N.Texas) than most of the country, so go and GRAB IT.

I enjoyed suburbia a few years ago, but then again I did live on a golf course.

Cost of city services should never be an indicator or reason to curb sprawl. Look at what small town Katy, TX became in the past 20 years. Practically urban Houston.

I don't get the picking up the tab bit. Then don't ANNEX. You also allow increased taxation to occur. Excellent development PLANNING is key, and for the most part that is what lead me to one part of the suburbs over another. Excellent planning w/ convenience.

In 30 years, you are not going to tell the difference between Dallas and Fort Worth sprawl. It will become more evident as a true metroplex, and the now suburb sprawl will also have their huge highrise condos too and more intimate campus life for public schools and colleges, not to mention extended rail service.

The other problem is with transportation. Suburban toll customers will pick up the tab for the Southwest Parkway, but who pays for the additional capacity needed on I-30 when that additional traffic arrives? Who ends up paying to have the resulting pollution problems solved -- or ends up breathing the more heavily polluted air? Again, these are external costs to suburban sprawl that suburbanites don't cover. If they had to foot the entire bill for their choice to live where they do, suburbanites probably would not make that choice.

That is actually a matter for the STATE to resolve and issue. And the air is cleaner in the suburbs MOST of the time. So that is another great reason to move out of the urban core in most situations.

[djold1]

Words are funny...

The word "sprawl" has a negative connotation. The word "expand" is generally considered positive. So, if you feel that expansion of dwellings and their services to the suburbs is not desirable, then it is sprawling.

However, it cuts both ways. Sprawl is not defined as an exclusively horizontal concept. A city could sprawl upward if its dwellers were artifically forced upwards to live on top of one another without really wanting to.

In that case those that feel that sprawl is negative simply substitute the word "expand" and use it instead. As in: "Fort Worth should expand the number of city center and close-in urban living units in order to be able to curb the ugly & nasty sprawl, reduce the cost of city services and increase the social tensions of those persons that would not normally enjoy close congregation by crowding them too close together in artificial circumstances.".

By definition, the only way that a city or area with geographic restrictions on where one may live can add addtional population is by expanding (sprawling) upwards.

"Sprawling Upwards".

That has a ring to it doesn't it? There are some words that go with that phrase: How about "tenement?" Or "slumloard?" Or "Building super?"... as in the little chunky guy that lives in the basement that you bribe to get your hot water running again...

Actually in spite of all the above I have nothing at all against Fort Worth sprawling upwards. It is going on right now and some of it is very attractive. Obviously there are a number of people that feel that this kind of lifestyle is desirable. Thousands have chosen this upward sprawlation freely and more it seems are interested in doing it. I applaud this voluntary vertical diversity..

In my time I have experienced everything from the ownership of far surburban dwellings and acreage, rental homes, condo rental, rental of intown homes, apartment rental and ownership of diverse housing scattered around cities. I have never been comfortable in situations where I did not own my own dwelling and whatever land it was on.

Since I no longer need vast tracts and large square footage I would consider gracefuly sprawling upwards if the choice were absolutely mine and not that of some anal and demented faux planner that used a word ending in "ism" as their mantra.

I'm committed. Just provide me with accomodations that are at least equal to my very modest digs on a 50' by 100' lot in NW Fort Worth. I don't need much: Something around 1400 sqft of living space, three bedrooms, two full baths, good closets, high ceilings, a little covered patio, two full garage bays that are competely protected and really good soundproofing so that I don't hear my neighbors except in unusual circumstances.

Also, I would require that the air around my new place equal in quality that of the not terrifically good mix around my current place and that the mean average temperature & humidity on the outside of the new place be equal to or lower than where I live now.

Although I am not currently a pet owner, the new anti-sprawladomicle should also allow me without a price penalty to have a least one dog and several cats if I so desire as long as I keep them tidy. I will accept a ban on Pit Bulls & Rots.

And since I will be living in very close proximity to other upsprawlers, I feel that those who offer me the chance to live in the new envionment should actively vet my neighbors as to mental and criminal tendencies and guarantee me an enviroment as safe as the normal situation in which I now live. I don't think that's asking too much.

As a sign of good faith I will willingly give up my mixed grass and weeds and one scraggly rose bush which I like. But it's gonna be hell giving up my great Live Oak that shades the back yard.

A question: If I decide to get an 18' boat and trailer is there going to be some free place that I can park it?

I'm ready & waiting for the call from that individual or organization that is dedicated to reducing the far surburban population and stuffing it into the urban mix. If you offer me all the amenities that I now enjoy as well as the undeniable opportunity of sharing my noise and odors with others on a mano-a-mano basis, then I will freely embrace this new lifestyle.

Oh..

I forgot to mention that even though I will be giving up a few of the good things by moving I will stretch and still offer to pay about $750.00 for principal, interest, taxes and insurance. That's max and a little more than I'm paying now for the priviledge of personal ownership. And I will take advantage or your no-down-payment offer. And since I am not paying them in my nasty surburban location, I see no need to pay any kind of monthly or yearly maintenance or owners association fees.

As I said... I'm now waiting for the call.... Save me from the sprawl...

[FoUTASportscaster]

But with a family of 4 (avg.), driving all about the metroplex is not an incentive, in most cases it is a NECESSITY.

It is a "necessity because we have set it up to be. I don't own a car and live in DTD. The girlfriend and I are serious about raising our kids here. The logisitics work out and we won't have to drive all over.

And it's a TEXAS thing (honestly) to anchor your roots in WIDER more OPEN spaces. Plus land is much cheaper here (even in N.Texas) than most of the country, so go and GRAB IT.

Actually, no it is not. Dallas, Houston and San Antonio all had densities near 10,000 people per square mile prior to 1950. So dense living, despite the stereotypes, is not a "Texan' thing. It is a stereotype.

I enjoyed suburbia a few years ago, but then again I did live on a golf course.

I lived on a lake. What's your point? Suburban sprawl is still waht it is. I didn't like it and moved to DTD as soon as I could. If the Trinity River Tollroad goes through, I may move to DTFW. Still won't have to own a car.

Cost of city services should never be an indicator or reason to curb sprawl. Look at what small town Katy, TX became in the past 20 years. Practically urban Houston.

Uuhhmmm...So you are advocating that the government overextend its reach? Arlington is a great example. When I was in school at UTA, they were facing a budget shortfall of near 18 million. And that was without road repair, just basic services. The problem with sprawl is that the typical development doesn't pay for itself and the services it uses. It depends on growth, which at some point will have to stop. When it does, they face budget problems. Buildings aren't dense enough to cover the costs. The exceptions include places like Highland Park. But, the vast majority of the population can't afford to live in the upscale areas like that.

I don't get the picking up the tab bit. Then don't ANNEX. You also allow increased taxation to occur. Excellent development PLANNING is key, and for the most part that is what lead me to one part of the suburbs over another. Excellent planning w/ convenience.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Cities want to develop an open area. Unlike decades past, developers no long build the infrastructure and the city has to do it. So in order to build new streets along with sewer and water connections, the existing tax base has to cover the costs. Then there is also capacity issues, like water reservoirs or sewage treatment plants. That all comes from the existing tax base, not the developments.

In 30 years, you are not going to tell the difference between Dallas and Fort Worth sprawl. It will become more evident as a true metroplex, and the now suburb sprawl will also have their huge highrise condos too and more intimate campus life for public schools and colleges, not to mention extended rail service.

You really can't tell a difference now. It all looks the same driving on 183. The highrise condos will still lack a very key piece, an urban environment. It will still depend on the sprawl model of development.

That is actually a matter for the STATE to resolve and issue. And the air is cleaner in the suburbs MOST of the time. So that is another great reason to move out of the urban core in most situations.

You just illustrated the point. The air is cleaner not because of urban use, but because of the suburban use going into the core. And actually, your statement that the air is cleaner is not exactly true. Some of the suburbs, like Midlothian, have the worst air quality in the region, yet they are still growing.

[Keller Pirate]

Dallas, Houston and San Antonio all had densities near 10,000 people per square mile prior to 1950. So dense living, despite the stereotypes, is not a "Texan' thing. It is a stereotype.

Hence the longing for NTD, except that in the time before the 50's most jobs were in the city core and now many have followed the population out of the city core.

Suburban sprawl is still waht it is. I didn't like it and moved to DTD as soon as I could. If the Trinity River Tollroad goes through, I may move to DTFW. Still won't have to own a car..

How would a tollroad influence where you live if you won't have a car?

[Sam Stone]

KP, I totally agree with you about people having a choice about where they live. I think that's a pretty universal value, too. The problem, though, is that the deck is stacked in favor of some choices over others. As mentioned in some of the above posts, suburban deveopment is heavily subsidized.

Just a recap: Low density suburban development is possible due to the ability to drive everywhere you need to go. In order to do this we need cars, gas, and roads. Cars are paid for by their owners. Gas is paid for by the user, plus the public (through international aid and diplomacy and also through war to secure access to supply). And roads are paid for by all of us through almost every tax that we have. The state portion of the motor fuel tax pays for state and insterstate highways. The federal portion pays for interstate highways. Not all federal highway projects are paid for out of the interstate highway trust fund. Some special projects are paid for out of the general fund, which means income taxes. Our state sales tax pays for many many things but also for some road construction. Our county property taxes pay for some road construction. Our city property taxes pay for some road construction. And if you think about the amount of time police and fire spend responding to vehicle related emergencies, quite a bit of the rest of our local tax dollars also go towards automobile transportation. Automobile transportation is heavily heavily subsidized by everyone regardless of how much we drive.

In order for people to have a true choice, the prices they pay must reflect the cost of what they are buying. That is how efficient markets work. Currently, the prices of suburban homes do not reflect the costs of suburban development. And that's purely from the point of view of transportation finance. That does not take into account other costs (like the environmental costs). In economics, we say that the costs have been externalized onto other consumers. An efficient market is one in which costs are not externalized. Sorry for the economics bs but I'm trying to make a market oriented appeal to you, KP. I'm a market oriented person myself. I think that capitalism can solve a lot of the world's problems and that one of government's best jobs is to help markets operate efficiently.

Personally, I'd like to see all those taxes reduced and replaced with a stiff motor fuels tax. The federal rate has been 18 cents a gallon since 1993 (which actually means it's been decreasing in real terms). I'd like to see a tax rate of at least $4.00/gallon and we could start to do away with some of these other taxes. Make drivers pay for themselves and then people would have a real choice.

[hannerhan]

Personally, I'd like to see all those taxes reduced and replaced with a stiff motor fuels tax. The federal rate has been 18 cents a gallon since 1993 (which actually means it's been decreasing in real terms). I'd like to see a tax rate of at least $4.00/gallon and we could start to do away with some of these other taxes. Make drivers pay for themselves and then people would have a real choice.

I'm really starting to agree with you on that (especially since I live 3 miles from my office ). Many other major benefits would come from this arrangement as well...less gasoline used, less dependence on foreign oil supplies, spurring investment in renewable energy, etc.

Of course the flipside is that there are a lot of middle-class people that live "outside the loop" in tract neighborhoods commuting long distances, many of whom are already stretching their finances. They would be crushed by the double whammy of high gas cost and property values dropping since people would place more of a premium on proximity.

But like I said, I'm living close to downtown, so bring on the gas tax!

[safly]

Personally, I'd like to see all those taxes reduced and replaced with a stiff motor fuels tax. The federal rate has been 18 cents a gallon since 1993 (which actually means it's been decreasing in real terms). I'd like to see a tax rate of at least $4.00/gallon and we could start to do away with some of these other taxes. Make drivers pay for themselves and then people would have a real choice.

I'm really starting to agree with you on that (especially since I live 3 miles from my office ). Many other major benefits would come from this arrangement as well...less gasoline used (LESS JOBS!), less dependence on foreign oil supplies (ANOTHER WORLD WAR!), spurring investment in renewable energy (LINING THOSE POCKETS! CORN DEMAND INFLATES EGGS and BEEF!), etc.

Of course the flipside is that there are a lot of middle-class people that live "outside the loop" in tract neighborhoods commuting long distances, many of whom are already stretching their finances. They would be crushed by the double whammy of high gas cost and property values dropping since people would place more of a premium on proximity.

But like I said, I'm living close to downtown, so bring on the gas tax!

READ MY LIPS. Y'all are starting to sound like BUSHBOTS. As in BUSH I.
$4/gallon TAX RATE! OK, so are you willing to pay an inflation of 300% on broccoli (I use that example because BUSH I HATED the broc), how about a 500% inflation on one airline ticket? 300% inflation on your next T ride to DTD or DFW?
You act as if there is a utopia standard for marketing urban density and all the ammenities of TODAY'S LIVING will exact. MY $60 annual state sticker helps pave and build new roads. Peanuts compared to a $4/gal tax rate!

An efficient market is one in which costs are not externalized.

I hope you are not creating the inference that the URBAN DTFW living EXTERNALIZED COSTS are non existent. Are you referencing a MARKETING THEORY book here?

Good luck getting these "TAX INTIATIVES" passed as the majority of registered voters enjoy there suburbia lifestyle and low gasoline tax.

If you want to instill EXCELLENT PLANNING , then by all means do it for the next generation of "sprawl". But to INCREASE TAXES, instead of a wider tax base source is WHACK!

less dependence on foreign oil supplies

Write a DEAR JUAN letter to your congress man or women who has ALLOWED the military to continuosly be a major consumer of foreign energy dependency. Keep your focus on renewable energy and good luck trying to get that online for urban core living in say, another 20 yrs. All those who wanted a piece of the TOWER should have STRESSED "renewable energy" efficiency by 2010, or just assume walked away. Perfect situation and location to introduce such a fine and ETHICAL example to all of FW and TEXAS.

suburban deveopment is heavily subsidized

So is all that encompasses the TRV, TOWER project and MWbuilding expansions. Your point?

As for FUTAS. While you are raising your kids, keep in mind when the little one DEMANDS to attend cheerleading camp or play LL baseball and you are going to have to tell JR or Princess that Daddy and Mommy cannot afford those PRIVILEDGES becasue gas is at $8/gallon thanks to Sam's new gasoline tax initiatives and the T does not stop right in front of the gym or opponents ballpark. And you can forget about that trip to California. Just a thought.

DEATH and TAXES my friend, DEATH and TAXES.

[Keller Pirate]

KP, I totally agree with you about people having a choice about where they live. I think that's a pretty universal value, too. The problem, though, is that the deck is stacked in favor of some choices over others. As mentioned in some of the above posts, suburban deveopment is heavily subsidized.

You are right in a sense, but it is a two way street. Let's face it everything is subsidized. Look at the money the city gives to business, Omni, Acme Brick (paid to move out of the core) Cabella's just to name some big bucks give aways. The city didn't give their money away, they gave your money away and they make it up on the backs of the homeowners.

The people that live outside 820 create the income the city needed to give the cash away. If this sprawl is so bad why would the city allow the development? They want the quick fix of cash they are getting from the new development and they are counting on future new development to pay for infrastructure for today's development. It is a government operated Ponzi scheme.

There is a way to recoup some of the infrastructure costs of new development. Impact fees. Texas was the first state in the country to allow cities to use impact fees. Their use has spread nationwide to offset the cost of roads, sewers, drainage, parks and schools. Back in Texas some cities are reluctant to use the impact fee method because they don't want to scare off developers. Here the school districts aren't allowed to charge impact fees but in other states I have seen them as high as $15,000 per home to help offset the cost of building new schools.

The only bad side effect I see with impact fees is that the cost will always be passed to the buyer. As mentioned, we have a lot of entry level first time buyers that couldn't afford more expensive homes. Some of them would be thrown under the ownership bus.

I like Oregon's Urban Growth Limit laws. A local explained them to me and said basically that you cannot go to the edge of town and subdivide land and get annexed to the city. Subdivisions are allowed only in the city limits and to get in the city limits with a new development you have to be voted in. If your neighbors like the peach orchard better than your development you aren't going to be building it. This creates exclusivity and drives up property values.

I think there already is premium on proximity here now. Property is more expensive in and near DT than out on the fringes. So if the fringes didn't exist a lot of people couldn't own homes and taxes would be higher for those that do.

[cbellomy]

The other problem is with transportation. Suburban toll customers will pick up the tab for the Southwest Parkway, but who pays for the additional capacity needed on I-30 when that additional traffic arrives? Who ends up paying to have the resulting pollution problems solved -- or ends up breathing the more heavily polluted air? Again, these are external costs to suburban sprawl that suburbanites don't cover. If they had to foot the entire bill for their choice to live where they do, suburbanites probably would not make that choice.

That is actually a matter for the STATE to resolve and issue.

That still is passing the cost on to taxpayers who weren't responsible for creating the problem.

And the air is cleaner in the suburbs MOST of the time. So that is another great reason to move out of the urban core in most situations.

Another example of what I'm talking about. It's the suburban cars sitting in traffic that cause the urban air to be so bad in the first place. Why should urban dwellers pay for suburban commutes with their lungs?

Note that I live in a suburb myself, really. I don't aim to cast aspersions but merely to illustrate better the actual economics of suburban sprawl.

[hannerhan]

Personally, I'd like to see all those taxes reduced and replaced with a stiff motor fuels tax. The federal rate has been 18 cents a gallon since 1993 (which actually means it's been decreasing in real terms). I'd like to see a tax rate of at least $4.00/gallon and we could start to do away with some of these other taxes. Make drivers pay for themselves and then people would have a real choice.

I'm really starting to agree with you on that (especially since I live 3 miles from my office ). Many other major benefits would come from this arrangement as well...less gasoline used, less dependence on foreign oil supplies, spurring investment in renewable energy, etc.

Of course the flipside is that there are a lot of middle-class people that live "outside the loop" in tract neighborhoods commuting long distances, many of whom are already stretching their finances. They would be crushed by the double whammy of high gas cost and property values dropping since people would place more of a premium on proximity.

But like I said, I'm living close to downtown, so bring on the gas tax!

READ MY LIPS. Y'all are starting to sound like BUSHBOTS. As in BUSH I.
$4/gallon TAX RATE! OK, so are you willing to pay an inflation of 300% on broccoli (I use that example because BUSH I HATED the broc), how about a 500% inflation on airline ticket? 300% inflation on your next T ride to DTD or DFW?
You act as if there is a utopia standard for marketing urban density and all the ammenities of TODAY'S LIVING will exact. MY $60 annual state sticker helps pave and build new roads. Peanuts compared to a $4/gal tax rate!

Brilliant comparisons...you obviously understand what you're talking about.

Sam is talking about offsetting taxes. Do some research and come back with an intelligent rebuttal. I'll start you off:
http://www.freakonom...igh-gas-prices/
http://money.cnn.com...e_gas/index.htm

I'm no supporter of raising taxes in general, but some kind of offsetting gas tax (with a corresponding drop in income tax for instance) makes a lot of sense to me.

[safly]

Some of the suburbs, like Midlothian, have the worst air quality in the region, yet they are still growing.

I don't want to have to go "300" here on this board, but I am always up for a good debate.
Midlothian is smack dab in the middle of EXPANDING CONSTRUCTION (dirty and dusty), a JUMBO "reactor looking" PLANT of some sort (smokey), and heavy cow grazing land (METHANE!). And it is the closest southern town SMACK DAB in the middle of all the metroplex, so it is destined to get all of our worst headin south.

Another reason why populations primarily tend to FAVORABLY FIRST expand (by observations) in a more NWesternly, NCentrally and NEasternly migration throughout major SW US cities.

[Keller Pirate]

Wow, Safly and I have been too much in agreement lately.

This is a good thread. We are getting a little bit away from the TV show that started it but I appreciate the exchanges. Before "Subdivided" was on Wednesday, KERA also showed "Eden’s, Lost and Found." It was about Seattle and focused on the approval and demise of a 50 mile long X shaped extension of the monorail system in 2005. Basically it was defeated on cost issues.

[safly]

[quote]Now sure, it may be easier for the Europeans to do this. The continent is more densely populated, and development has historically been more clustered in towns. Public transport is undeniably better. But whether this is a result of their high taxes is debatable.[/quote]

This is getting good here. It's about time. My point exactly, this OFFSET TAXATION is NOT SCIENCE. Now sure, we have been heavily infliuenced by the EURO's when it came to the actual development of our country (In a Directly DISPROPORTIONATE sense). Which is probably ONE of the reasons we have so many roads built and cheaper fuel with more cars. That is all more MONEY to gain, than what one company can make from a rail service. So I understand the capaitalistic tendancies (some cases GREED) to provide more for DRIVERS and road building.


[quote]Still, he believes the high taxes have encouraged people to live closer to city centers and to buy cars that get better mileage[/quote]

Have you seen the prices for living in LONDON these days?

My point,[/quote]Ellerman said urban sprawl, while not matching the extent of the U.S., is increasing. He said it has yet to reach American levels - not because of higher fuel prices- but due mainly to higher land prices and lower income[quote]

And this MIT professor supports my POV in that [/quote]there were too many other variables for a gas tax to result in lower wholesale prices. Supplier nations like OPEC could simply cut production, or other nations could take advantage of falling demand and prices in the U.S. to use more themselves. He said most everyone has to use gas, and taxing it would hit the poor the hardest.
[quote]

Also LEVITT should concentrate on more with the act of driving, DEFENSIVE DRIVING in particular, which IS AN EXACT SCIENCE and is TAUGHT IN DRIVER'S ED all across the country. The only small problem is the daily willful application by some and willful disapplication by many others throughout daily lives. That in my observation is DIRECTLY responsible for major traffic accidents, pollution emittance at a lower RPM rate and overall congestion. Not the number of vehicles in motion, or tinkering with a gas consumption tax.

[safly]

Wow, Safly and I have been too much in agreement lately.

This is a good thread. We are getting a little bit away from the TV show that started it but I appreciate the exchanges. Before "Subdivided" was on Wednesday, KERA also showed "Eden’s, Lost and Found." It was about Seattle and focused on the approval and demise of a 50 mile long X shaped extension of the monorail system in 2005. Basically it was defeated on cost issues.

Our stars must be aligned this month.

[Sam Stone]

OK, KP, everything is subsidized. But the city's subsidization through abatements and the like are 1) small potatoes and 2) riding the coat tails of the the other subsidization. My point was that auto-oriented development is subsidized at all levels of government through almost every tax that we have. We pay for it coming and going and it's not the fault of any particular city, FW included. Oregon does some interesting things with regard to planning and the UGB. The way that they (or anybody for that matter) regulates land use, however, is really a response to the economic alternatives. In other words, if gas weren't so cheap, they wouldn't have to regulate land use that way.

Safly: This has nothing to do with marketing. You are correct about what that would do to prices on consumer goods, at least in the short run. But that was part of my point, too, that current prices do not reflect actual costs. We have a whole production system that is centered around cars and trucks. A more diversified system would be economically healthier.

[safly]

In regards to WAR and DEMOCRACY with inverse correlation to oil prices.
When OPEC KNOWS that the US has levied/subsidized gas taxes to the tune of 100%, guess what is most likely to happen with the foreign oil price index?

PETRO-Politics!

An excellent point with numerous FINE global examples by Tom Friedman. A wonderful columnist by my standards.

Listen and Enjoy!
ALL THINGS Considered! May'06

And an article on your PIGOVIAN Taxation.

My solution. TAX ILLEGAL DRUGS and make them LEGAL!

[djold1]

All the arguments, positions and statistics pro and con in the previous posts have some degree of merit.

In my opinion none of them make any difference at all.

Americans live in a free and loose society which attempts to allow each individual as much freedom as possible. When it comes to housing issues, historically those that are capable of determining their style of living just go ahead and do that comes closest to their current perception of an ideal living situation. And since we tend to migrate and to change without great penalty, then we may have the opportunity to turn from one option to the other more than once in our lives.

Basically, I think the often valid opinions about efficiency and cost and taxes pro & con are just so much bumpf to the average homebuyer or renter. If the place to live fits within the current vision then the statistics really don't make much difference. There are certainly some of us that try to live within an envelope that we consider more rational than emotional but what is rational to one is not to another. This is why open suburban expansion is acceptable to some and not to others.

This is also why the attempts to apply concerted intensive management to the developent of communities so seldom works. The imposition of the ideas of one group on another is not something that is easily accepted. And it shouldn't be.

In my opinion the most important thing that determines the majority housing choices within an urban area is its topography and geography. If these factors restrict horizontal expansion then density will increase and the housing will become more vertical. That's pretty simplistic but look at New York and San Francisco as examples. When the Fort Worth area reaches its natural geograpic bounds, then the density will increase.

And with density comes a new set of problems...

[safly]

You mean like RATS!

[djold1]

Safly...

I love it when you try to be subtle...

[Keller Pirate]

When the Fort Worth area reaches its natural geograpic bounds, then the density will increase.

Left to the city staff and developers the geographic boundaries may wind up being the state line.

For the people that didn't see "Subdivided" the new urbanists interviewed derided homes with more than 1400 sq feet and more than 2 bathrooms. That is why, with 3 1/2 baths I have to be against them on principle.

When I lived in Redlands California in 1978, a ballot proposition limited new homes in the city to 476 per year. This was a grass roots effort to slow growth and it passed. The city officials were opposed. They got together with the developers and decided that an apartment building would only count for 1 housing unit. So then we went on an apartment building boom in the 50-100 unit range. A few years later we had to go back to the ballot box to amend the law so that a 100 unit apartment complex counted 100 housing units. Then they went back to building houses.

City officials want the growth and they aren't going to change it unless people force them to.

[djold1]

Left to the city staff and developers the geographic boundaries may wind up being the state line.

That's a super good sound byte quote and I think I've heard it before somewhere in the past...

It's essentially true. If the majority of the people in the Fort Worth metro area want their communities to end at a town lake called the Red River, then is it wrong? Or is it just something that some minority in the area doesn't agree with? To test it, reverse the positions and let the majority advocate pushing 5 million people into the area between the Union Pacific Tracks and Meacham field on the premise that it would be much more efficient and tidy even though the living conditions would stink. And Safly's RATS would run rampant. Even though, unlike New York City, there is plenty of land for expansion.

Again, this is simplistic of course.

City officials/devlopers/city staff (Pick one or more) want the growth and they aren't going to change it unless people force them to.

It's the easiest thing in the world to blame something on elected officials and intimate that they are in the evil hands of developers that make Donald Trump look like a minister.

Until we realize that the majority of us put those people there, and that the majority of us can throw them out within a reasonable period of time if we decide they are not representing us correctly. The ulimate responsibility and the blame, if any, lies with us. If we don't tell them we want strong preservation are they supposed to divine it with with their little wooden sticks? If we don't tell them we want controlled, or uncontrolled or whatever expansion or contraction, then they are really left to wonder in the wilderness aren't they? They will listen to who will talk with them. If we don't like who is talking with them, then we must talk to them ourselves.

Recently, Fire Eater in another thread, decided to forego his fetish with chains and wrote a great preservation letter to a member of the City Council that got some real attention. It actually moved part of our little world.