These ARE bicycle issues. Anyone who has tried riding a bike
anywhere outside a velodrome has undoubtedly noticed that some kinds
of land-use are bike-friendly and others are not. Cul-de-sacs and
low-density single use developments tends to create an environment
where bikers have to travel long distances over dangerous roads to
get where they want to go. Traditional grids and multi-use
development, like the Madison Isthmus or TND subdivisions, tend to be
a lot safer and more pleasant for bikes.
Also -- we need to recognize that, in the real world, the alternative
to compact development and bike-friendly zoning is not Eric's
libertarian utopia. The default zoning rules favor sixties-style
suburban development, with freeways and cul-de-sacs, and discourage
narrow streets and bike-friendly grids.
If BFW is fighting for the interests of bicyclists, it makes a lot of
sense for BFW to support rules that encourage bike-friendly
development, in place of rules that make those developments illegal.
On Oct 28, 2007, at 12:30 AM, Eric Westhagen wrote:
Dear Eric Sundquist,
Certainly when we write in short pamphleteer clips it is easy to
pick this or that and form some attack. Certainly I did not
suggest that zoning was NOT the handmaiden of the STATE. In fact I
related the personal experience about "zoning changes" through
payoff and influence in Will County, Illinois. I did state that
there was little or no chance for the horror picture you painted as
happening. In fact I said that although zoning which exists
everywhere I have ever lived would not have allowed your scenario,
I said it would be actually the result of mandatory zoning surprise
changes which might make your neighborhood suddenly re-zonned
commercial or your farming lands suddenly subdivided residential.
But zoning or not, when a "big money deal" comes along, you will be
displaced by the STATE regardless of the method. A relative was
forced to move twice as O'Hare Airport was built and expanded,
finally ending up "at the Circle" in DesPlaines.
As far as the dates and when the term Zoning was applied to forced
local land use restrictions, possibly your source also mentioned
trivia about such restrictions dating from the 1860s.
I certainly don't intend to argue with you about whether Houston
remains without any forms of land restrictions--I just don't know.
I have been in most placed in the USA and zoning is used. I
brought up zoning as an "existing reality" which in most places
would save your house from becoming neighbor to a hog slaughter
house as you posed.
Without zoning I cannot envision such a thing happening either
without a tremendous lead time of a changing neighborhood and
supply of services in trucking, gigantic sewers, labor, etc. If
the location were not ideal, certainly banks would not finance a
slaughter business to open next to you. But if your "friends or
neighbors" met in the dark of night and rezoned your neighbor as a
"business development zone" or "industrial park", provided
infrastructure and tax incentives,----you could wake up the next
morning with bull dozers.
The point is----THESE ARE NOT BICYCLE ISSUES.
Eric Westhagen
Eric Sundquist wrote:
Zoning has not been around for centuries. It began in the U.S. in
1916 and began to take off in earnest after the Supreme Court
upheld Euclid, Ohio's ordinance in 1916, after it was challenged
as an infringement on property rights. But large parts of the
country still have no zoning. Houston is famous for this.
More to the point, you are relying on government, through zoning,
to plan and restrict other people's behavior to suit yourself. If
you were consistently libertarian, you would put up with the strip
mall in the name of freedom. But you are not consistent, on the
one hand complaining about big government and on the other relying
on big government to restrict others' freedom.
Ironically, keeping uses separated, as you seem to favor, along
with keeping densities low, are the chief abuses of zoning through
the decades. Among other things, these serve to make biking for
transportation very difficult. Smart growth tries to allow
developers -- the market -- to mix uses and provide more compact
development, while reining in traffic and giving the community a
say in the urban design. It's imperfect but more promising that
traditional Euclidean zoning or going Houston's route.
----- Original Message ----
From: Eric Westhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Eric Sundquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; BikiesSubmissions
<[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 5:31:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] Hitting a Nerve?
Dear Eric Sundquest,
Of course we have had zoning for centuries and we have another
dozen methods of controlling the "bundle of rights" which
constitutes "fee-simple" ownership of lands. To talk like your
description is nonsense. In fact it is only when GOVERNMENT
suddenly changes the status of your residential neighborhood to
commercial to accommodate those who use the STATE as their
"handmaiden" should you be concerned with the strip maul or
slaughter house next door. Government has always been used for
their total power to make such devastating changes. Zoning would
certainly protect you in your described situation, but just as
likely, zoning would have "suddenly created" the hazard you describe.
Also, I said in my previous post:-----<"The pros and cons of the
competing "institutions" of land controls in place in the USA
could be discussed endlessly. But whether or not the mission of
BFW should be in the middle of political land use IS THE
QUESTION.">----------
Eric Westhagen
Eric Sundquist wrote:
So it's OK with you if I buy the houses next to you, tear them
all and any trees down, and put in a strip mall with fast food
surrounded by asphalt? The extra 5,000 car trips a day on your
street won't be a problem for you? Super.
And maybe we'll throw in a hog rendering plant on the site for
good measure. Cause hogs got to be rendered somewhere, and since
you don't mind the truck traffic or stench, and are all in favor
of the property owner being able to do whatever he/she pleases on
the land, we might as well do it there, where you can be secure
in avoiding a "synthetic planned society."
ES
----- Original Message ----
From: Eric Westhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: BikiesSubmissions <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 4:21:28 PM
Subject: [Bikies] Hitting a Nerve?
Dear Group,
"Smart Land Use" seems to be rubbing a scab with those who are less
concerned with biking than they are about social planning and
control of
society. Why should a bicycle group be engaged at redirecting
land uses
into a synthetic "planned society?"
Etc.
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
