Dear Matt, Econ 101 would suggest to me that a developer would develop a site to most perfectly fit his determined "market of buyers." In our current world of "upwardly mobile man" this means that the result of business planning produces quite an "economic segregation." And, by this method a person who is concerned with his family financial welfare, will buy a house in a subdivision of similars which closely fills his need at that point in life and career. With that system, a businessman with a national organization can know approximately what his house is worth and how much his next move up the ladder and/or a move to another city will cost. This is the opposite approach to where an individual buys his "white elephant" which is a personal triumph of satisfaction, but might not find another buyer any time soon. So, around cities like Chicago, we see neighborhoods for each economic class. Sociologists have followed these trends for many decades.
The idea that people simply sign up for the biggest leveraged expenditure in their lives with "twenty-minutes" notice is absurd. That being said, I would expect that when possible, that a bicycle advocacy group, BFW should give their experienced input on bicycle mobility and pleasure issues when asked by developers and others who shape land use. But that is different from the BFW demanding that this or that be done "for the sake of bicycles, the environment, the estimated "future", etc., by those who might be imposing COERCION backed by fines and Orwellian police. Eric Matt Logan wrote: > Eric, > > My take on Smart Growth is similar to what Robbie posted earlier. > > I believe the benefits of Smart Growth for transportation-based > bicycling is that it puts the process of planning developments into the > public eye - where concerned bicyclists can give their input and > hopefully make changes that provide safer and easier access for > bicyclists. Otherwise, you get a more private process where developers > and certain non-elected city officials determine how easy it is to > commute by bicycle in the neighborhood. My experience is that bicycling > is usually the last thing developers care about. > > Developers are very short sighted. Their goal is to develop a property > with the lowest cost that will make them the most money. Econ 101 so > far right? Well, Econ 101 breaks down when consumers aren't diligent. > Studies have shown that most home buyers spend 20 minutes or less > inspecting a home site before they decide to purchase. And whatever > people notice in that 20 minutes is what the developer cares about, > nothing more. > > Unfortunately, neighborhoods last for hundreds of years. Once people > actually move into a neighborhood and live there, they discover the > problems they overlooked in their initial 20-minute inspection - and > they complain to their traffic engineer - loudly. Clearly, these > problems matter to consumers, they just don't put the effort in up front > to recognize them. > > What is worse, neighborhood layout problems are usually much more > expensive to address after the concrete has been poured. In some cases, > problems are impossible to address - like creating ped-bike linkages > thru the neighborhood that allow for things like walking 1/4 mile to > school rather than feeling compelled to drive 1.5 miles due to the > distance. 37% of rush hour traffic is school drop-offs. Imagine how > much money a city could save on capacity expansion if more kids had a > more direct route to school. > > But, as Robbie also said, if residents of a municipality don't care > about any of that, then there is no reason to go to the extra effort to > involve the public - they can choose not to participate in public > hearings and let the developers and unelected city officials determine > the configuration of their neighborhoods. > > The fact that the city has to at least offer the public a chance to give > their input may be coerced by the Smart Growth law, but beyond that the > actual land use plan can be left entirely up to market forces if that is > what the residents want. > > Given all that, I believe it is serving bicyclists well for the BFW to > support the Smart Growth law as it is written today. My experience with > City Government in Madison, and the process of how bicycling gets better > here confirms how important it is for bicyclists to be provided the > opportunity to give their input. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Westhagen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:04 PM > To: Matt Logan > Subject: Re: intentional provocation? > > Dear Matt, > > Well please clear up the question as to whether or not Smart Growth and > a > subsequent BFW involvement is meant to be "only advisory" on land use > and > land rights? Otherwise, it is COERCIVE to those with other ideas? And > if > cumpulsory, how can the use of my adjective be a "loaded" term? > > Eric > > Matt Logan wrote: > > > Eric, > > > > The reason you are seeing "every word trigger a thread going off at > > ninety degrees" is because of your use of such phrases as "coercive > land > > planning" to describe Smart Growth. This is in effect an invitation > to > > debate the applicability of that phrase, and you should not be > surprised > > when your use language in this way triggers such debates in the > future. > > > > The way to get people to read just what you were asking Richard > Schwinn > > is to just ask him without loading up your message with what most > bikies > > consider provocative language. > > > > Good luck. > > > > - Matt Logan. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > Behalf Of Eric Westhagen > > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:40 PM > > To: Schimpff, Jeff A - DNR; BikiesSubmissions > > Subject: Re: [Bikies] Vagueness in "Smart Growth" Statements > > > > Dear Jeff Schimpff, > > > > Without sounding "redundant", maybe you should read just what I was > > asking > > Richard Schwinn-----and it wasn't a continuation of just what is or > > isn't > > coercive land planning, called--Smart Growth! Does every word trigger > a > > thread going off at "ninety degrees?" Maybe you will break into > another > > description of the global warming controversy or "peak oil?" > > > > EW > > > > "Schimpff, Jeff A - DNR" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like someone would like to know more about comprehensive > > > planning in Wisconsin, sometimes referred to as "smart growth." > Here > > at > > > the link below is a brief, good summary of what state law requires. > > > > > > Aside from requiring that a few paragraphs and maps be included in a > > > plan to describe the current conditions and future desired > conditions > > of > > > a community, regarding 8 or 9 elements that are common to good land > > use > > > plans everywhere, and a requirement that plans be reviewed every ten > > > years, there is nothing "coercive" or prescriptive about > comprehensive > > > planning as required by the Wisconsin legislature. > > > > > > All the details are left up to local citizens and their elected > > > representatives. Your local plan stinks? Property rights being > > > trampled? Your community is a lousy place to live or do business? > > Then > > > clean out "city hall" and start over. This does not fit even the > > > loosest concept of a "coercive" system: > > > > > > http://learningstore.uwex.edu/pdf/G3749.pdf > > > > > > Jeff Schimpff > > > Bureau of Science Services > > > Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources > > > "Bus, Bike, Walk or Carpool to Work for Clean Air for Kids" > > > (*) phone: (608) 267- 7853 > > > (*) fax: (608) 267-5231 > > > (*) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On > > > Behalf Of Eric Westhagen > > > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:46 PM > > > To: BikiesSubmissions > > > Subject: [Bikies] Vagueness in Richard Schwinn's Statement > > > > > > Dear Richard, > > > > > > I am not clear as to what you have said in this paragraph. In your > > > earlier paragraph you say that you "personally" agree with coercive > > land > > > planning, called SMART GROWTH in this context. But then you say: . > . > > > .---- > > > > > > <"While I have no reason to believe that anyone was trying to > mislead > > > the board with this statement, there was also no specific approval > of > > > it, either. Eliminating this reference doesn't mean the Bike Fed or > > the > > > Board rejects Smart Growth or other causes. It means the > organization > > > can focus more on bicycles."> > > > > > > It would seem to me that an organization should "officially" act > > > according to their "policy or platform" as determined by their > board. > > > Particularly this should be the case when an advocacy organization > > > seeks "publicly financed money, either in grants or contracts." But > > > this is only honesty with paying members as well. If the policy > then > > > includes------"coersive land reform" as well as direct bicycle > issues, > > > then potential members would weigh the conflicts with their own > > > "values." But if the group intends to advocate with full scale > > lobbying > > > or "official" letters of support for "emissions controls, anti-war, > > > political parties, land reforms, collectivist housing, > re-establishing > > > mandatory zoning for or against auto parking, etc., > > etc.,"----------THEN > > > IT SHOULD BE STATED DIRECTLY IN POLICY STATEMENTS FOR MEMBERS AND > > OTHER > > > "FUNDERS." THAT IS BASIC HONESTY. Certainly we all deplore > dishonest > > > lobbies, which abound, when they do not agree with use, therefore > such > > > practices should not be suggested or condoned with BFW. > > > > > > Eric Westhagen > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Bikies mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bikies mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
