I am a “former” member of the Planning Commission for my town. It’s a small town but has a large area the city annexed over the past 15 years w/o sewers and with large lots - 1 acre minimum most at least 2 acres and parts of farms which have been split up into 10-20 acre parcels. The Planning Commission supported “infilling” these properties and moving towards much higher density all over town - virtually ruining the landscape and character of the large lot neighborhoods. I was so pissed off I quit the Planning Commission and make it a point to keep a close eye on them and showing up at any meeting where they discuss such items.

The way they pull all this off is by rezoning huge areas and also by designating roads as arterial roads where they want development infill. The public has input but they are so damn sneaky they don’t provide the public with the information until the meetings so the people don’t even have time to properly read or prepare for their rebuttal.

And MAKE NO MISTAKE. Almost every Planning Commission consists of engineers, architects, builders, and bankers and they all want development. They can’t rule on anything they have a direct interest in but you can be sure there are plenty of back room deals going on.

And now, we have uber liberals who want to further dictate how we live and where we live and I know they’ll have the complete support of city officials.

This is going to be one uphill battle for those of us who feel the way we do.

Left by Dianne on February 21st, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Are you kidding? Do you not think there is “social engineering” involved with the current system?

I don’t know about you but the price (and therefore size and location) of my home was influenced by Federal mortgage deduction and local and state tax rates.

I know that growing up my parents chose to move to a (98% white) suburb in order to get me a better education than we would have gotten if we had been 2 miles away across the county line. I’m sure an added benefit was lower taxes. This is social engineering in the form of tax and education policy.

Left by Preston on February 21st, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Here’s what’s going to happen under the Democrats. They are going to change the mortgage tax deduction to accomplish their objectives. At the very least, they’ll cap it at say $250K. Then, they’ll give the monies made from the cap to high density developers in the form of special tax breaks, zoning, and energy rebates.

And that my friend Preston, is social engineering.

Left by Dianne on February 21st, 2008 at 2:47 pm

No, they most certainly won’t cap the interest deduction at 250k- considering that some of the highest housing costs in the country are in ‘blue states’.

So it’s common sense when tax policy is used toward a result you support and it’s social engineering it is used toward a result you don’t favor?

As for the goals you apparently oppose- I’m astounded. Over and over, I read here about how nothing must be spared in our fight against Islamic fundamentalists. How about energy independence and a reduction in the piles of money we are giving Saudi Arabia for their Wahhabist evangelism?

[Editor --- that's why I favor drilling in ANWAR. That is why I favor more motorcycles and less cars on the road. That's why I favor nuclear energy. The other nice thing about my large lot? I have more than 100 trees on my lot. Some decades old Live Oaks, some large cedars, and several other species. You know how many trees fit on an acre lot that houses 13 families? Well, unless that development is 13 stories tall + parking, the answer is very close to zero. Why do liberals hate trees? ]

Left by Preston on February 21st, 2008 at 3:52 pm

I know you’re being snarky but I will speak to an imaginary audience that may not realize that 13 houses on 13 acres will destroy many, many more trees than 13 units on one acre leaving 12 acres untouched.

To quote Atrios- this is what “hellish density” looks like.

Actually, a back of the envelope calculation (3 family buildings on 25′x100′ lots) suggests that this photo is what 51 units per acre looks like (not counting infrastructure). No one is advocating forcing people to move into these apartments but current Federal, state, and local policy I’ve described above discourages this and even more moderate levels of density.

Left by Preston on February 21st, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Preston - Dingle has already been involved in proposing a cap based on square footage and one of Bush’s advisory panels also previously proposed putting caps on. I would expect those proposals are probably on the back burner now due to the foreclosure crisis, but the day is coming and it will be linked to global warming and energy reform.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/26/REI8RLUB6.DTL

Left by Dianne on February 21st, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Sure sounds like the bad ol’days of the Soviet Union, being told how and where you will reside.
Not me, I’m gonna move to the outskirts of town.

Left by no2liberals on February 21st, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Dianne-

Sure, it makes sense not to subsidize Bill Gates’s mansion. I just don’t think your average homeowner will be affected by any proposal such as this.

No2-

Didn’t you read anything above? You ALREADY ARE ‘being told how and where you will reside’. Our school systems and local services are funded by gerrymandered districts that encourage people to drive to the next jurisdiction to find a cheaper tax rate. You get a tax deduction if you take a loan to buy a house but not if you live in an apartment and take a loan to buy an RV or anything else you can imagine.

Then there are the unpaid externalities inherent in sprawling infrastructure necessary in suburban development: highways and sewers and the chewed up landscape around cities that a generation ago was prime farmland. Then there are the unpaid costs of a suburban economy fueled by gasoline: asthma from air pollution, 40,000 dead from automobile accidents, and a standing army in the Persian Gulf to protect our supply of petroleum.

Whatever, we can choose that lifestyle if we want- but spare me the self-righteous autonomous man shtick: the suburban lifestyle is a political creation.

Left by Preston on February 21st, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Preston, of course I read the above, and the below.
All I’m saying is I ain’t gonna live in no commune with a bunch of assholes. You can over think all of this if you chose, but it is the order of things, and the alternative of sharing one acre with so many is completely unappealing. If all our community planning is a political creation, then I chose my own space, not communal space.
And spare me your self-righteousness. Your view is only superior to you.

Left by no2liberals on February 21st, 2008 at 10:09 pm

All I’m saying is I ain’t gonna live in no commune with a bunch of assholes.

Why does it not surprise me that having a neighbor strikes anti-social chord from you?

Left by Preston on February 21st, 2008 at 11:00 pm

I’m not surprised by anything that does or doesn’t surprises you.
A neighbor? Since when is being jammed into such a small space with so many assholes justify calling them neighbors? If someone wants to live in an apartment complex, fine. Requiring residents to live in an overcrowded commune is unacceptable to me. I’ve had problems with neighbors all of my life, whether I lived in a 2500sq ft home with a huge yard and privacy fenced back yard, or a condo. Come to think of it, I’ve had problems with my neighbors on my lake property, and seldom get there. I don’t know or care where you live, but I live in Texas, and space is one thing we have, and enjoy.

Left by no2liberals on February 21st, 2008 at 11:38 pm

I’ve had problems with neighbors all of my life, whether I lived in a 2500sq ft home with a huge yard and privacy fenced back yard, or a condo.

And this doesn’t provoke any self-reflection? In any case- 13 units per acre is hardly ‘jammed’. Take a look at a shopping mall parking lot- do you really see this as an efficient use of land? For that matter, take a look at the roof of that shopping mall- in previous generations there would have been affordable (and convenient) housing built there. Your government’s policy typically prevents this from happening.

Left by Preston on February 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 am

Robbie, Sounds to me like you’ve got prime crawfish / bbq property there. As for the whole density crap, I always shake my head, as I’m sure you may, too, when you hear people talking about the need to cram more warm bodies into smaller parcels of space. There almost never is a corresponding argument made for meeting the ensuing needs of that many bodies in that small a space. I look at downtown Austin and, while I love the new buildings and the growth, how many grocery stores are going to be built? Convenience stores? Small grocers, markets, gas stations? Are all the people expected to move into downtown going to shop at Whole Foods? Are they going to rely on the craptastic bus schedule to go to a non-exclusive grocery store?

If the support system for that many people isn’t in place and easily reached on foot or by rail/bus, people have to drive, which means more congestion, more traffic, more frustration, and the whole point being espoused by density advocates is lost.

Left by everett on February 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 am

Yeah, the reflection is that there are always assholes, no matter where I go, especially when I inform an asshole neighbor that they have a dying tree that needs to be taken care of, before it falls on my house. They do nothing, and it falls on my house, and I have to sue them for damages, yeah, that is cause for self-reflection, I should have called code enforcement on them first, instead of thinking that the asshole neighbor would take care of it. I don’t like the “garden home” concept either, with houses pressed close to each other, and with out a front or back yard. Thirteen homes in an acre represents about 3350sq ft per home. I suppose one could build a two or three story structure, and still have adequate living space and a small yard. The problem I have with this story is, that it is some one’s requirement that we build and live that way. I will always resist being told how to live by some dingus. If people chose to live that way, it is another matter.
For me, an acre makes a nice back yard.

Left by no2liberals on February 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 am

I will always resist being told how to live

I hate to break it to you but the government is already doing it through the methods I described above: tax code, tax jurisdictions, building codes, zoning restrictions, etc. Currently, these legal ‘persuasions’ are encouraging the large lot development you prefer so, once again, I’d remind you that your cowboy posture is backed by the government and eggheads you seem to despise.

Left by Preston on February 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 am

Preston, give it a rest. There have always been those entities in my lifetime, and always will be. That doesn’t mean I have to submit to living the way this dingus suggests.
My sanctum sanctorum, which is where I will retire to, is in an unincorporated area, with only the county and ISD to contend with, and those government entities are stacked with old friends and like minded people. If I want to go outside and have target practice, start a bonfire, I just do it, unless the county has declared a burn ban.
I tolerate city life, for now, as it is profitable.

Left by no2liberals on February 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 am

There have always been those entities in my lifetime, and always will be.

Exactly my point.

You’ve been thrilled to have government using it’s power to prevent, say, a man from building an apartment building on his own land next door to your house. But when someone suggests that we should pursue policies that contribute to the preservation of farmland and wildlife and the reduction of petroleum dependency you decry those governmental tools as ‘Soviet’.

Your passion for liberty is a bit fickle for my taste.

Left by Preston on February 22nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Your thinking is a bit to bizarre for my taste.
Current policies tend to follow what most people want. One dingus trying to tell what most people are required to accept is anathema, and Soviet style.
We have plenty of petroleum of our own, we just need to change the wacko policies that prevent us from extracting it.

Left by no2liberals on February 22nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm

We have plenty of petroleum of our own
Do actually believe what you write or is it just good propaganda? I assume you’re talking about ANWR:

Opening the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reduce 2025 oil import dependence from 70 percent in the AEO2004 reference case to 66 percent in the mean resource case.

Current policies tend to follow what most people want.
You’re idealism is refreshing. Maybe Dianne can educate you about who calls the shots in zoning board hearings.

Left by Preston on February 22nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Preston, maybe you should do some research on your own, without relying on others to provide you links, you lazy asshole. All of our coastal drilling is banned except for a tiny section of the Gulf of Mexico. The tiny section they want to drill in ANWR is but a drop in the bucket, compared to what is available in that state.
I’ve had issues with zoning commissions and appraisal districts, different results are to be expected, which is why those local elections are so important.

Left by no2liberals on February 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm

I know that growing up my parents chose to move to a (98% white) suburb in order to get me a better education than we would have gotten if we had been 2 miles away across the county line.

This is liberal speak for: Minorities were moving in and we got the hell out of dodge!

Left by Anonymous on February 24th, 2008 at 9:00 am

Actually, we moved from another town.

I think the whole point of that comment was to acknowledge- not deny- the economic and racial inequity of current housing, educational, and taxation systems.

Luckily, my parents were a position to offer me the best (public) education available in town. I don’t feel guilty about that but I do feel an obligation to point out that this system does not serve all Americans equally.

Left by Preston on February 24th, 2008 at 10:21 am

Why is the editor putting his neo-con two cents in? The editor should be objective; not bias. Ugh

Left by Vic on June 13th, 2008 at 10:23 am