SmartGrowth in Island County. From the Whidbey News Times:

Judges to county: Bucks stop here

Feb 12 2000 6:18PM By Chris Douthitt staff reporter The county's top judges told commissioners Wednesday they will not approve another contract for outside legal counsel Keith Dearborn or his firm. Superior Court Justices Vickie Churchill and Alan Hancock said the nearly three-quarters of a million dollars of county money already spent on Dearborn for his oversight of the county's growth planning process was "astonishing" and far in excess of what they had originally been asked to approve. Dearborn, a Seattle-based land-use attorney, was retained by the county late in 1998 at a cost of $60,000 to help "coach" the Planning Commission, Planning Department and board of commissioners through the completion of the county's Comprehensive Plan for growth. But several supplemental contracts and amendments later, the fees for Dearborn and his law partner and wife Alison Moss have topped $722,000, with no definite end in sight. Churchill and Hancock said that Dearborn and Moss have been draining an average of more than $30,000 per month from county coffers. "That is, in our judgement ... a stunning amount of money," Churchill said to commissioners during a staff meeting Wednesday. "It is grossly excessive." The judges' announcement underscores the high price the county is paying for growth planning, but the commissioners say Dearborn has earned his paycheck and insist they will try to find another way to keep him involved. By law, the presiding judge in the county must approve all county contracts with attorneys other than the government's own prosecuting attorney. Up until now the judges have approved contracts totaling only $235,000 for Dearborn and the Dearborn and Moss firm. The rest of the $722,000-plus has been approved directly by the commissioners, who are allowed to amend the contracts by majority vote as needed. The current contract with Dearborn and Moss expired Friday. The commissioners had asked Churchill and Hancock to approve a new contract through the end of the year with costs not to exceed $200,000. "We can't in good conscience allow this to continue," said Churchill. "I'm not going to continue to put my name on this. It's a blank check." Hancock said he and Churchill assess outside attorney fees on a regular basis. He said the most the two have ever authorized prior to Dearborn was $75,000 for a murder case. The commissioners admitted the costs of planning are high but said the judges' decision was short-sighted and poorly timed. Dearborn's firm is currently defending the legality of parts of the county's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, at the same time the judges were meeting with the commissioners Wednesday, Dearborn and Moss were across the street arguing the county's position before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. "I acknowledge that you have the right to do what you're doing," commissioner Bill Thorn said to Churchill and Hancock. "But I don't think you understand the problem and I don't think you understand the complexity. We're not looking at routine attorney work." Thorn and fellow commissioner Mac McDowell told the judges that Dearborn literally rescued the county's floundering planning process and has brought it nearly to completion. "The thing was in shambles," McDowell said of the county's pre-Dearborn planning. "He made sense out of our process." McDowell said other counties have spent millions of dollars on their plans and are nowhere close to finished. "We hired him at the end of '98 and here we are at the beginning of 2000 and we are the first county to have a completed plan and regulations," he said. "In that respect, Keith has earned more than his keep." But Churchill and Hancock pointed to expenses they considered out-of-line, excessive or the result of poor oversight. "In March, one response brief cost the county $30,000 to $46,000. It must have been one heck of a brief," Churchill said. Churchill also singled out a cost of $2,450 for copies billed by Dearborn. "You can buy a copy machine for this amount of money," she said. Hancock questioned why the county was paying Dearborn and Moss at attorney rates of $180 per hour when much of their work was actually planning consultation. He said planning consultants normally charge about a third as much. The judges also expressed concern with the county's apparent lack of control over Dearborn's hours, pointing out instances where Dearborn billed for more than 20 hours of work in a single day. McDowell said he wasn't surprised by bills for long days. He said he was often able to reach Dearborn at his office late at night working on the county's plan. Under the proposed new contract, Dearborn and Moss had offered to lower their hourly rate from $180 to $100 per hour for some work. This was in response to the judges' request for some sort of cost containment. Commissioner Mike Shelton said that pulling Dearborn and Moss out of the process now could jeopardize the completion of the plan and call into question the value of the money already spent. McDowell questioned the judges' opinion that the Island County Prosecutor's Office could realistically do what Dearborn is doing - providing legal counsel, land-use planning guidance, overseeing negotiations with groups appealing the Comprehensive Plan and attending numerous meetings and hearings. Prosecuting Attorney Greg Banks said that his office could step in and serve as legal counsel for the county but he did not commit to the other aspects of Dearborn's job. On the other hand, Banks said he basically agreed with Churchill and Hancock's decision. "$700,000 funds my whole office for a year," he said. "It doesn't seem like you're getting the value for your money." McDowell said the commissioners still have the authority to rehire Dearborn as a planning consultant rather than an attorney thus avoiding the judges' approval process.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000

Answers

Question: What big city has the highest population density, the goal of SmartGrowth?

These are the six most populous metropolitan areas in the US, and their population density for the transit areas served:

1) New York City 5407 people per square mile 2) Los Angeles 5800 people per square mile 3) Chicago 4285 people per square mile 4) Philadelphia 3627 people per square mile 5) Detroit 3301 people per square mile 6) San Francisco 4152 people per square mile

Where is Seattle/King County? Number 18 with 2966 people per square mile.

Whats the point?

It is interesting that the SmartGrowth people are selling population density as a REMEDY for the problems of Los Angeles when in fact the population density of LA is what they are trying to emulate.

It is also interesting that only New York City and Chicago get more than about 5% of their passenger miles from transit of any kind (and Chicago barely that). If we were to double the population density of the King County metro area to match LA, and manage to increase the transit market share to twice that of Chicago (2*5=10%) or even up to that of New York (call it 30%,depending on how far into the suburbs you wish to go), the math just doesnt add up to less congestion. You double the traffic and subtract 10% or 30% respectively and you still wind up with a whole lot more traffic than what you started with. Nobody who can do simple arithmetic ought to think that this is going to mean a decrease in congestion.

This kind of leads to the inescapable conclusion that the SmartGrowth people WANT congestion.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000.

Oh, and I suppose that suburban sprawl development has done WONDERS to relieve traffic congestion in suburbia, hasn't it, Craig? Or have you never sat in traffic for two hours in Renton?

Give me a break.

Craig, concerning your opinion about Smart Growth, you're wrong as usual. It seems you only read bits and pieces of what Smart Growth is about and drew inaccurate conclusions. I suggest you go back and read the rest of it. But since your primary goal in life is to simply oppose anything I say, it would be kind of pointless for me to continue this thread any further, wouldn't it?

PS: Craig, you seem to have waaaaayyy too much free time to post to this forum, don't you? You make long, extended postings to this 695 forum nearly three or four times per day: certainly more than one would expect from a normal Joe citizen.

This leads me to believe, Craig, that possibly you're not just a concerned citizen. It leads me to believe that you have professional interests in mind, and that you personally benefit from sprawl: Are you a developer? Land prospector? Road builder? Auto-industry employee? Do you work for a developer or the auto industry in some capacity? Do tell!

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

CS,

These are all very good points you raise about Craig and his opinions.

We pay him quite a high fee to spend a few minutes daily posting in this forum to spout our "populist" propaganda.

But, alas, you have found us out. ;)

Sorry Craig, I couldn't resist the temptation to tease the little bugger! I have yet to see anything but an emotionally driven appeal from this person. He never seems to be able to back up his opinions with anything close to facts. Now he thinks he is doing a fine job of questioning your motives. Feel free to enlighten us anytime! I appreciate your efforts.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

"I suggest you go back and read the rest of it. But since your primary goal in life is to simply oppose anything I say"

Gosh CS- The truth is out. I was hired by a group of individuals that YOU have personally offended, and they are subsidizing me full time to shadow you, read everything you post on the internet, and do research for the SOLE purpose of opposing what you say.

If you look at all the postings that other individuals have put up, you will see that not once have I opposed anything else posted by others, and not once have I made suggestions or proposals of my own.

I have not ever debated issues with BB or d or Gene or Calvo or any of the others who post opinions here contrary to mine. I exist to harass you through my postings.

Are we getting just a little paranoid CS, as well as illogical?

You wouldn't care to address THE POINT of this posting, would you? Do you dispute that doubling the population density while increasing the transit market share to 30% would STILL lead to 170% of current traffic using the same streets?

I HAVE read the SmartGrowth and New Urban Planner literature at length. It appears to have been constructed by PHD sociologists who never learned how to do long division. Don't give me homilies and mantras. Explain the mathematics of how this will work.

-- Craig Carsons (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 16, 2000.

>"Explain the mathematics of how this will work."

Sorry, Craig. You can't bait me anymore. I know an ambush when I see one. When I start working the math with you, the discussion would go something like this:

ME: "For years Atlanta tried to ward all traffic problems by building more miles of highways per capita than any other urban area except Kansas City - - more than 1 Freeway mile per 1,000 residents in Fulton County and the surrounding two counties. Partially because of this, Atlantans drive an average of 45 miles a day, more than residents of any other city in North America. In 1998, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution asked readers what three things they most disliked about their city. The top three answers, in order: 1. Too many highways, 2. things are built too far apart, 3. The humidity in July." (source: USA Today, a fact supported by the USFHA)

CRAIG: "Yeah, well, my Ph.D. in highway construction shows that the reverse is true: Atlanta didn't build ENOUGH highways. My research shows that in order for a society to work properly, there should be at least 1,000 four-lane highways for every man, woman, and child in the state. And there should be an on-ramp to the freeway directly out of every home-owner's driveway. You see, if you take the cosign divided by 0.00005 of the tangent, minus the population of Walla Walla, we see that the reverse 1/100th percentile gives us a ratio that shows if we build a thirty-eight lane freeway through Wallingford, it should relieve traffic in Kent."

ME: But what about the people who live in Wallingford?

CRAIG: Well, they obviously don't know what's good for them. If they don't want the highway, than it's their own fault for not moving out to the suburbs. What are they doing living in Wallingford, anyway? Are they freaks or something? I would never live there, and so therefore they have no right to live there, either. I, Criag, know what's best for them, and what's best for them is a thirty-eight lane freeway alongside their house. The math supports it.

ME: Screw the math! Take your head off of your protractor for a second and ask residents what they REALLY want.

CRAIG: What they really want? Well I know that what they REALLY want is less traffic congestion!

ME: Why?

CRAIG: So that they can have more peaceful neighborhoods and shorter commute times.

ME: AHA! So less traffic is only secondary. What they REALLY want is peaceful neighborhoods and shorter commute times.

CRAIG: Well, I guess so.

ME: So why not build more peaceful neighborhoods in the first place? And to shorten commute times, why not make it more convienient and attractive to live closer to work in the first place?

CRAIG: Well. . .the math, damit! The math! Don't talk to me about conceptual things. I can't deal with conceptuals. Let's talk about the math! the math! the math!

ME: (sigh).

So you see Craig, you can go talk about the math all you want. Me? My thoughts tend to be on a much grander scale that gets to the heart of the entire issue. Why debate the price of a restaurant meal when we all know it's cheaper to eat at home? Go talk about the math at the restaurant. I'll choose the cheaper option.

I'm Common Sense.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

"Explain the mathematics of how this will work."

Sorry, Craig. You can't bait me anymore. I know an ambush when I see one.

Blah blah blah....

"So you see Craig, you can go talk about the math all you want. Me? My thoughts tend to be on a much grander scale that gets to the heart of the entire issue."

Certainly not what I would call an intelligent response. "grander scale" or "Delusions of Grandeur"?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

I know what you mean CS. I certainly wish I had the time to post half a dozen messages and track down a bunch of case studies during my work day. But then again, my life doesn't revolve around this message board.

I am a little confused about the title of this thread though. I thought SmartGrowth was a network of national, regional, and local coalitions to encourage metropolitan development. Kind of like a think tank and clearing house for growth management ideas. So how could an initiative repeal it? Seems that would be like trying to repeal the Cato Institute. I suppose we could repeal the GMA. If Craig wanted, he could fork over the $5 to file the initiative and collect the signatures. But if the previous two efforts to repeal it are any indication, that would be a waste of $5 (both failed to get enough signatures).

I'm going to have to claim only a passing knowledge of both the SmartGrowth and GMA goals since my job does require me to do other things with my time besides pour over studies not related to my workload, but I'm thinking Craig's suggestion that they want to copy LA's density is just a tad simplistic. The goal of the GMA is to encourage growth where existing development already exists. LA's policy was to encourage growth outwards, which is why it now sprawls halfway to Arizona. Silly us, instead of WANTING to make places like North Bend the land of track housing, we wanted to try to conserve our open spaces and get people to live where other people live. Social Engineering? Yeah. But it beats the alternative of living in an LA type environment where half the time the air is more toxic than a Superfund site.

But again Craig, $5 is all it takes to put your suggestion into action. Then again, it probably would be fairly difficult to mobilize a significant pro-sprawl movement in this state.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 16, 2000.

CS-

That is the most involved strawman argument I've EVER seen. And you accuse ME of spending my life posting on this board!

But if you can't answer a simple question of how going from 3000 people/mile^2 using transit at a 2% rate to going to 5800 people/mile^2 using transit at a 30% rate doesn't amount to a net gain of 70% of people trying to use the same roads, and a huge increase in congestion, you either HAVE NO ANSWER (and are being intetionally evasive) or you aren't MUCH of an advocate for SmartGrowth if you truly are an urban planner.

This isn't rocket science CS, it's scarcely long division.

Forget the ad hominem attacks, forget the strawman arguments, and explain this one simple issue.

Patrick, as long as you're sticking your 2 cents worth in here (also trying to derail this thread onto side tracks rather than SIMPLY RESPONDING TO THE QUESTION). I'll pose the same question to you; IF DOUBLING THE POPULATION DENSITY IS ONLY ACCOMPANIED BY A 28% INCREASE IN TRANSIT USE, WHY DON'T YOU THINK WE'LL WIND UP WITH A LOT MORE CONGESTION AFTER WE INCREASE THE POPULATION DENSITY THAN BEFORE. If you can't answer this, why do you want to increase the population density?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 16, 2000.

"Certainly not what I would call an intelligent response. "grander scale" or "Delusions of Grandeur"? " My assessment, Marsha, would be delusions of ADEQUACY, working up to delusions of grandeur.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

There goes Craig again: "The math, damn you! The math! The math! The math!" (I'm paraphrasing, of course.)

*Sigh.*

Craig, your math is flawless. There are no errors. You are God.

Now that I've stroked your ego, oh holy one, can you answer a question for ME? If your math is so great, can you mathematically show how suburban development DECREASES traffic congestion, both regionally and within the suburban development itself? I'd love to see that formula, because every mathematical calculation I've ever seen shows the exact opposite.

Enlighten me.

I mean, let's be fair: If you're going to say that increasing the population density also increases traffic congestion, isn't it also true that building an auto-centric culture (conventional suburban development) is a more efficient way to increase traffic congestion, too? It seems logical to me that if you build suburbia for cars, than one should expect a plethora of cars to follow. Disprove this with math, Craig, and I may agree that your math is flawless. But then I'll ask you to look up from your calculator and take a peek out the window. . . .

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

"Now that I've stroked your ego, oh holy one, can you answer a question for ME? If your math is so great, can you mathematically show how suburban development DECREASES traffic congestion, both regionally and within the suburban development itself? I'd love to see that formula, because every mathematical calculation I've ever seen shows the exact opposite.

Enlighten me "

If you will just answer the question ASKED for once, rather than trying to change the subject, I'll enlighten you as much as I can. But the question that was ASKED which you seem to be either consciously or unconsciously avoiding is: IF YOU DOUBLE THE POPULATION DENSITY AND ONLY PUSH THE TRANSIT PASSENGER MILE SHARE FROM 2% (WHICH IT IS CURRENTLY) TO 30% (WHICH IT IS IN THE NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN AREA) AREN'T YOU GOING TO HAVE 170% OF THE TRAFFIC ON THE SAME STREETS INCREASING CONGESTION? This isn't about stroking egos, it's about determining if you are capable of making a rational case for the major tenet of Smartgrowth. If you are, great, you can enlighten me. If you CAN'T, then you need to decide if you need to research more, or if you are content to believe in something on blind faith. If the latter, so be it, it's your religion and in this country you're free to proselytize to your heart's content. But don't claim it's logic based, admit that it's faith based.

"every mathematical calculation I've ever seen shows the exact opposite. " I await REFERENCES for these alleged mathematical calculations with 'bated breath. Where are they?

"If you're going to say that increasing the population density also increases traffic congestion," Do you have serious doubts about this?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 17, 2000.

Craig:

I see you've missed my point entirely. Next time I'll keep my postings much, much, shorter so that you can focus on one thing and one thing only.

But since I don't live on this forum as you do, I can't devote time to re-phrasing them right now. I'm not avoiding the issue (so hold your tounge, Zowie!): I simply must be off to work! (Some of us do have other jobs, you know.)

But since you seem to LIVE on this forum (in fact, this form seems to be your job these days?), I'm sure you'll write countless essays about me and my ideas until I return. I wish I could lurk on this forum all day as you seem to do, but work beckons. I look forward to reading your postings much later tonight when I have a chance to log in again.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

[I see you've missed my point entirely.] No he hasn't. He understands that you are trying to obfuscate, delay, change the subject, and otherwise avoid answering a simple question that demonstrates a critical flaw in the concept that you are advocating. And unlike previous times when you've wriggled off the hook, he's holding you to a response to that question. Took him awhile to figure out that he needed to do it, but he's doing it fairly well now that he's gotten the idea. Not great, you've lured him away with a few red herrings, but fairly well.

[Next time I'll keep my postings much, much, shorter so that you can focus on one thing and one thing only.] That's precisely what Craig is trying to do. It makes your evasions that much more apparent.

[But since I don't live on this forum as you do,] An implied criticism, and since you're continuing the dialogue voluntarily, a cheap shot.

[I can't devote time to re-phrasing them right now.] an excuse and a stall.

[I'm not avoiding the issue (so hold your tounge, Zowie!)] of course you are. You didn't have to put up this posting at all, and we'd have simply assumed that you hadn't logged on yet. You obviously had time to make the excuse, but we are to assume that you didn't have time to answer as simple a question as the one posed by Craig? Get real!

[I simply must be off to work!] Another excuse, with a justification.

[(Some of us do have other jobs, you know.)] A rationalization, pretty supeficial, with implied criticism.

[But since you seem to LIVE on this forum (in fact, this form seems to be your job these days?),] Another cheap shot.

[I'm sure you'll write countless essays about me and my ideas until I return. I wish I could lurk on this forum all day as you seem to do, but work beckons.] Another cheap shot.

[I look forward to reading your postings much later tonight when I have a chance to log in again.] But not enough to answer a simple question.

Thanks CS, for your marvelous contribution to the dialogue on this forum.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

CS response to Craig "(in fact, this form seems to be your job these days?)"

and then "I simply must be off to work! (Some of us do have other jobs, you know.)"

So posting in this forum is one of your "other jobs". I find that an interesting slip. The inclusion of the word OTHER means....

If somebody pays you to post here, they aren't getting their moneys worth.

For most of us, posting in the forum is not a job. The fact that you allude that it is, for Craig or yourself, means you personally, must be a sneaky, scum sucking, paid, liberal. With the morals of "Clinton".

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

[If somebody pays you to post here, they aren't getting their moneys worth.] Unkind, Marsha. Totally accurate however.

[For most of us, posting in the forum is not a job. The fact that you allude that it is, for Craig or yourself, means you personally, must be a sneaky, scum sucking, paid, liberal. With the morals of "Clinton".] Don't hold back, Marsha, tell him how you REALLY feel. ;-)

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

CS is dodging and Patrick is ignoring, but I'll repost Craig's question pasted in from above just the same:

[If we were to double the population density of the King County metro area to match LA, and manage to increase the transit market share to twice that of Chicago (2*5=10%) or even up to that of New York (call it 30%,depending on how far into the suburbs you wish to go), the math just doesnt add up to less congestion. You double the traffic and subtract 10% or 30% respectively and you still wind up with a whole lot more traffic than what you started with. ]

So tell us you two, is he wrong or right? How do you get less congestion when you have more people in less space and the transit use doesn't go up enough to offset the increase in traffic from the increased population?

Enquiring minds want to know!

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 18, 2000.

Oh CS............. Yo, Patrick.............

[If we were to double the population density of the King County metro area to match LA, and manage to increase the transit market share to twice that of Chicago (2*5=10%) or even up to that of New York (call it 30%,depending on how far into the suburbs you wish to go), the math just doesnt add up to less congestion. You double the traffic and subtract 10% or 30% respectively and you still wind up with a whole lot more traffic than what you started with. ]

Given up on trying to explain why this isn't true?

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 20, 2000.

From today's Taccma News Tribune. If this is the outcome WITH SmartGrowth, why don't we just do away with it?

Lakewood: More people, traffic Growth plan calls for greater population and congestion, and less housing for needy Skip Card; Lakewood would grow by 16,099 new residents over the next 20 years but offer less housing for needy residents if city officials implement rules in a proposed comprehensive plan, according to an environmental impact statement. The plan's growth guidelines also would help create 10,927 new jobs, an urban center and more parks. But if city officials stay with existing development rules, Lakewood's population would increase twice as much while residents would see more sprawl and fewer job opportunities. And no matter what city officials do, traffic will get worse. Those are among the predictions in a draft environmental impact statement outlining potential consequences of Lakewood's proposed comprehensive plan, the land-use blueprint designed to guide the city's development over the next 20 years. Comments on the impact statement's predictions and proposed solutions are due by 5 p.m. Tuesday at Lakewood City Hall. Copies are available at City Hall and at the Lakewood Library. Predictions of environmental consequences were prepared by Seattle-based consultants for EDAW Inc. The same firm prepared the first draft of the comprehensive plan awaiting approval by the Lakewood City Council. The comprehensive plan aims to channel new development to create a downtown, preserve large lots near the city's lakes, foster growth around a proposed rail station and allow light industry in the neighborhood known as American Lake Gardens. If city officials stay with existing land-use rules, EDAW consultants say, Lakewood's population would swell by 31,853 newcomers. Yet the city would see just 9,788 new jobs. Existing rules also would lead to less forest cover and wildlife habitat in west Lakewood, plus fewer protections for underground wells that supply the Lakewood Water District. On the other hand, proposed land-use rules in the comprehensive plan would lead to a shortage of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents. Changes proposed for American Lake Gardens would eventually replace 1,165 low-cost residences with light industry or a proposed theme park. Regardless of what path city officials take, EDAW consultants predict Lakewood's traffic congestion will increase. The number of cars on main city streets will rise at least 23 percent by 2017 under even the best scenarios. Lakewood also will likely need more police, firefighters and school facilities as the population increases. Consultants estimate the city will see 1,266 more government jobs over the next 20 years even with slow growth. Comments on the draft environmental impact statement will be incorporated into a final impact statement. Comments can be delivered to community development director Dave Bugher at Lakewood City Hall, 10510 Gravelly Lake Drive S.W. Comments also can be sent via e-mail to dbugher@ci.lakewood.wa.us. * Staff writer Skip Card covers Lakewood. Reach him at 253-597-8655 or skip.card@mail.tribnet

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.

And SmartGrowth continues to do it's thing for Seattle:

Wake-up call for dream homes: High prices hurt low-income housing

by Stuart Eskenazi Seattle Times staff reporter The two-story house on 24th Avenue near Yesler Way has an attached garage, wood-fenced back yard, formal dining room, recessed lighting, digital appliances and enough bedrooms and bathrooms to comfortably raise a family.

Its upstairs windows frame a nifty view of the Seattle skyline.

Built four years ago, it already is an antique. One of 18 nearly identical houses that fill a Central District block, it mocks a concept that exists today strictly as fantasy - affordable single- family dream houses minutes from downtown.

The houses were built in the mid-1990s by HomeSight, a local nonprofit community-development corporation created 10 years ago to develop affordable, inner-city housing for families with modest incomes. It carried out its mission in blighted Central Seattle neighborhoods, serving as a catalyst for the private homebuilders and retailers who followed.

But HomeSight, which helped ignite the Central Seattle housing craze by having the guts to build where no one else would, now finds itself priced out of the market it helped create.

In the mid-1990s, it sold the 18 new houses for $135,000 each. One was recently reappraised for $205,000. Looking at the astronomical prices for houses in the area, HomeSight is packing up and heading south to cheaper pastures.

"We're victims of our own success," says Dorothy Lengyel, HomeSight executive director. "Our job is getting harder and harder and harder."

Dream house is `not achievable'

As a result, HomeSight has had to redefine its notion of an affordable dream house. It is trying to convince its clients that a town house is a dream-worthy dwelling, but that's a hard sell.

"Families who are first-time homebuyers from the community want an affordable single-family house with a garage," says Tony To, HomeSight deputy director. "But that's a dinosaur. It's not achievable."

In another part of the Central District, on a sloped lot with a view of downtown, Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains, HomeSight is building three single-family houses. It plans to sell those at market value for more than $300,000 each.

It hopes to use the profits from those sales to keep the prices down on eight two-bedroom town houses it is building on the same parcel. The agency hopes to keep at least three of the town houses affordable for families with modest incomes. The target price is $135,000 - the same amount it took to buy one of the single-family dream houses a few years ago.

On another lot, possibly the last HomeSight will try to develop in Central Seattle, the agency wants to build more town houses. But those would have to sell for at least $160,000 - too steep for the families HomeSight wants to serve, Lengyel says.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 22, 2000.

Sounds just like what happened in Portland. Time to take a more serious look at privatizing those ferries so lower income families can afford a home across the water eh?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

Time for Patrick or CS or someone to come up with a rationale for SmartGrowth, rather than just dogma.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

Is there a point where you would draw the line? Would you allow unrestricted growth until the area from the Olympics to the Cascades, all along the I-5 corridor, was nothing but residential communities and strip malls?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

"Is there a point where you would draw the line? Would you allow unrestricted growth until the area from the Olympics to the Cascades, all along the I-5 corridor, was nothing but residential communities and strip malls? " This is a strawman, and a stupid one at that. Growth has pretty much always been restricted. Restricted by economics, restricted by zoning laws, etc. The issue is, what do you do with growth? Barring truly Draconian methods (forced abortion, stopping immigration altogether, war, and similar) growth is going to occur. It will occur in the Puget Sound region if, taken as a whole, people find it more attractive than growing in alternative areas.

Residential communities and strip malls to the Cascades would only exist if, in the aggregate, people found them preferable to other options. Even then, they'd have to be economically viable.

But this really isn't the point at all. What is the GOAL of SmartGrowth? Is it achieving it's goal? If your concern is sprawl, you could do far more just correcting dysfunctional urban schools than you would with SmartGrowth. And why are you against sprawl, if you are? Can you succinctly describe what you perceive as the problems with sprawl, and why you think that SmartGrowth would help?

And if you are concerned about sprawl, does that mean that you are against the subsidized ferries exporting Seattle sprawl to Southworth, Kingston, Bainbridge, etc?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 23, 2000.

More SmartGrowth at work.

Park it here

Seattle Mayor Paul Schell, fresh from sweeping Seattle streets clean of WTO protesters and delegates, now wants to clear several city streets of parked cars. Imagine that: automobiles not welcome on the pavement made for them and paid for by them.

Hizzoner wants to eliminate parking on some arterial streets to give buses and taxis their own lanes. Naturally, retailers are unhappy. Most merchants rely on motorists who pop in and out of their stores for much of their business.

Perhaps Seattle's mayor ought to look instead at San Francisco. City officials there want to experiment with ``shelf-space parking.''

It's a parking system that uses high-tech robotics to park cars on movable electronic pallets then stack them like cans of soup at the grocery store.

Better yet, we encourage Mayor Schell to send Seattle's shoppers to South County, where there are streets lined with fine goods and services -- all with plenty of free parking. http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/13345

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 25, 2000.

But Craig, "Better yet, we encourage Mayor Schell to send Seattle's shoppers to South County"

I think many of us hae forgotten that there is still a push to force all the shopping centers to CHARGE for parking so people will WANT to shop in downtown Seattle.

Just because it hasn't been in the papers lately doesn't mean it is forgotten. It will probably pop up as a law before anybody notices..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), February 25, 2000.

And you notice that while Seattle pushes for this, they build parking garages for Nordstrom's with municipal bonds. Kind of makes you wonder if this isn't less about congestion and urban growth management and more about restraint of trade, doesn't it?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 25, 2000.

I've got to say, sometimes I stop posting to a thread just to see zowie try to act like the big boys. Seems he's only good for making remarks after someone else has made a rebuttle. Rather spineless if you ask me.

Anyway, as long as we're talking math, Craig, can you provide a source for your density numbers? According to the Census, your numbers are a little off. http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/90den_ma.txt The highest density I could find for the LA area was 3052.6 per square mile in the Anaheim-Santa Ana area. If we're going to talk the "LA area" (which seems more fair since we're comparing it to the "Seattle area"), then more accurate numbers might be for the Los Angeles- Anaheim-Riverside area, which are actually 427.8. This is compared to the Seattle-Tacoma area of 434.4 (just Seattle is 467.9). So if you want to talk about matching the density of the LA area and matching the transit use of either Chicago or New York, then by your computations, and the numbers provided by the US Census, congestions would see a dramatic decrease. (Since the LA area is less densely populated than the Seattle area. You know, that entire sprawl over a large area thing). That is, unless you can cite the source for your numbers and explain why we should trust them more than the US Census numbers.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 25, 2000.

Patrick-

I went to the NTD database and took the population for the area served and divided it by the square area for the population served, comparing transit area against transit area. (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/ad8608947038949e8525685000 740ed3?OpenView) The LA urbanized area9http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+30+Largest+Agenci es/9154/$File/P9154.PDF), for example, lists 11,403,000 population in 1966 square miles, or 5800 people per square mile. Seattle (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+30+Largest+Agencies/0 001/$File/P0001.PDF) lists a population of 1,744,086 in 588 miles, or 2966 people per square mile. These are all based upon 1990 census, of course. Do you seriously maintain that Seattle has a population density of only 434 people per square mile, or is this for all of King and Pierce counties, including a lot of Cascade mountains and National Parks? For Seattle alone the city statistics (http://www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us/budget/99budget/profile.htm) are 534,700 people in 84 square miles of land area or 6842 people per square mile. You need to explain your figures better. They don't make sense to me. Are they perhaps people per acre?

craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 25, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "Hizzoner wants to eliminate parking on some arterial streets to give buses and taxis their own lanes. Naturally, retailers are unhappy. Most merchants rely on motorists who pop in and out of their stores for much of their business."

This might be a reasonable proposal if it only applied during rush hour (i.e., 7 AM - 8:30 AM and 3 PM - 6 PM). I don't understand why it needs to be 24 hours a day. Ultimately, it seems to me, Seattle will require a subway system, then you wouldn't need buses on the streets at all.

I like the idea of stackable parking.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 28, 2000.

Well it's fairly straight forward on the website as to how they get their figures. The numbers are from metropolitan areas as defined on June 30, 1990 for the 1990 Census. And the numbers are people per square mile. The Seattle numbers come from the Seattle metro area, and the Seattle/Tacoma numbers come from the Seattle/Tacoma metro area. If you really want to be bored out of your mind, you can read all about how they define metropolitan areas here http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/mastand.html

Of course since this was done in 1990, neither the numbers from the Census nor Craig's numbers adequately cover the RTA district.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 28, 2000.

"Of course since this was done in 1990, neither the numbers from the Census nor Craig's numbers adequately cover the RTA district. " And they of course will never be perfect, since census data lags reality. But for purposes of a comparison between the LA metropolitan area and the Seattle metropolitan area, they are probably perfectly adequate. If you do not believe that they are, please tell the National Transit Department, because it costs megabucks for all the transit agencies to provide them with these numbers.

Also, if you'll look at the original citation that you posted (http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/90den_ma.txt) lists the square miles for the Seattle-Tacoma area as 5891 square miles and for Seattle alone as over 4200. Since Seattle is less than 90 square miles, this is encompassing a tremendous amount of rural area.

The figures I gave are FAR BETTER for determining transit viability within the transit area than the figures you posted, IMHO (and apparently that of the NTD as well).

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 28, 2000.

You know, I'm actually kind of glad that I didn't follow this thread for a while. Cause if I had, I would have been just a little embarrassed about missing the gigantic neon sign pointing out the Achilles heels to Craig's argument for so long.

As we all know, Craig has made the assertion that the entire point behind the SmartGrowth is counterproductive, since encouraging higher density, even with the best transit ridership, will cause more congestion.

First of all, as I stated earlier and Craig never owned up to, he makes it sound as if the goal of SmartGrowth is to increase density. In reality, it is to MANAGE growth in order to combat sprawl. What that means is that you target growth for areas with existing development instead of building in a completely undeveloped area. For example, the LA model: one development goes into a rural area to avoid other people. When the next development is planned, they build it further out from the first development to avoid those people. This has three effects: you run out of land REAL fast, you spend so much money on building roads out to these places that you don't have enough to increase capacity on the existing roads leading into the cities, and you drastically increase commute times and mileage just due to the distance people are putting between themselves and their work. The SmartGrowth model: new developments are placed next to existing developments. The downside is of course you have to live closer to other people (the HORROR!). On the other hand, you: keep a WHOLE lot more land open for other use AND since you're building on existing infrastructure, you can use the added revenue from the new development to improve that infrastructure to handle the new people.

Alright, now that I've explained how SmartGrowth DOES NOT try to emulate LA, let's move on to the main theory. Craig's ENTIRE argument hinges on one idea as a given. If that idea is, in fact, not a given, then the whole theory goes up in smoke. That given? Density=congestion. With that as his base, he then goes on to claim that with increased density causing increased congestion, transit doesn't do much to decrease that congestion.

So does density create congestion? Well if the two are strongly correlated, then the higher the density of a city, then the more congested it should be, with the reverse being true as well. Comparing the six densest cities according to Craig's numbers to the top ten most congested cities according to the study performed by the Texas Transportation Institute should help test that theory. Well, 4 of the 6 cities that Craig mentioned are in the top ten. LA is number one in terms of both density and congestion, Chicago is #3 in density and #5 in congestion, San Francisco is #3 in congestion and #4 in density, and Detroit is #5 in density and #9 in congestion.

So are New York and Philadelphia (#2 and #4 in terms of density) outliers? By themselves they certainly don't hold to the theory since NY is #12 in congestion and Phily is all the way down at #28. And Seattle certainly doesn't give weight to the theory, since being the #2 most congested area, we should also be REALLY densely populated, but according to Craig we're #18. So for added insight I looked at what TTI considered the top 10 densest cities and compared them to their congestion list (seems more fair to compare those two lists since that is the data they used). Out of the top 10 most congested cities, only 5 of those were on the TTI list of the density top 10. Not exactly compelling evidence to support the theory.

So does that mean that density DOESN'T cause congestion? I wouldn't say that either. A more reasonable theory is that haphazard density is a leading cause of congestion, and LA is certainly a great example. The general rule there is to continue to spread residential growth out away from the main urban area where all the jobs are. As I stated before, this has the result of increasing commute time out from distance alone. In addition, transportation funding is used to build new roads out to these new developments, leaving little funding to improve the existing roads into the urban area. Of course everyone is still driving into that urban area, so as they filter onto the freeways, it gets more and more congested as you move closer to the urban area. Not only that, but with the rampant single use zones, you have to drive to get to EVERYTHING. You have to drive miles to get to work, miles to get the kids to school, and miles to get groceries.

So how to you combat that? Well, you actually think about zoning in terms of ease to get from one place to the other. You know, mixing residential and low density commercial together, so when you need to pick up milk you can walk a couple blocks instead of driving a couple miles. As Craig mention a little while back, what is it, 40% of all rush hour traffic is non-work related. So if you remove the need for these people to be on the road to pick up the dry cleaning, drop the kids off at school, or pick up the groceries, you remove a SIGNIFICANT amount of traffic off the streets and DECREASE congestion.

So there you have it, congestion is only caused by density IF you don't plan ahead. Otherwise you can slow, stop, or even reduce congestion, save money in terms of upgrading existing infrastructures instead of having to build whole new systems, re-establish a sense of community, and conserve open space for future use.

Alright Craig, I've explained how increased density doesn't have to increase congestion. Are you going to answer the question that Common Sense asked you almost two weeks ago?

"If you're going to say that increasing the population density also increases traffic congestion, isn't it also true that building an auto-centric culture (conventional suburban development) is a more efficient way to increase traffic congestion, too?"

Conventional wisdom does indicate that if you spread development out, placing residential, commercial, and industrial zoning further apart from each other, that you will necessitate additional automotive usage for what used to be either within walking distance, or accessible via residential (read non-congested) surface streets. Thus, significantly increasing the number of cars on the roads and increasing congestion. Or is CW wrong?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 29, 2000.

Patrick-

Youve given a real convoluted argument comparing apples and oranges here. If you want to take the top hundred cities by population density and correlate them with congestion you are going to get a correlation coefficient of about 0.8. Population density doesnt explain all of congestion, but the correlation is high, higher than any other single factor.

So how to you combat that? Well, you actually think about zoning in terms of ease to get from one place to the other. You know, mixing residential and low density commercial together, so when you need to pick up milk you can walk a couple blocks instead of driving a couple miles. As Craig mention a little while back, what is it, 40% of all rush hour traffic is non-work related. So if you remove the need for these people to be on the road to pick up the dry cleaning, drop the kids off at school, or pick up the groceries, you remove a SIGNIFICANT amount of traffic off the streets and DECREASE congestion. Great theory perhaps, but little evidence it works in practice.

So there you have it, congestion is only caused by density IF you don't plan ahead. I hope you didnt do your geometry proofs this way. Youd have flunked.

Otherwise you can slow, stop, or even reduce congestion, save money in terms of upgrading existing infrastructures instead of having to build whole new systems, re-establish a sense of community, and conserve open space for future use. I understand the theory. Havent seen it work in practice.

Alright Craig, I've explained how increased density doesn't have to increase congestion. Are you going to answer the question that Common Sense asked you almost two weeks ago? "If you're going to say that increasing the population density also increases traffic congestion, isn't it also true that building an auto-centric culture (conventional suburban development) is a more efficient way to increase traffic congestion, too?"  Didnt answer this strawman because I dont accept the premise, that we are an auto-centric culture. I believe that suburban development is DESIRED by people because they like to live in low population density areas. This has been accelerated by new technology (the net, telecommuting, etc.), changes in employment away from huge manufacturing complexes, attempt to control peak commuting loads by flextime,etc., and most assuredly by poor urban school districts that have literally driven parents of young kids into the suburbs. Thats a lot of things, but not auto-centric.

Conventional wisdom does indicate that if you spread development out, placing residential, commercial, and industrial zoning further apart from each other, that you will necessitate additional automotive usage for what used to be either within walking distance, or accessible via residential (read non-congested) surface streets. Thus, significantly increasing the number of cars on the roads and increasing congestion. Or is CW wrong?  Conventional wisdom needs to figure out plane geometry.

And as long as we are answering questions, please recall the INITIAL question that youve been dodging. If I start with a given population density and a 5% transit market share, double the population density thereby increasing the transportation requirement to 200% of original, and manage to increase transit share of that to 30% (NY City equivalent), it looks like I have gone from the original 95% of transportation by auto to a subsequent 170% of original traffic by auto. Without a 70% increase in road capacity, how does that NOT lead to more congestion?

Do you truly believe that you can keep all family groups, grocery store, hardware store, department stores, etc. etc., within walking distance (about a quarter mile in good weather low crime areas for people unencumbered by small kids and packages according to DOT)? Is YOUR grocery store/drug store/laundry/etc. within carrying distance of your home? How many mom and pop grocery stores, McDonalds, etc, will it take to put one within walking distance of everyone within a major urban area? What do you lose in economies of scale? AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IS THAT WHAT PEOPLE WANT? I once talked to a Chinese political commissar who explained that they were moving to a market economy because government direction just didnt work. Despite DRACONIAN methods up to and including killing people, communal farms just didnt work. Why do you think your social engineering will work better in a culture with a history of independent choice and democracy?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 29, 2000.

Craig: You write: "Is YOUR grocery store/drug store/laundry/etc. within carrying distance of your home?"

The answer is yes. Weather permitting, I thoroughly enjoy riding my bike to the local library or coffee shop. If I am merely going to consume delicious delectables, I can even take my 32-month old with me as I bike.

Admittedly, my job is not close to where I live, but if I were willing to take a cut in pay, it could be.

From my point of view, SmartGrowth would mean paying Boeing or Microsft or whomever, to relocate, so the traffic is going in the opposite direction. Rather than inducing people to move to downtown Seattle, induce the businesses to move to Tacoma or Olympia or Bremerton.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 29, 2000.

Is YOUR grocery store/drug store/laundry/etc. within carrying distance of your home? No, it's 15 miles to the nearest one and 45 to the preferred one.

And I never see congestion.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 29, 2000.

Interesting. Craig's rebuttle basically consisted of "'fraid not." No real numbers or anything. Just a view of how he thinks the world should be.

"If you want to take the top hundred cities by population density and correlate them with congestion you are going to get a correlation coefficient of about 0.8."

I did actually run a correlation on the top ten cities. They had a correlation of about half what Craig predicted. In fact, the TTI used to only study the top 80 metro areas in the country because they figured the same thing. But when they looked at a bunch of smaller less dense cities, they found congestion rates approaching those of the large cities.

"Great theory perhaps, but little evidence it works in practice."

New York City. #2 in density, #12 in congestion. Or is transit really THAT effective?

"I believe that suburban development is DESIRED by people because they like to live in low population density areas."

And they also have a desire to live in a walkable community and be able to commute to work in a reasonable amount of time. Textbook case of tragedy of the commons. Everyone wants their own piece of heaven, but if they all get what they want then NOBODY gets what they want. Again, LA is the example. Everyone wanted their own big lot of land, but now that everyone has that, all they want is to be able to get to work in less than 3 hours, not spend $1,000 a month on gas, and not have the air be considered harmful to children 300 days a year. Trouble is, THERE AIN'T NO GOING BACK ONCE YOU SCREW THINGS UP!

And you can hide behind the false claim of a strawman argument all you want. It doesn't matter if people aren't "auto-centric." The FACT of the matter is that sprawl DOES produce an enormous amount of dependence on motor vehicles, it DOES require vastly more vehicle miles to get from point A to point B, and it DOES result in MUCH more congestion. YOU Craig brought up the idea that managed growth causes congestion in the first place. Now when people point out that the reverse is just as, if not MORE true, we're supposed just ignore that because it's irrelevent? Perhaps to someone who flunked debate.

"And as long as we are answering questions, please recall the INITIAL question that youve been dodging."

I haven't been dodging it. As I stated, I don't believe there is sufficient correlation between density and congestion in order for you to make the claim that rising density DOES CAUSE congestion. If I remember correctly, the correlation I came up with was about .46. A fairly high number, but not high enough to be able to make the claim, as you have, that an X amount of increase in density will cause a Y amount of increase in congestion. I'm not trying to pick a fight here. It's just that the "given" in your argument lacks evidence to support the idea that it really is a given. Absent an established foundation, your question collapses on itself.

"Is YOUR grocery store/drug store/laundry/etc. within carrying distance of your home?"

Yes. I live in a post GMA community.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

I did actually run a correlation on the top ten cities. They had a correlation of about half what Craig predicted.  So what did you get, 0.46? what is the NEXT highest factor? What things more strongly correlate with congestion than population density in YOUR figures? And if you are only doing correlation coefficients of cities, you are not really getting a good analysis. You need to include the ZEROES too. The vast number of small towns and rural areas that have NO CONGESTION. That will dramatically drive up your correlation coefficient. NASA made the same sort of mistake with Challenger in correlating ambient temperature with O- ring burn through. If you only put in the temperatures for the times that burn-through occurred, you couldnt really correlate low ambient temperature with risk of burn through. If you put in all the launch data, the effect of ambient temperature was striking. You are correlating population density with congestion only in areas that have a lot of both. You need to include in your analysis the many places that dont have much of either to get a valid correlation coefficient.

The FACT of the matter is that sprawl DOES produce an enormous amount of dependence on motor vehicles, Not disagreeing with that a bit. Thats why transit works poorly in areas of low population density. I may have said that JUST ONCE OR TWICE on this bulletin board.

it DOES require vastly more vehicle miles to get from point A to point B, All depends on where point A and point B are. If the issue is to commute to or from the CBD, you are right. But more and more commuting is suburb to suburb. Thats one of the reasons that unemployment rates remain relatively high for lower income people living in the CBD. They really arent close to most of the jobs they qualify for.

and it DOES result in MUCH more congestion. That all depends on what the road infrastructure available to support the VMT is.

YOU Craig brought up the idea that managed growth causes congestion in the first place. No. What I said was that if you increase population density without an offsetting increase in transit use (and nowhere is transit use in miles travelled over about 5% except Chicago and New York), congestion will INCREASE unless you add roads. You are saying that between transit increase and walking increase, this wont occur. Youre wrong.

Now when people point out that the reverse is just as, if not MORE true, we're supposed just ignore that because it's irrelevent? Perhaps to someone who flunked debate. Not irrelevant, but wrong. And my debate partner and I went to state in debate. Got annihilated (by the eventual best debate team at state) in our first round, but we did get to state.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 01, 2000.

"what is the NEXT highest factor? What things more strongly correlate with congestion than population density in YOUR figures? And if you are only doing correlation coefficients of cities, you are not really getting a good analysis. You need to include the ZEROES too. The vast number of small towns and rural areas that have NO CONGESTION."

So if only performing a correlation study of cities is not a good analysis why did you suggest it? "If you want to take the top hundred cities by population density and correlate them with congestion you are going to get a correlation coefficient of about 0.8"

And actually, I don't need to show that density is the strongest factor. The issue here is the notion that you would need an extremely high correlation between congestion and density to be able to claim that an increase in density would result in a corresponding increase in congestion. So far the evidence does not support that correlation.

As you're so versed in debate, you should also know that since you introduced the idea that congestion and density are so interrelated, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support it. I've challenged your theory, and have offered evidence that supports my challenge. You either need to provide counter-evidence, or abandon your theory. And try to stick to a method instead of changing it if it doesn't fit your theory.

"What I said was that if you increase population density without an offsetting increase in transit use (and nowhere is transit use in miles travelled over about 5% except Chicago and New York), congestion will INCREASE unless you add roads."

What you said was that SmartGrowth advocates increased density (which I said was an oversimplification), and that density increases congestion. Connecting the dots, you said "This kind of leads to the inescapable conclusion that the SmartGrowth people WANT congestion."

"You are saying that between transit increase and walking increase, this wont (congestion) occur. Youre wrong."

Actually, I said that you could slow, stop, or even decrease congestion. Are you arguing that there AREN'T ways to plan zoning that could decrease congestion by decreasing the need to rely on a car?

"Not irrelevant, but wrong."

So, I'm a little confused here. Am I wrong because I said you claimed that managed growth increases congestion (which I think you pretty much did allude to in your second post), or am I wrong because I said that sprawl produces congestion? Because if it is the second one, then AGAIN, I ask that you explain how this DOESN'T cause congestion. You know, like an example where some metropolitan area is spread out all over the place yet manages to stay uncongested.

You seem to be trying to dodge this question for over two weeks now, and I can see how your experience in debate has helped you in deflecting it multiple times. But if you're going to continue to attack managed growth for encouraging congestion, then you should either explain how unmanaged growth either doesn't encourage congestion too, or why you choose not to attack unmanaged growth for the congestion it encourages as well.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

And actually, I don't need to show that density is the strongest factor. The issue here is the notion that you would need an extremely high correlation between congestion and density to be able to claim that an increase in density would result in a corresponding increase in congestion. So far the evidence does not support that correlation. I beg to differ. You got a correlation coefficient of 0.46 (not a trivial number) even when you excluded rural areas. Your own figures demonstrate that, and they excluded low density rural areas with low congestion, which necessarily decreased your correlation coefficient. What correlation coefficient would YOU consider a high correlation coefficient?

As you're so versed in debate, you should also know that since you introduced the idea that congestion and density are so interrelated, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support it. I've challenged your theory, and have offered evidence that supports my challenge. Youve challenged my theiory with evidence that supports my theory. Hardly the same thing.

What you said was that SmartGrowth advocates increased density (which I said was an oversimplification), Yes I did, and while you believe it is an oversimplification, increasing density within the UGA IS a STATED OBJECTIVE of SmartGrowth. If its an oversimplification, I certainly wasnt the first to make it.

and that density increases congestion. As proven by your own correlation coefficient of 0.46, notwithstanding your truncation of the data set to exclude small towns/rural areas.

Connecting the dots, you said "This kind of leads to the inescapable conclusion that the SmartGrowth people WANT congestion." And it does.

Actually, I said that you could slow, stop, or even decrease congestion. Are you arguing that there AREN'T ways to plan zoning that could decrease congestion by decreasing the need to rely on a car?  There are LOTS of ways to decrease congestion. Some are easy, some are hard. Social engineering has a pretty unbroken record of failure, and it is going against the demographic tide with this plan. I doubt that it will be successful at legislating against peoples choices, and we are already seeing a schizophrenic response on the part of the elected officials, including subsidizing ferries to spread the sprawl to Bainbridge Island, Vashon, Southworth, etc. And I certainly dont see congestion getting better. Unfortunately, this is an n of one experiment and I can assert that SmartGrowth is making the congestion worse and you can assert that congestion would be worse still if not for SmartGrowth and neither can statistically prove anything with regard to the Puget Sound region alone because of inadequate degrees of freedom to test with an n of one. But your correlation coefficient of 0.46 is a significant correlation, and had you not truncated your data set it would have been higher.

So, I'm a little confused here. Yopu are a LOT confused here.

Am I wrong because I said you claimed that managed growth increases congestion (which I think you pretty much did allude to in your second post), No.

or am I wrong because I said that sprawl produces congestion? Because if it is the second one, then AGAIN, I ask that you explain how this DOESN'T cause congestion. Congestion is a function of adequacy of transportation for population density, as your own figures demonstrate. This can certainly be made WORSE by poor engineering or geographic barriers (a large lake on the East side, a Sound on the west side, for example). And you flunk debate. YOU are the one asserting that sprawl causes congestion, you are the one obliged to prove your assertion.

You seem to be trying to dodge this question for over two weeks now, and I can see how your experience in debate has helped you in deflecting it multiple times. But if you're going to continue to attack managed growth for encouraging congestion, then you should either explain how unmanaged growth either doesn't encourage congestion too, or why you choose not to attack unmanaged growth for the congestion it encourages as well. YOU ARE AGAIN making the assertions. If you have FACTS to back up these opinions, bring them forth. You do not win the debate by saying disprove my assertions or you lose. So far the only FACTS youve come up with, support a correlation of at least 0.46 between population density and congestion. Then you have the Chutzpah to assert that it is my obligation to prove that a positive correlation of 0.46 in your figures isnt a negative correlation? That isnt how it works, in debate or in logic. You show ME that theres a negative correlation between population density and congestion, if that is what YOU are asserting. So far youve shown just the opposite.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 01, 2000.

"As I stated, I don't believe there is sufficient correlation between density and congestion in order for you to make the claim that rising density DOES CAUSE congestion. If I remember correctly, the correlation I came up with was about .46. A fairly high number, but not high enough to be able to make the claim, as you have, that an X amount of increase in density will cause a Y amount of increase in congestion."

Excuse me, but what exactly do you think a correlation coefficient IS? If these two things weren't correlated, this would be a negative number. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but a correlation coefficient of 0.46 is not to be sneezed at, particularly by someone asserting that there actually exists a NEGATIVE correlation between the two variables. Does the confidence interval on your correlation coefficient include negative values? If it does not, then you got a lot of 'splainin' to do, as Ricky Ricardo used to say to Lucy.

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 01, 2000.

For those who dont do this much, here are some sites to give you a little background. Basically, Craig is saying that as population density increases, congestion increases. Patrick is saying the opposite. If Craig is correct, the correlation coefficient is likely to be positive if the sample size is adequate. If Patrick is correct, the correlation coefficient is likely to be negative if the sample size is adequate. It would appear that Craig didnt really crank the numbers, but guessed that the correlation coefficient would be about +0.8. That would give an r-squared of .64, meaning that (if association were assumed to imply causation) that 64% of congestion could be explained by population density. Patrick DID crank the numbers, but apparently only ten pairs of values, and these from the high population density side of the data set. Craig indicates that this was a biased truncation of the data set (which it was) which likely decreased the correlation from what would have occurred if the data set had included the many areas of low density and low congestion (and thats almost certainly true). The value of 0.46 does not achieve 95% significance for an n of 10 (8 degrees of freedom) but certainly would be significant were that value derived from, say 20 data pair points, rather than the ten that Patrick used. Whether this would actually happen is uncertain. Patrick only crunched the truncated data set, and by design, clustered his data at the high end of the graph.

But Patricks assertion that his r of 0.46 proves that population density is NOT associated with congestion is silly. He is stating that a correlation coefficient of +0.46 demonstrates a negative correlation because the confidence interval doesnt exclude negative values. He either doesnt understand what he is saying, or he is trying to hose the statistically challenged. The confidence interval of +0.46 certainly excludes a LOT MORE negative values than it does positive values so, as of yet, Patricks evidence certainly supports Craigs case much more than it supports Patricks case.

If Patrick would get data from the other end of the data set (the ten cities with the LEAST population density for which congestion figures are available) and crunch all twenty data pairs, and if he were STILL to get a correlation coefficient of 0.46, this would be HIGHLY significant. But you can't prove a negative with Patrick's data, and his evidence is going in the wrong direction to prove his case in any event.http://noppa5.pc.helsinki.fi/koe/corr/cor7.html

http://www-sv.cict.fr/lsp/Stephen/STATS/corr.html

http://www.math.virginia.edu/~der/usem170/Chapter05/tsld045.htm

Mikey

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 02, 2000.

http://www.math.virginia.edu/~der/usem170/Chapter05/sld045.htm

This is Craigs argument that Patrick lowered the derived correlation coefficient by truncating the data set, graphically demonstrated. Hes probably right.

Mikey

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 02, 2000.

OK ladies and gents. This is what I did: I went to these tables

http://mobility.tamu.edu/study/tables/table1.pdf http://mobility.tamu.edu/study/tables/table3.pdf

and got data on 20 randomly selected cities from small to very large. The first number is the POPULATION DENSITY and the second number is the TRAVEL RATE INDEX, Texas A&Ms (Go Aggies, GIG EM!) measure of congestion. This is the data pairs:

1665, 1.19 1350, 1.03 1590, 1.03 2595, 1.08 4105, 1.31 2040, 1.22 2050, 1.06 2465, 1.08 1940, 1.06 2680, 1.30 1830, 1.30 2610, 1.32 5465, 1.51 4835, 1.30 2490, 1.16 2910, 1.37 3060, 1.31 3465, 1.41 2405, 1.43 2055, 1.19 (sure hope thi formats decently)

Cities are: Tampa, Albany NY, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Las Vegas, Indianapolis, Eugene, Salem, Spokane, Portland, Houston, Boston, LA, Albuquerque, NY, Omaha, Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, and Seattle. I went to this handy little site http://fonsg3.let.uva.nl:8001/Service/Statistics/Correlation_coefficie nt.html?values=3.2%2C+5.2%0D%0A3.3%2C+5.3%0D%0A3.4%2C+5.6%0D%0A3.5% 2C+5.6%0D%0A And cranked the numbers. The result:

R = 0.6687, p <= 0.001498 (t = 3.816, DF = 18) y = 8.964e-05 * x + 0.9932

For those not into statistics, this is a HIGHLY significant positive correlation (although no 0.8). Notwithstanding geography, topography, socioeconomic factors, and everything else, about 45% of the increase in congestion can be explained by increase in population density. And this is clearly a POSITIVE association, rather than the negative one that Patrick was claiming (P of .0015).

Game, Set, and Match to Craig, IMHO.

-- (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 02, 2000.

"Anyway, as long as we're talking math, Craig, can you provide a source for your density numbers? According to the Census, your numbers are a little off. http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/90den_ma.txt The highest density I could find for the LA area was 3052.6 per square mile in the Anaheim-Santa Ana area. If we're going to talk the "LA area" (which seems more fair since we're comparing it to the "Seattle area"), then more accurate numbers might be for the Los Angeles- Anaheim-Riverside area, which are actually 427.8. This is compared to the Seattle-Tacoma area of 434.4 (just Seattle is 467.9). So if you want to talk about matching the density of the LA area and matching the transit use of either Chicago or New York, then by your computations, and the numbers provided by the US Census, congestions would see a dramatic decrease. (Since the LA area is less densely populated than the Seattle area. You know, that entire sprawl over a large area thing). That is, unless you can cite the source for your numbers and explain why we should trust them more than the US Census numbers.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 25, 2000. "

As long as we're counting coup on old Patrick here, I see that he never did apologize for the totally bogus population density numbers he came up with, off by almost an order of magnitude. Even the SMALL urban areas in the data set I crunched above had population densities of three times what he was claiming for the "LA area." His data for the city of Seattle (467.9) are not even close to what the TTI gave for the Seattle area (2405 in 1997) but are much closer to the 2906 people per square mile that Craig estimated from the NTD database for the Seattle urban area.

So let's put it on the table:

Patrick can't research well enough to get good numbers to crunch. He crunches partial number sets that understate the TRUE association. He apparently doesn't understand the answers he gets, that is that the association he gets is a POSITIVE one supporting Craig's position, not a negative one that would support his association. He apparently doesn't know enough about what he was trying to do to understand that. When someone crunches a larger (and more diverse) dataset, the correlation coefficient increases significantly. The resulting correlation coefficient is TRULY significant at the 5% level. Hell, it's truly significant at the 1% level. This rather conclusively demonstrates that increased population density is associated with increased congestion and vice versa.

So IMHO, Patrick has a REAL credibility problem here. He's going to have to come up with good data and good analysis and show some indication he comprehends statistics before anyone ought to give much credence to his statements.

Mikey

PS: Craig- I'm not gonna crunch a bigger dataset than twhenty pairs without someone paying me my usual salary. If YOU want to get this correlation up to 0.8, you're gonna have to do it on your own. I don't think it'll go over 0.7-0.75 no matter how many numbers you crunch. The association is strong, but there are too many other factors in the multiple regression equation to have population density acount for much more than 50% of the observed variation. But you're probably right in thinking that no other factor is going to be more important.

-- (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 02, 2000.

Wow, I don't think I've seen so many words put into my mouth at once since Westin stopped posting here. Let's review.

First off, I NEVER said that density can't or doesn't cause congestion. AGAIN (and I seem to have to repeat this every single time here), what I said was that managed growth can slow, stop, OR decrease congestion. So all that talk about how a negative association is necessary to prove my assertion is simply not true.

Second, Craig made the challenge to show how a doubling of the density in Seattle and an increase of 30% in transit use would not result in a 70% increase in congestion. In order to have such an effect to occur, you need to have a 100% association between congestion and density (a 1% increase in density creating a 1% increase in congestion). As ALL the information has show, the BEST association is about 45%. So under the BEST of circumstances for Craig the largest increase in congestion at a 30% increase in transit (and I wouldn't say that there is that great of an association between transit and congestion), is what, a 15% increase in congestion for a doubling of density? NOT the 70% increase like Craig suggests. Tell me how all the figures support Craig's assertion.

"I see that he never did apologize for the totally bogus population density numbers he came up with, off by almost an order of magnitude."

That's right, I didn't and I won't. Check out the numbers at the Census website yourself www.census.gov

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 03, 2000.

First off, I NEVER said that density can't or doesn't cause congestion. I haven't been dodging it. As I stated, I don't believe there is sufficient correlation between density and congestion in order for you to make the claim that rising density DOES CAUSE congestion. Gee Patrick, next I suppose that you will want to parse what is is? AGAIN (and I seem to have to repeat this every single time here), what I said was that managed growth can slow, stop, OR decrease congestion. So all that talk about how a negative association is necessary to prove my assertion is simply not true. Great. Since this is YOUR assertion, give us evidence where this has occurred.

Second, Craig made the challenge to show how a doubling of the density in Seattle and an increase of 30% in transit use would not result in a 70% increase in congestion. In order to have such an effect to occur, you need to have a 100% association between congestion and density (a 1% increase in density creating a 1% increase in congestion). As ALL the information has show, the BEST association is about 45%. Not so. He was referring to vehicle miles traveled. It is not necessary to double the traffic on a road as it approaches saturation to double congestion. Since the King County region is already approaching gridlock in many areas, adding even 10% to peak traffic flow may dramatically increase congestion. CONGESTION IS NOT A LINEAR FUNCTION!

So under the BEST of circumstances for Craig the largest increase in congestion at a 30% increase in transit (and I wouldn't say that there is that great of an association between transit and congestion), is what, a 15% increase in congestion for a doubling of density? NOT the 70% increase like Craig suggests. Tell me how all the figures support Craig's assertion. No. If the math WERE linear (or if the congestion levels were very low, where they approach linearity), a doubling of population density would be accompanied by a doubling of vehicle miles traveled, 30% of which would then be transferred to transit. Youd still end up with a 70% increase in vehicle miles traveled. If traffic levels were low, this might be absorbed without creating any noticeable increase in congestion. But since they arent low, this would result in a HUGE increase in congestion, if additional roads werent built. Do you understand anything about non-linear systems? Laminar flow? Hydraulics? Colligative properties of solutions? The math is very similar at free flow rates. Once you get into stop and go driving, however, it gets incredibly worse. You wont get a 15% increase in congestion, youll get a meltdown.

"I see that he never did apologize for the totally bogus population density numbers he came up with, off by almost an order of magnitude." That's right, I didn't and I won't. Check out the numbers at the Census website yourself www.census.gov And if you are too abysmally ignorant to understand that you chose inappropriate figures, even after you got more appropriate figures from the TTI site (and from Craig too, for that matter), then I guess you just need to educate yourself better. The other alternative, is that you become man enough to admit when youve made a mistake. Id work on the former. The latter may be out of your reach.

Mikey

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 03, 2000.

I doubt the former is within his reach either, Mikey.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 03, 2000.

Isn't congestion simply a result of growth? Whether growth is directed outward (sprawl) or inward (increased density), the end result is that there are more people.

It could be argued that sprawl has less congestion. But wouldn't that simply be because of the transportation infrastructure of the sprawl area is now incorporated into the congestion calculations?

And if those additional people commute from the sprawl areas to the metropolitan or business centers, wouldn't that result in increased congestion in and around those business centers, even though congestion of the entire transportation infrastructure is calculated to be lower?

Additional transportation infrastructure capacity in and around our business centers is necessary, not because we have or shouldn't have Smart Growth, but because we are simply growing. So the question becomes...

Should there be a plan to guides area growth?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), March 03, 2000.

"Why do you think your social engineering will work better in a culture with a history of independent choice and democracy?"

Craig, you have got to be kidding me. Ever seen the # of people who actually vote? (Besides for 695 "chicken-in-every-pot" initiatives).

We do have the freedom of independent choice... but what good does this do in a culture of apathy.

I know that "non-apathetic folks" like you get really upset about increased "social engineering", but face it, most of us dont give a rat's ass: "Hey, just gimme my cheap tabs and I'll be happy!"

If you've got a overall populus that doesn't care either way and refuses to make a choice then someone else must make these choices for them: Thus, social engineering in some form

Not everyone can be like Tim Eyeman: Someone who proposes solutions and then has no accountability to anyone if/when the proposal is in err. (Or more appropriately, someone who deflects any blame for negative results onto bad government)

Put simply: stupid people = stupid government.

"One finger pointing forward, three fingers pointing back"

-- Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), March 03, 2000.

Isn't congestion simply a result of growth? Whether growth is directed outward (sprawl) or inward (increased density), the end result is that there are more people. Partly. It is the result of growth without the transportation infrastructure (IE., ROADS) necessary to handle the growth.

"It could be argued that sprawl has less congestion." No argument from me. It's self-apparent, and the recently accomplished correlation coefficients pretty well establish that.

"But wouldn't that simply be because of the transportation infrastructure of the sprawl area is now incorporated into the congestion calculations?" Yeah. If you add an adequate area to an inadequate area and take an average, you're probably going to see an improvement from the inadequate area standing alone.

"And if those additional people commute from the sprawl areas to the metropolitan or business centers, wouldn't that result in increased congestion in and around those business centers, even though congestion of the entire transportation infrastructure is calculated to be lower?" Sure. If you are going to see a growth in commerce or effective population density (during the business day, the CBD population density is going to be increased by the inbound commuters) they are very likely to see an increase in congestion since they now have a higher population density, if they have not built the transportation infrastructure to handle the increased density that they COVET.

"Additional transportation infrastructure capacity in and around our business centers is necessary, not because we have or shouldn't have Smart Growth, but because we are simply growing. So the question becomes... " And this is the key point. These urban areas DESIRE to grow, rather than to atrophy while the suburbs grow. But rather than build the infrastructure that they need to support the growth in business that they want, they are trying to do it on the cheap, through SmartGrowth, in hopes that they can force people (look at the recent King County plan. You can't build on a new homesite (not already platted) unless you own 20 acres per residence. That is using the police power of government to force people to live in the urban area. Rather than build the infrastructure to handle the growth that the cities desire, they are trying to handle the problem with social engineering. Won't work. Wouldn't have worked well in the fifties, but won't work worth a damn in the age of the internet and telecommuting. You are going to see the retail centers in the CBD wither on the vine, if they don't solve the transportation problems (both roads and parking) for the CUSTOMER'S transportation mode of choice, the auto. If they can't or won't, Southcenter or Silverdale or eBay or someone else WILL. That's why you see such a schizophrenic approach by the Seattle downtown crowd, griping about traffic while subsidizing ferries and parking garages.

"Should there be a plan to guides area growth?" Sure, but it ought to be a reasonable one that acknowledges that the auto is the overwhelmingly dominant and desired mode of the people, and will likely be so for many decades. And part of this ought to either be for the CBD to build the required transportation infrastructure (ROADS) or permit the secondary centers in the suburbs where congestion is less of a problem to continue to expand (eventually dooming the CBD). That's ultimately what will happen if the urban areas keep trying to meet the congestion problems with transit rather than more roads. It's the CITIES that have the concurrency problem. That's where the traffic jams are their worst.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 03, 2000.

"Why do you think your social engineering will work better in a culture with a history of independent choice and democracy?" Craig, you have got to be kidding me. Ever seen the # of people who actually vote? (Besides for 695 "chicken-in-every-pot" initiatives).  Well, no. I vote by permanent absentee ballot. Its so Im not being run over by Mad Matt the vanpool driver mostly.

We do have the freedom of independent choice... but what good does this do in a culture of apathy. Culture begins with the individual. All you can fix is yourself, and hope your example inspires others, if only your children.

I know that "non-apathetic folks" like you get really upset about increased "social engineering", but face it, most of us dont give a rat's ass: "Hey, just gimme my cheap tabs and I'll be happy!" Actually, if the public had been truly apathetic, the special interest groups would have easily defeated I-695. The government, the money and the press were certainly against it.

If you've got a overall populus that doesn't care either way and refuses to make a choice then someone else must make these choices for them: Thus, social engineering in some form  I would submit that they make choices everyday. Not all make the choices that I think they ought to make, but they certainly make choices. Like choosing to drive rather than take transit, or choosing to keep their MVET rather than have it spent on things that they dont strongly support.

Not everyone can be like Tim Eyeman: Someone who proposes solutions and then has no accountability to anyone if/when the proposal is in err. Or even in error. But is he any different than the elected government officials or the unelected government bureaucracy in that regard? Where was the accountability for the billions wasted on urban renewal projects? Or more locally, the sweetheart deals at Seattle Light, the ferry system construction debacles, etc., ? But in fairness, he tossed an idea out in the marketplace of ideas. A whole lot of people thought it was a good idea, just to get it on the ballot. A whole lot more thought it was a good idea, for it to win.

(Or more appropriately, someone who deflects any blame for negative results onto bad government) Hell, theyre more than happy to claim the credit for things that they had NO control over going well, no good reason they cant take some of the blame when things they DO have control over (where to take the cuts) go poorly, because theyre sub-optimizing the cutbacks to keep favored constituencies happy.

Put simply: stupid people = stupid government. "One finger pointing forward, three fingers pointing back"  This has long been used by aristocracies and dictators to justify doing whatever THEY wanted to do. The old saw probably still applies; democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 03, 2000.

to Craig: You wrote: "Well, no. I vote by permanent absentee ballot. Its so Im not being run over by Mad Matt the vanpool driver mostly."

What the heck is that about?? Unless you're going out to vote during rush hour, you shouldn't come across me driving the vanpool.

If you do go out to vote during rush hour, no words can express the thanks from other commuters on the road. Are you crazy??! Voting during rush hour???? When you correlated density and congestion, you must've been analyzing cat scans of your brain.

Actually, my track record as a vanpool driver is pretty good. No accidents and no tickets, after logging 50,000+ miles.

I apologize to others for the remarks on Craig's "brain", but he opened the door with his "Mad Matt" remark. Don't dish it out, if you can't take it.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 05, 2000.

One of the many tragedies of narcissistic personality disorder, is that those afflicted by it are almost entirely humorless, when it comes to anything, however trivial, that they perceive as somehow demeaning them. That's why they aren't much fun to be around, and why no therapist really wants them for a client. No humor, no insight, no motivation to change. Could be worse, they at least aren't violent.

Speaking of personalities, Matt, did you read the story about the guy with the big house on the Narrows. Would you have built a half million dollar house there, with a court case pending on whether it was in the CC&Rs? Would you have offered a reward of $20,000 to anyone who could prove malfeasance on the part of the judge, once they ruled against you?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 06, 2000.

Smartgrowth continues to force the middle income people out of Seattle. Pretty soon it'll be just like Washington DC, just rich and poor. Middle class can't afford to live there. All the families will be in the suburbs, unless they can afford private schools. Is this REALLY what the SmartGroth advocates desire?

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/lifestyles/html98/nort_20000306.html

Welcome to the North Seattle real- estate market - where prices that can't possibly get any higher do, where the competition to buy "good" houses can't get any tighter but does. Where Seattle's new-found technology money is rewriting the rules for who gets to live in the city and who doesn't. And where the farther north you go from the city center, the less true all of this may seem.

"There are so many different markets in this area," says Prudential Signature Properties owner Gary O'Leyar. "There are areas where your house can go on the market and get multiple offers and other areas where you go on the market and it takes a while to sell. That's the difficulty of painting this market with a broad brush."

Still, a Seattle Times computer analysis of single-family home-sales data from the King County Assessor's office shows that North Seattle, from the city center to the Snohomish County line, is the county's golden region. Here's why:

Buyers pay more per square foot for homes in North Seattle than anywhere in the county. Judged by median cost per square foot, eight of King County's 10 most expensive neighborhoods are in North Seattle: Madison Park, Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, Laurelhurst/Windermere, Magnolia, Green Lake, Wallingford, View Ridge/East Sand Point.

None of the county's 20 least expensive neighborhoods is in North Seattle.

Houses in the North End's most affordable neighborhood - Central Shoreline - are still more expensive on a square-foot basis than much of South Seattle and almost all of South King County.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 06, 2000.

to Zowie: I'm too cheap to spend half a million on a house! And, I'm too paranoid to build where I'm not absolutely sure of my legal situation.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 06, 2000.

And an update from Island County:

Planning lawyer is back on the county payroll Feb 29 2000 10:02PM By Chris Douthitt Staff reporter The Island County Commissioners agreed Monday to a new contract with Seattle attorney Keith Dearborn.

This time, however, the contract is for consulting rather than legal services and Dearborn's hourly rate has dropped from $180 to $100.

The commissioners' move became necessary after the county's two top judges objected to the more than $722,000 already paid to Dearborn and his law firm for work done over the past two years on the county's Comprehensive Plan. Superior Court judges Vickie Churchill and Alan Hancock told the commissioners earlier this month that they would not approve another year-long, legal-consultant contract with Dearborn.

By law, all county contracts with outside attorneys must be approved by the county's presiding judge. By not signing off on a new contract, the judges effectively sent Dearborn home in the midst of ongoing plan hearings and negotiations. The commissioners reacted by saying that the judges did not fully understand the complexity of the growth management process and insisted that Dearborn's expertise is indispensable to completing the plan. They have spent the last couple of weeks preparing a new contract that will keep him on board.

Under the new $125,000 agreement, Dearborn will work to finish the nearly-completed plan and its accompanying development regulations and zoning codes. He will attend county meetings and hearings related to the plan and will represent the county before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

The state growth board has given the county orders to fix portions of the plan that do not comply with the 1990 Growth Management Act.

But commissioners made it clear on Monday that Dearborn will be a planning consultant and will not be the county's attorney if any of the remaining Comprehensive Plan issues go on to litigation in court.

"If court is required ... we will be represented by the Island County Prosecutor," Commissioner Mike Shelton said.

Dearborn's pay will be $100 per hour - less than the $180 per hour he was charging as an attorney but more than the $65 per hour charged by one of the county's other outside planning consultants. The new contract also specifies that secretarial or word processing time will be charged at $35 per hour. The cost reduction was actually proposed by Dearborn back in November, prior to the judges' announcement.

The contract has no specified expiration date. It simply says that termination will occur upon completion of the "GMA Compliance Project."

One of Churchill and Hancock's major objections to previous contracts with Dearborn is that the commissioners had approved a series of amendments that allowed them to pay out three times the base amounts of the contracts. Under the new consultant agreement, the commissioners have again left that option open. The $125,000 limit can be exceeded at any time by a majority vote of the commissioners.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 08, 2000.

Craig isn't the only one concerned about the effects of DumbGrowth. From the Seattle Times opinion page:

Affordable housing

Dig deeper into social, economic tensions in city

I was shocked to read how affordable houses in Seattle really are. Then, I dug a little deeper to find the false optimism, which has recently become the greatest issue facing Seattle ("Sticker shocked?" Times special report this week).

In your rationale that homes are more affordable now, your paper, along with the state's Office of Financial Management, assumed the median household income was $64,795 in 1999 and $43,203 in 1993.

However, in another newspaper report, quoting from the Economist: ". . . In King County, which encompasses Seattle and cities such as Redmond (where Microsoft is based), software workers earn an average of $287,700 a year, including share options. The median household income of everyone else in the county is $34,300 . . ."

This is where the real problem lies. Seattle's Gilded Chip Age is benefiting everyone, but disproportionately so.

If the incomes of Bill Gates and Paul Allen are put into that mean salary, it is impossible to use those statistics in a constructive way for calculating the quality of life in King County.

If you truly want to contribute to people's understanding of this city, dig deeper into the economic, political and social tensions that are slowly emerging in this city.

We've had enough inflation - of egos, population, prices, income disparity and unrealistic optimism - in the past 10 years. William Marx, Shoreline

So, as all you non-rich liberals get PRICED OUT OF THE MARKET, either by rents, the taxes on your own much-appreciated residences, or by the need to buy a bigger house as your family grows, just remember; YOU DID IT TO YOURSELVES.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 09, 2000.

to Mark: You write: "If the incomes of Bill Gates and Paul Allen are put into that mean salary, it is impossible to use those statistics in a constructive way for calculating the quality of life in King County."

You're confusing the mean vs the median. This is why the median is a preferable value to the mean. The incomes of the very wealthy won't distort the median as much as it would the mean.

In general, statistics are most useful when you have a good understanding of how a process works. Then, the statistical measures allow you to assess possible improvements to a process.

It sounds like the tax-happy liberals of King County have created economic nirvana. Maybe some of the liberals eventually have to move to South King County, but they'll have Sound Transit to take them to their high-paying jobs. They seem pretty smart to me.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 10, 2000.

"to Mark: You write: "If the incomes of Bill Gates and Paul Allen are put into that mean salary, it is impossible to use those statistics in a constructive way for calculating the quality of life in King County."" NO I DID NOT! This is a quote of an opinion piece from a guy in Shoreline. You don't bother reading before you start your mouth in gear, do you?

"You're confusing the mean vs the median. This is why the median is a preferable value to the mean. The incomes of the very wealthy won't distort the median as much as it would the mean." I'm not confusing anything. It's not my quote, it's an opinion piece from a guy in Shoreline.

"In general, statistics are most useful when you have a good understanding of how a process works. Then, the statistical measures allow you to assess possible improvements to a process. " NO kidding? I would have never picked that up from my year of college statisitics or my year of statistical process control.

MY POINT is entirely in this paragraph: So, as all you non-rich liberals get PRICED OUT OF THE MARKET, either by rents, the taxes on your own much-appreciated residences, or by the need to buy a bigger house as your family grows, just remember; YOU DID IT TO YOURSELVES.

So other than just nit-picking the guy from Shoreline's quote to point out the flaws of his understanding of means and medians, do you have anything worthwhile to say on the ISSUE? You obviously live in the hinterlands and commute long distances in a taxpayer subsidized vehicle. Do you believe SmartGrowth is increasing or decreasing the cost of residences in the metropolitan area? Is that what forced you to live so far from your work? Is it reasonable to have government both create a situation of artificial scarcity of housing, then charge US increased taxes (on the assessed valuation) for the same house, AND ask for increased taxes to subsidize affordable housing that no longer exists because of their policies, and then ask US to AGAIN pay more taxes to buy you a van to commute from East-Jesus when you flee the high cost of living area.

These are issues that are only looked at piecemeal by the government, and often by the voters. In the aggregate, it's a ridiculous situation of cause and effect compounding an increase in taxes and increase in government, in my opinion.

So if you have any comments that are ON ISSUE, feel free to post them. If you are just going to babble on about things on the periphery of the issue, don't expect me to pay you further attention

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 10, 2000.

Mark makes a valid point, and he's not the only one that has made it. Does SmartGrowth actually DECREASE transportation requirements, or does it increase transportation requirements? Does it CONTROL sprawl, or accelerate it? Not the THEORY, but the REALITY. It would appear from Mikey's postings that there is good data to support that SmartGrowth in REALITY actually increases congestion. It certainly appears to drive up housing prices.

Friday, March 10, 2000, 06:51 p.m. Pacific

Crossing county lines can save a bundle

by Bill Kossen Seattle Times staff reporter For $150,000, Eric and Angela Chandler bought their dream home in Lynnwood two years ago: a sturdy 1958 rambler with a two-car garage on a busy street.

For about twice that much, Jack and Carol Bradford bought their dream home in Everett: a handsome 1940 English cottage on a hill.

Neither couple could afford what they wanted in King County, where prices are higher and competition is fierce.

And so the Chandlers and Bradfords, like thousands of others, commute across county lines. The Bradfords spend an hour each way traveling from Everett to jobs in downtown Seattle. The Chandlers are on the road a little less time for their commute from Lynnwood to jobs on the east side of Lake Washington.

"The tradeoff was well worth it," Jack Bradford said.

"I kind of like where we're at," Eric Chandler said. "We were just looking to get into a house."

It's an old story - South Snohomish County as an affordable bedroom community of the Seattle area - with some new twists.

Lynnwood, once the northern fringe of suburban Seattle, is becoming the inner-city of South Snohomish County. Now more than malls and fast-food restaurants, housing prices are climbing as the city fills in and builds up.

Everett, once considered a distant, depressed mill town, is home to a growing number of long-distance commuters attracted by relatively cheap prices for the charming houses so sought after in Seattle. The median home price in Everett in 1999 was $135,000.

The ripple effect of rising real-estate prices in King County is boosting the values of homes in long-dormant areas like Mountlake Terrace and south Lynnwood (median home price: $159,500) because of their proximity to Interstate 5 and King County.

The more expensive cities to the east of Mountlake Terrace, such as Bothell (which has the county's highest median home price: $262,600) - are becoming even more expensive because of an influx of people priced out of the Eastside and the growth of the Snohomish County business area along Interstate 405 known as the "high-tech corridor." Transportation ease is also a factor; these neighborhoods are in the "convergence zone" of Interstates 5 and 405.

The more expensive communities to the west of I-5, such as Mukilteo (which has Snohomish County's second-highest median home price: $249,500) - are seeing prices rise because they are in the county's desirable "view corridors," overlooking Puget Sound in many cases.

The growing number of people being priced out of Snohomish County, which is the second-most costly real-estate market in the state, are being forced to commute from Skagit County even farther north. Escalation of housing prices in Snohomish County, while not eye- popping like in parts of King County, has been steady.

A Seattle Times analysis of data on single-family-house sales, from the Snohomish County Assessor's Office, shows that houses have appreciated about 6 percent a year across South Snohomish County for the past 15 years.

So far, the frenzied bidding wars that characterize parts of King County's real-estate market haven't occurred in Snohomish County, said Joan Longstaff, who has her own real-estate company in Edmonds and is president of the Independent Brokers Association.

However, prices are expected to continue their steady climb as the Seattle-area suburbs continue to sprawl north and more businesses locate in Snohomish County, real-estate experts say.

The county's growth can be measured by watching traffic jams on Interstate 5.

"The choke point used to be in the U District, then Northgate, Lynnwood and now Everett," said Vern Holden, a longtime Windermere Real Estate broker in Snohomish County.

In his opinion, the state's 10-year-old Growth Management Act, which limits development in some areas while concentrating more housing into others, also is driving up prices.

The Lynnwood story

It's about 4 p.m., and traffic is backed up on the two-lane streets around the Chandlers' house, not far from Interstate 5, not far from the Lynnwood Civic Center and the malls.

But the Chandlers' busy street feels as if it's stuck in a suburban time warp, with its modest postwar ramblers and the big yards in front and back. They feel fortunate to have found a three-bedroom house with a garage in their price range.

"We looked at seven houses. Only one had a garage," said Eric Chandler, a salesman at Homelife Furniture in Bellevue.

They were tired of paying $650-a-month rent for a small house and wanted to buy their own place. Their baby daughter was on the way.

"It was depressing," Angela Chandler said about the rundown houses on busy streets they saw in their price range - up to $170,000.

But they liked Lynnwood and wanted to stay there, even though Angela Chandler works about 15 miles away in Redmond, where she's a credit representative at Spacelabs Medical.

Homebuyers - and builders - are flocking back to Lynnwood, which first took off in the 1960s with the completion of Interstate 5. New houses are going up on lots left vacant for years as suburban development skipped on north.

And some of the new houses are breaking the classic Lynnwood mold of low-end rambler or split-level. Many of the houses are considered "high-end" for Lynnwood - $250,000 to $400,000, said Dick Wood, owner of the Windermere Real Estate Office in Lynnwood.

Like other real-estate agents, he is surprised by the strength of the higher-end market. "Stuff that we didn't think would sell, did."

Location has a lot to do with it. Lynnwood is about 15 miles from Seattle and the Eastside and about 10 miles south of the Boeing plant in Everett.

"People like that centrality," Wood said. "Before the mall (Alderwood Mall opened in 1978), it was kind of Podunk. It was a place to pass through."

Not anymore.

The Everett story

Jack and Carol Bradford have done well in the Snohomish County real- estate market. They bought a 1960s-era split-level house in Edmonds in 1995 for $168,000 and sold it last year for $220,000. They thought they could afford a Craftsman-style house in Seattle's Wallingford/Green Lake area.

What they hadn't figured on was having to compete against "Microsofties" willing to buy a $300,000 house for about $325,000 cash. That happened twice, they said.

"We just wanted an old house with charm but could afford only fixers," Carol Bradford said. "We were just really priced out."

So they began looking around Everett, knowing from previous visits that there were some nice, older neighborhoods with homes big enough for a family of four.

"We fell in love with the houses. We couldn't believe the prices," Carol Bradford said.

Houses in Everett have appreciated 7.19 percent a year over the past 15 years. The old mill town has been revived by Boeing, the Navy home port and the attraction of its older neighborhoods and relatively cheap houses.

The Bradfords bought their 4,000-square-foot house in South Everett in August for $290,000. It was listed for $299,000 and had been on the market for four weeks. The white-washed brick house sits on one- third acre. It has leaded-glass windows and hardwood floors.

"It was better than anything we saw in Green Lake," she said.

They figure that a comparable house in the Green Lake-Wallingford area might have cost at least $500,000. Yes, there is the commute, but it's worth it, they said.

Carol Bradford, a graphics designer at an insurance company, said her boss is flexible, meaning if she gets stuck in traffic and arrives at work late, she can stay later.

Jack Bradford takes the bus to his job in downtown Seattle at Washington Mutual. He uses the time to catch up on sleep or reading. "I've dwindled my reading list quite a bit."

Jack Bradford said the response from his Seattle co-workers to his buying a house in Everett was: "Are you crazy?" But they understood the situation. And the Bradfords think they've made a good investment as people continue moving north. The commuter bus from Everett to Seattle is standing-room only, he noted. But that was a secondary reason for buying the house.

"We consider ourselves both professionals," Jack Bradford said. "But we found we couldn't afford Seattle."

Bill Kossen's phone message number is 206-464-2331.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 10, 2000.

to Mark: It still sounds like the "liberals" have engineered economic nirvana in the Puget Sound. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to deplore the "liberals" for high taxes, then you need to give them credit for the strong economic performance of the Puget Sound.

I chose to live far away from Seattle for a variety of reasons. If I didn't have a subsidized van, I would buy an Astro van. By the way, I originally started out in a vanpool van which was owned by an individual.

Without the subsidy from society, I would have to turn away the other five to eight people who want to vanpool with me.

You see, it's the demographics, stupid, and the capacity of ridesharing does not meet the demand.

If my fellow voters want to stop the subsidies and unleash the additional 5-8 drivers per vanpool on to the highways, so be it. So far, apparently, the voters consider it money well spent.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 10, 2000.

From: Critiquing SprawlUs Critics by Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson January 24, 2000

Infrastructure, Transportation, and Environment Older and more compact urban forms are costly in many ways: building vertically, enduring crowded roads and facilities, and living in small spaces all incur extra costs. Bearing those costs may have made sense in the past, when Americans were less mobile than they are today. It is the newer and flatter suburbs that benefit from newer infrastructure, which is less costly to install and maintain. 3 8 The Real Estate Research CorporationUs 1974 Costs of Sprawl report used questionable simulations to make the case for infrastruc-ture savings associated with high residential densities.39 Although the methodology used renders the findings highly dubious, 40 the conclusions have been widely cited. Moreover, recent studies that attempt to rehabilitate the approach are not very con-vincing. 4 1 Data show that (1) high-density urban areas have the higher infrastructure costs, and (2) the lowest per capita infra-structure costs are in areas with 250P1,250 people per square mile. 4 2 Not surprisingly, all of the 10 fastest-growing cities between 1990 and 1996 4 3 and all of the five fastest-growing one-million-plus cities between 1990 and 1998 4 4 have population densities in that range. Finally, simple cost comparisons are necessarily incomplete: mere cost minimization is not optimal. The benefits of suburban lifestyles, clearly difficult to quantify, have been widely ignored.

Commuting: Fact and Fiction In spite of unpriced access, average highway speeds keep rising as more commuting occurs on less congested suburb-to-suburb roads. In a recent letter to the editor, Barry W. Starke, president of the American Society of Landscape Architects, wrote that "sprawl is the kind of unchecked and unplanned growth that creates appalling lifestyles marked by two-hour commutes between decaying cities and traffic-choked suburbs." 4 5 The writer fails to reveal how few two-hour commutes there are. According to Bureau of the Census data, the average (one-way) commuting time in 1990 was 22.4 minutes (all modes). Suburb-to-sub-urb commutes (within the same metro areas) were even shorter, averaging 20.8 minutes. Suburb-to-suburb commuting accounted for 44 percent of all metropolitan commuting in 1990 and is the fastest-growing type of flow. In 1990 only 12.5 percent of commuters traveled more than 45 minutes and fewer than 6 per- cent traveled longer than 60 minutes. The longer trips included a disproportionately larg-er number of public-transit riders. Trip-time changes since 1980 have been minor in spite of significant population growth and much faster growth in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). 46 The Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey data highlight good news over an even longer time span: average commuting times fell from 22.0 minutes in 1969 to 20.7 minutes in 1995. 4 7 Yet in the 65 largest U.S. urbanized areas, VMT grew much faster than roads (measured in lane-miles), resulting in a substantial increase in average traffic densities; 4 8 nationwide, in the last 10 years, urban VMT grew at almost 2.5 times the rate of urban lane-miles. 49 The combination of more people in more automobiles traveling more miles at faster speeds without concomitant highway-capacity growth is an amazing example of beneficial market adjustments. It also exposes the erroneous interpretations routinely attached to "congestion indices," that is, comparisons of available metropolitan lane-miles with recorded area VMT.

Urban economic theory to the contrary, most households do not choose locations by simply calculating the commuting time to work. Instead, most households consider tradeoffs among a wide variety of possible destinations and other locational considerations. Most notably, families with children rank access to good schools and other family services at the top. Some urban economists have mistakenly concluded that those house-holds indulge in "excess commuting." Furthermore, in the absence of proper pricing, congestion is inevitable. Congestion is the default system for rationing roadway capacity. The real news is just how little highway congestion there is. The suburbanization of jobs is the explanation for the relatively low highway congestion; it is the solution, not the problem. Most people enjoy the personal mobility provided by the auto-highway system and the suburban lifestyles that it makes possible. Nevertheless, they bemoan its shortcomings, such as the inevitable pockets of congestion, while resisting the logical antidote: peak-load pricing. Free access continues to be regarded as an entitlement. However, the problems of congestion can be avoided by restraining consumption by requiring the payment of the full opportunity cost.

Mass Wishing about Mass Transit A favorite response to the dilemma of congestion is to advocate high-capacity transit systems in the hope that everyone else will use them.

A recent San Francisco Bay Area Council opinion survey showed that 40 per-cent of respondents ranked transportation as "the most important problem facing the Bay Area today" (education was a distant second at 14 percent). The same poll found that to "expand public transit" was the first choice (82 percent agreed) among "effective ways to improve quality of life." 5 0 It is revealing to compare the attitudes expressed in public opinion surveys with the preferences revealed in actual transportation patterns. Many politicians, planners, and advocates of smart growth continue to stress the importance of expanding public transit, especially expensive rail transit. Yet conventional public transit continues to be a declining industry. Since the mid-1960s, more than $360 billion of public subsidies has resulted in transit use per capita falling to a historic low. Only 1.8 percent of all person-trips (2.1 percent of all person-miles) are via public transit; that is substantially less than trips on foot (5.4 percent of person-trips) but slightly greater than trips by school bus (1.7 percent of person-trips). 51 Transit work-trips make up 3.5 percent of both person-trips and person-miles. 5 2 Yet, between 1977 and 1995, public transit received more than 15 percent of all public money spent on transportation. 53 Vast sums have been spent on the wrong transportation projects (usually rail) admin-istered by politicized (and often unionized) monopolies. The disappointing results from several new heavy-rail projects (Los AngelesUs $5 billion 16-mile subway project, among others) have led rail boosters to emphasize light rail. 5 4 Yet the light-rail systems tend to be even less cost-effective. The 10 U.S. cities that added light rail in the years 1980P95 experienced a collective systemwide ridership loss of 2 percent. Even the few systems that show modest gains are not close to being cost-effective. 5 5 Because transit is still pr-moted as a way to save energy, clean the air, decongest the roads, and promote new land-use patterns, it bears repeating that none of those things can possibly occur when rider-ship gains are small or negative. Although the failure of rail transit has by now been widely documented,56 expensive proposals for new rail projects are put forth regularly, usually sold as a way to "get people out of their cars." Even the transit industryUs trade magazine recently noted: "At first glance, the largesse of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) seems to have turned the U.S. rail projects pipeline into a gusher. Indeed, the law enact-ed last summer, the nationUs largest public transport bill in history, authorized funding for more than 200 specifically identified proj-ects over the six-year life of the law." 5 7 At the height of the Cold War, there was supposedly at least one military base in every congres-sional district; as a parallel, there may soon be a light-rail transit system in each U.S. metro-politan area. Responding to the poor record of recently installed rail transit facilities, advocates of rail projects now promote "transit-oriented development" (TOD), a key element of smart growth, as a way to create development den-sities around train stations in order to ensure adequate patronage. In support of that idea, some studies have found slightly higher tran-sit use by people living in densely developed areas near stations.58 From this it is inferred that forcing high-density development will generate greater transit use. Yet the obvious logical fallacy is ignored: even if there are some people willing to trade low density for transit access, it does not follow that others, somehow compelled to live at higher densi-ties, will choose the same tradeoff. 5 9 A wide-spread and powerful preference for personal mobility cannot be so easily dismissed.

"Although empirical evidence on the rela-tionship between residential density and var-ious aspects of travel behavior has been wide-ly reported," observes economist Don Pickrell of the U.S. Department of Transportation, "surprisingly little of it with-stands scrutiny. . . . None of these results explicitly recognizes the critical influence of differences in income, household size, gaso-line prices, and automobile taxation." 6 0 The consensus of economists who have studied the issue, reports Pickrell, is that "relation-ships between land use characteristicsQsuch as residential and employment density, mix-ing of different uses, and the relative distri-bution of employment and populationQand measures of urban travel demand are gener-ally empirically weak and often statistically unreliable."61 While there are negligible differences in automobile trips per capita in TOD areas compared with those in non-TOD areas, there are many more people in the TOD areas. The higher density of people in those locations causes traffic conditions to worsen. After controlling for income and other household variables, studies find that a dou-bling of densities would decrease VMT per household by 10 percentQbut with twice as many households, there would be many more trips.62 Other cross-sectional studies corroborate the observation that high devel-opment densities are associated with high congestion.63 That helps explain why higher-density areas generally have the worst air pol-lution. 6 4 Finally, the steepest losses in transit ridership in recent years have been in transitUs strongest markets, the 10 U.S. cities with con-siderable rail transit capacity and relatively strong and high-density employment cen-ters. 6 5 It seems that the availability of mass transit options just wonUt get people out of their cars. Unconventional forms of transit (includ-ing privately owned transit companies) and a host of commonsense transportation man-agement approaches (including proper pric-ing) have received scant attention from municipal authorities. Because those alterna- tive types of transit are low cost (even when subsidized), they lack the built-in pork-barrel constituencies attached to rail projects. Sprawl and Environmental Degradation What are the environmental conse-quences of sprawl? Critics of sprawl offer a long list of environmental concerns: some critics emphasize the well-known problems associated with common-property resources; others stress the "finiteness" of resources and embrace vague notions of "sustainability." 6 6 Those critics ignore the substantial steward-ship inherent in asset ownership as well as falling commodity prices. 67 Evidence of the long-term decline in natural resource prices has been available for many years; 6 8 however, such evidence has not satisfied those who rest their case on "finiteness" and continue to ignore the accelerating rate of technological change and its beneficial consequences. 6 9 There are several responses to the environ-mentalist critiques of sprawl: (1) we have already shown that the traffic consequences of suburbanization are benign; (2) new fuel mixes used in newer automobiles burn clean-er than previous mixes ("although total vehi-cle mileage more than doubled between 1970 and 1995, emissions of all auto-related pollu-tants declined"); 70 and (3) trading arrange-ments for market-based emissions rights are promising ways to improve the environment at relatively low cost. 7 1 Suburbanization does not lead to increases in commuting times, and, even in the absence of beneficial market reforms, emissions per VMT are declining. All the above factors suggest that attempts to rebuild cities and lifestyles in the service of the environment are not simply undesirable but also unnecessary. Some critics have argued that the growth of suburbs imperils the nationUs food supply. Those claims cannot be taken seriously. By any measure, farmers today, requiring less land to grow more crops, are more productive than ever. That is why cropland use in the United States peaked in 1930 and real food prices continue to fall. The productivity trends are so powerful that a land shortage is inconceivable. Unfortunately, public concern over vanishing farmland seems impervious to facts; the concern dates to the late 1960s, and despite being discredited time and time again, it continues to reemerge anew every decade or so. 72 Even if shortage of farmland were to become a problem, land markets are always available to allocate land to its highest and best uses, even back to farmland if necessary. The claim that individual farmers are harmed by rising land values induced by out-ward development is also unfounded. Rising asset values are generally viewed as a positive, not negative, development for property own-ers. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that farmers are reaping the benefits of suburban-ization. 7 3 Urban expansion into "environmentally sensitive areas" is another contentious issue. Conservation groups and their supporters can, of course, choose to buy and retire any parcel (or its development rights if available) that they want preserved. Public bodies can, given the power of eminent domain at their disposal, do the same even more easily. The challenge is to identify the best areas for protection and to raise the funds to purchase them. While that approach is occasionally practiced, "greenline" advocates seek something quite different: the imposition of easements at the expense of property rights. That tactic has three serious drawbacks: (1) it might violate constitutional safeguards against "takings"; 7 4 (2) it attaches new uncertainties to property ownership; and (3) it inevitably results in the suboptimal use of land. Alienation, Community, and Social Pathologies Although todayUs social problemsQcrime, divorce, family disintegration, and illegitimate teenage pregnancyQhave been well documented, the reasons for those problems are not well understood. In recent years, some people have decided that urban sprawl is the source of those problems and smart growth is the solution.75 Yet we also know that the "Great Disruption," as Francis Fukuyama called these trends in social disorganization, has occurred in all industrialized nations, encompassing a wide variety of physical urban forms and structures. 7 6 Modernity is complex, and urban sprawl is only one of its manifestations. Compact urban development is promoted not merely as a way to reduce automobile use and create a demand for public transitQ "New Urbanism" is widely sold as a way to foster close-knit communities and general contentment. Yet no one knows the recipe for good or bad community formation, let alone an easy spatial fix. Nevertheless, Vice President Al GoreUs criticism of sprawl articulates a widely shared view: "This kind of uncoordinated growth means more than a long drive to work. It means that working families have to spend thousands of dollars a year or more on transportation costs. . . . It means mothers isolated with children far from playmates, and older Americans stuck in their homes alone." 7 7 We have already shown that alarmist assertions of long commutes are widely off the mark. The few people who do choose longer commutes presumably have their reasons for doing so. Are many people alone and stranded? Are there increasing numbers of such people? Are they more likely to be isolated if they live in the suburbs? The answer to those questions is a clear no. There are few reliable data sources that describe the nature of community in America. We utilized travel information from the NPTS data files. The broad NPTS trip-purpose categories reveal that in 1995 approximately 20 percent of all person-trips (all modes) were for commuting and other-wise work-related travel, another 20 percent were for shopping, and most of the rest were for personal and social purposes (Table 1). If we count the 25 percent of person-trips that are for "Social and Recreational" purposes (including vacation, visiting friends and family, and other related trips), plus the 24 per-cent for "Other" for "Family and Personal" trips, plus a small portion of the 9 percent for "Civic, Educational, and Religious," we find that more than one-half of all person-trips are for social and personal reasons. If shopping is also considered a social activity, the propor-tion is much higher. We have shown that this trend has continued since 1983, and that it is associated with increasing affluence. 7 8 Comparisons over a longer time span can be made by looking at vehicle-trips over the period 1969P95 (see Table 2). Work trips as a share of all household vehicle-trips have declined steadily. 7 9 During the same period, "Family and Personal" trips increased from 31 percent in 1969 to 50 percent in 1995. Within that category, the share of shopping vehicle-trips grew by 41 percent, from 15.3 to 21.6 percent, while the share of "Other" for "Family and Personal" vehicle-trips increased by 93 percent, from 14 to 27 percent. The nationUs share of suburban residents contin-ued to grow significantly, rising from 37 per-cent in 1970 to 46 percent in 1990. If the critics of urban sprawl are right, we could assume that (1) suburban residents would take fewer social trips than would nonsuburban residents and (2) the trips that the suburban residents take would be longer. Is that the case? The 1990 NPTS data can be compiled by place of residence, whether or not respondents lived inside an MSA, and, if they did, whether they resided inside or out-side central cities. Table 3 shows that, within MSAs, households both inside and outside central cities allocate their trip times and mileage in approximately the same manner. Accordingly, the available data do not sup-port the alarming picture, painted by Al Gore and others, of socially isolated suburbanites. The critics, however, base their assertions not on evidence but on anecdotes, which they use to justify suggested sweeping policies to impose drastic lifestyle changes. Conclusion Upward mobility is at the core of the American Dream. In prosperous times, people are likely to "move on," both spatially and socially. They leave behind old neighbor-hoods and networks. They choose the trade-offs that they consider best for themQ"maximizing their utility," to use economic jargon. Consider, for example, a recent survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times. It was dis-covered that, of the 2,385 suburbanites inter-viewed by the newspaper, "the people who live in the suburbs generally love their lives. And the farther they get from Los Angeles, the more they love them." 8 0 SprawlUs critics presume that people are consistently making the "wrong" choices and that they have only poor choices from which to select. Neither proposition is plausible, and both evince a disrespect (often bordering on contempt) for the wishes of people whose tastes are not shared by the anti-sprawl activists. Two contemporary migrations are auspicious: (1) the migration to the outer suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas (already discussed) and (2) the migration to private communities (homeownersU associations, condominium associations, and especially gated communities). In 1998 there were 205,000 neighbor-hood associations involving 42 million people; there were only 500 of such associations in 1962 and just 10,000 in 1970.81 Such associations adopt the institutional arrangements that internalize the costs of the collective decisions and minimize negative externalities. Those types of associations are also likely to include the amounts and the kinds of open spaces that their member-residents want. The two migrations are, of course, lamented (and scorned) by New Urbanists (although several New Urbanist communities in practice adopt the private association format) who never connect "livability" with the choices made by real people. The 10 fastest-growing U.S. cities between 1990 and 1996 (mentioned above) were all in the Sunbelt; were for the most part suburban, low-density areas; and reported comparatively low per capita municipal expenditures.

Both types of migration can be characterized as peopleUs attempts to move out of harmUs way and to secure their property rights. 8 2 It is ironic that the collectivistsU urgings to increase regulation and diminish private property rights will only exacerbate the migrations that they deplore. Suburbanization as a response to peopleUs preferences (and technological change) is natural and efficient. Policies (existing as well as pro-posed) that worsen the conditions that "push" people out of the inner city are neither natural nor efficient. The smart-growth platform relies on "the romantic image of the benevolent and capable state." 8 3 In the words of Nobel laureate James Buchanan, "The romance of socialism, which is dependent both on an idealized politics and a set of impossible behavioral presuppositions, has not yet disappeared." 84 The romance of activist environmentalism coupled with the visions of urban designers shift the discussion of the harms of urban sprawl from fact to rhetoric and emotion. To give an example, in his well-known September 1998 talk at the Brookings Institution, the vice president praised Portland and its light-rail system, saying that "it has attracted 40 percent of all commuters." 8 5 Despite being wildly inaccurate, the vice presidentUs assertion has been routinely repeated and usually passes without challenge. In fact, all combined transit in Portland serves only slightly more than 5 percent of the workforce, and light rail carries less than 15 percent of the tran-sit total. 8 6 Finally, the tradeoff between equity (no matter how defined) and efficiency is nowhere to be found in the discussions of urban sprawl. Instead, we see a battery of policy instruments likely to make everyone, but especially the poor, worse off. The most powerful antidote to poverty remains economic development, not politicized changes in liv-ng arrangements. Smart-growth prescriptions weaken property rights and, as a result, limit the power of markets to deliver growth. Notably, the scarcities imposed by such prescriptions tend to be most injurious to those in the lowest income brackets. In the final analysis, "smart growth" is a solution in desperate search of a problem.

Cross-sectional studies corrobo-rate the observa-tion that high development densities are associated with high congestion.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 11, 2000.