Want to see the "Smartgrowth" advocates showing their true colors?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Go to this website:

AP story

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 03, 2001

Answers

Don't you think that there are extremists on both sides of any issue?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 03, 2001.

"Don't you think that there are extremists on both sides of any issue? "
Like the extremist anti-fascists that took on the Nazis?
The question that "questioning" asks is a nonsense question, too general and vague to have a meaningful answer. It fails as a statement of opinion for the same reason.
The fact that there will generally be people with MORE extreme views, does not justify anyone's point of view, nor refute it. Being in the "moderate middle" is sometimes no more justifiable than Neville Chamberlain coming back from Munich and claiming "Peace in our time."

If you want to make the case for Smartgrowth, Q, go ahead and try to make it. Simply saying that THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH MORE EXTREME VIEWPOINTS THAN MINE, doesn't justify yours or refute theirs.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 04, 2001.

Your post implies that ALL "Smartgrowth" advocates are extremists, willing to use terrorist tactics to achieve their goals.

The point I was trying to make was that it is wrong to judge an issue based upon the actions these few extremists. I am not advocating one side or the other, only that using an extreme example to prove a point tends to lead people away from achieving a win-win solution.

Is it your viewpoint that there should not be any growth restrictions?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 04, 2001.


My point is that SmartGrowth advocates have all advocated a PHILOSOPHY which in the real world of outcomes, has not been demonstrated to work. Increased density in the King County (and Portland, and San Francisco, etc) has been associated with an outcome of increased congestion, increased cost of housing, increased infrastructure costs, etc. When their philosophical Nirvana doesn't materialize, many in the movement lash out. I consider them philosophically little better than the followers of Jimmy Jones in the 70s that lead to the Jonestown mass suicide.

Is it your viewpoint that there should not be any growth restrictions?
There are ALWAYS growth restrictions imposed by geography, logistics, economics, etc. If you are asking if I believe that the states and counties should impose additional restrictions, the answer is a resounding NO. They should charge market rates for the additional infrastructure costs, and let the chips fall where they may.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 04, 2001.

And now, a city council has tossed down the gauntlet, challenging the UGMA.
Like a violin string popping, the strain put on the conflict between high growth and growth management snapped last week. A 4-3 decision by the Redmond City Council to defy state law was not something that came out of the blue. Somewhere, the grinding conflict between using or preserving open space was going to surface - that it happened in Redmond is no accident, but it could have just as easily popped in a dozen other places. Redmond City Council is rejecting the state's authority to decide zoning, in the particular case of converting farmland open space into soccer fields. "The tea is in the harbor," a Woodinville soccer activist told The Times. "If they're going to pack us all in here like sardines, we're going to need a place to play," said Redmond Councilwoman Sharon Dorning, one of the majority votes.
Redmond

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.


Allons enfants de la patrie
La jour de glorie, est arivee'


-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.

Mark,

Which side of this discussion do you favor? Previously, you indicated that there should be NO additional restrictions imposed by government. This article just indicates that city, county and state governments have zoning issues to work out between them, but zoning restrictions ARE additional restrictions imposed by the government. So, do you believe that zoning restrictions are or are not necessary?

It might have been more interesting if a developer also wanted that land for a major housing development, but such is not the case.

Zowie, You need to work on your French grammar, spelling and punctuation. Allons enfants de la Patrie. Le jour de gloire est arrivé.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 16, 2001.


Merci beaucoup it's been several decades since my high school French, and 12 years since I was last in France. Je suis rusty, ne c'est pas?

-- (Monsieurzowie@hotmail.com), January 16, 2001.

"Which side of this discussion do you favor? Previously, you indicated that there should be NO additional restrictions imposed by government."

I am against the state UGMA. If local governments do zoning laws within reason, I have no serious gripe. But the situation now is that the state laws compels them to increase their density in urban areas and discourage development in non-urban areas. I'd leave it up to the locals.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 17, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ