What I find interesting

Post by Pat
I find a number of things interesting in the group.
First, "everyone" wants major changes in their communities: more
growth, "smart growth", better "smart growth", or no growth at all. I
find it interesting that "no one" except me says "Hey, I like my
community. I recognize its shortcomings but accept them. I also
accept that it will change over time -- and that's good". If you
don't like you community, why don't you just move to someplace you
like.

You have expressed the fear that "others" from outside your communities will
come into your area and change its character. You are *not* immune to the
idea that changes may be coming to your area that might not be desirable.
However, for whatever reason, you're not willing to do what it might take to
preserve the character of your area.

Mr.Cool

2007-04-07 03:30:32 UTC

On Apr 6, 9:58 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Umm I think you might of contradict yourself ther, You first said that
people here
won't accept their community and wont stop trying to improve it in one
way or another.
Then you said that the people here keep arguing that their lifestlye,
community
is better then others.

George Conklin

2007-04-07 11:56:38 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
On Apr 6, 9:58 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Well, we know the ethnic makeup of the nation is chaning with
immigration, legal or othewise. We know that the rust belt cities are
losing population and Atlanta is growing. We know that half the counties of
the nation are losing population, due to the less and less need for farm
labor and support services. We know our populations are desprawling. We
know that, almost unique among the developed nations, our population is
still growing. And no amount of 'planning' is going to stop any of the
above, not for one second. The idea that we need to put a growth boundary
around existing cities and then forcing people inside that line is bound to
fail. But we also know that cities are using smart growth to try to force
the poor to the outer edges, ie the revanchist city. (That is the European
pattern). We know that smart growth is great for the well-to-do, and right
now tax breaks for the rich are where it is all at.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-07 22:22:13 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
On Apr 6, 9:58 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
I find a number of things interesting in the group.
First, "everyone" wants major changes in their communities: more
growth, "smart growth", better "smart growth", or no growth at all.
I
find it interesting that "no one" except me says "Hey, I like my
community. I recognize its shortcomings but accept them. I also
accept that it will change over time -- and that's good". If you
don't like you community, why don't you just move to someplace you
like.

Do you really think it's smart to know that the majority of our population
is moving into the most ecologically sensitive zones and not try to do
anything to lessen their impact?

George Conklin

2007-04-08 01:44:42 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
On Apr 6, 9:58 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
I find a number of things interesting in the group.
First, "everyone" wants major changes in their communities: more
growth, "smart growth", better "smart growth", or no growth at all.
I
find it interesting that "no one" except me says "Hey, I like my
community. I recognize its shortcomings but accept them. I also
accept that it will change over time -- and that's good". If you
don't like you community, why don't you just move to someplace you
like.

Well, we know the ethnic makeup of the nation is chaning with
immigration, legal or othewise. We know that the rust belt cities are
losing population and Atlanta is growing. We know that half the

counties

Post by George Conklin
of
the nation are losing population, due to the less and less need for farm
labor and support services. We know our populations are desprawling.

Post by George Conklin
know that, almost unique among the developed nations, our population is
still growing. And no amount of 'planning' is going to stop any of the
above, not for one second. The idea that we need to put a growth boundary
around existing cities and then forcing people inside that line is bound to
fail. But we also know that cities are using smart growth to try to force
the poor to the outer edges, ie the revanchist city. (That is the European
pattern). We know that smart growth is great for the well-to-do, and right
now tax breaks for the rich are where it is all at.

Do you really think it's smart to know that the majority of our population
is moving into the most ecologically sensitive zones and not try to do
anything to lessen their impact?

Nothing is going to revive the rural sector and create a demand of more
rural labor in the great plains. So give it up. Plan for what people want,
not for what you think they should get when you get done with your agenda.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 14:04:29 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
On Apr 6, 9:58 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
I find a number of things interesting in the group.
First, "everyone" wants major changes in their communities: more
growth, "smart growth", better "smart growth", or no growth at all.
I
find it interesting that "no one" except me says "Hey, I like my
community. I recognize its shortcomings but accept them. I also
accept that it will change over time -- and that's good". If you
don't like you community, why don't you just move to someplace you
like.

Well, we know the ethnic makeup of the nation is chaning with
immigration, legal or othewise. We know that the rust belt cities are
losing population and Atlanta is growing. We know that half the

counties

Post by George Conklin
of
the nation are losing population, due to the less and less need for farm
labor and support services. We know our populations are desprawling.

boundary

Post by George Conklin
around existing cities and then forcing people inside that line is
bound
to
fail. But we also know that cities are using smart growth to try to

force

Post by George Conklin
the poor to the outer edges, ie the revanchist city. (That is the European
pattern). We know that smart growth is great for the well-to-do, and right
now tax breaks for the rich are where it is all at.

Do you really think it's smart to know that the majority of our population
is moving into the most ecologically sensitive zones and not try to do
anything to lessen their impact?

So in other words, people are going to trample all over the environment, so
let them.

George Conklin

2007-04-08 14:36:03 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
On Apr 6, 9:58 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
I find a number of things interesting in the group.
First, "everyone" wants major changes in their communities: more
growth, "smart growth", better "smart growth", or no growth at all.
I
find it interesting that "no one" except me says "Hey, I like my
community. I recognize its shortcomings but accept them. I also
accept that it will change over time -- and that's good". If you
don't like you community, why don't you just move to someplace you
like.

Well, we know the ethnic makeup of the nation is chaning with
immigration, legal or othewise. We know that the rust belt cities are
losing population and Atlanta is growing. We know that half the

counties

Post by George Conklin
of
the nation are losing population, due to the less and less need for farm
labor and support services. We know our populations are desprawling.

boundary

Post by George Conklin
around existing cities and then forcing people inside that line is
bound
to
fail. But we also know that cities are using smart growth to try to

force

Do you really think it's smart to know that the majority of our population
is moving into the most ecologically sensitive zones and not try to do
anything to lessen their impact?

So in other words, people are going to trample all over the environment, so
let them.

Farmers cut the trees, bared the soil, and planed mono-culture. Building a
house on old farmland is an environmental upgrade.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 16:27:27 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
On Apr 6, 9:58 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

also

Post by Pat
accept that it will change over time -- and that's good". If

you

Post by Pat
don't like you community, why don't you just move to someplace

you

Post by Pat
like.

Umm I think you might of contradict yourself ther, You first said

that

Post by Mr.Cool
people here
won't accept their community and wont stop trying to improve it in

one

Post by Mr.Cool
way or another.
Then you said that the people here keep arguing that their

lifestlye,

Post by Mr.Cool
community
is better then others.

Well, we know the ethnic makeup of the nation is chaning with
immigration, legal or othewise. We know that the rust belt cities

are

Post by George Conklin
losing population and Atlanta is growing. We know that half the

counties

Post by George Conklin
of
the nation are losing population, due to the less and less need for farm
labor and support services. We know our populations are
desprawling.

Post by George Conklin
know that, almost unique among the developed nations, our population

Post by George Conklin
still growing. And no amount of 'planning' is going to stop any of

the

Post by George Conklin
above, not for one second. The idea that we need to put a growth

boundary

Post by George Conklin
around existing cities and then forcing people inside that line is
bound
to
fail. But we also know that cities are using smart growth to try to

force

Post by George Conklin
the poor to the outer edges, ie the revanchist city. (That is the European
pattern). We know that smart growth is great for the well-to-do,
and
right
now tax breaks for the rich are where it is all at.

Do you really think it's smart to know that the majority of our population
is moving into the most ecologically sensitive zones and not try to do
anything to lessen their impact?

agenda.

Post by Amy Blankenship
So in other words, people are going to trample all over the environment,

Post by Amy Blankenship
let them.

Farmers cut the trees, bared the soil, and planed mono-culture. Building a
house on old farmland is an environmental upgrade.

However, developers are often cutting down forests for that. And actually a
roof and driveway are NOT an environmental upgrade on a pasture.

2007-04-08 17:12:05 UTC

Post by George Conklin
Farmers cut the trees, bared the soil, and planed mono-culture. Building a
house on old farmland is an environmental upgrade.

However, developers are often cutting down forests for that. And actually a
roof and driveway are NOT an environmental upgrade on a pasture.

1. Around here building lots with trees are more valuable, so the fewest
possible trees are removed when building.

2. If it's a pasture, there aren't any trees to cut down.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 17:59:35 UTC

Post by George Conklin
Farmers cut the trees, bared the soil, and planed mono-culture.
Building
a
house on old farmland is an environmental upgrade.

However, developers are often cutting down forests for that. And actually a
roof and driveway are NOT an environmental upgrade on a pasture.

1. Around here building lots with trees are more valuable, so the fewest
possible trees are removed when building.
2. If it's a pasture, there aren't any trees to cut down.

I see you missed the point, but before I address that, I'll humor you. I
actually own a pasture, and I can tell you that they do, in fact, have
trees. What they do NOT have is large roofs and lots of concrete creating
runoff.

You also don't seem to understand the concept of "forest," which is not just
a few trees scattered around that you could conveniently slide some
buildings under without much disruption, but lots of trees, side by side,
with bushes and undergrowth and maybe even brambles and vines. Your average
home or business owner is not likely to leave that intact.

-Amy

2007-04-08 19:57:12 UTC

Post by George Conklin
Farmers cut the trees, bared the soil, and planed mono-culture.
Building
a
house on old farmland is an environmental upgrade.

However, developers are often cutting down forests for that. And actually a
roof and driveway are NOT an environmental upgrade on a pasture.

1. Around here building lots with trees are more valuable, so the fewest
possible trees are removed when building.
2. If it's a pasture, there aren't any trees to cut down.

I see you missed the point, but before I address that, I'll humor you. I
actually own a pasture, and I can tell you that they do, in fact, have
trees.

Productive pastures can't afford trees. They shade out the grass.

Post by Amy Blankenship
You also don't seem to understand the concept of "forest," which is not just
a few trees scattered around that you could conveniently slide some
buildings under without much disruption, but lots of trees, side by side,
with bushes and undergrowth and maybe even brambles and vines. Your average
home or business owner is not likely to leave that intact.

Come see how homes are built in Connecticut.

drydem

2007-04-08 18:20:15 UTC

Post by George Conklin
Nothing is going to revive the rural sector and create a demand of
more rural labor in the great plains. So give it up. Plan for what
people want, not for what you think they should get when you
get done with your agenda.

So in other words, people are going to trample all over
the environment, so let them.

Farmers cut the trees, bared the soil, and planed mono-culture.
Building a house on old farmland is an environmental upgrade.-

Then the dust bowl came, the crops died, and
the farmer sold his farm to an energy consortium
that wants to erect a 800 electric turbine wind farm...

George Conklin

2007-04-07 11:52:40 UTC

You have expressed the fear that "others" from outside your communities will
come into your area and change its character.

Just as YOU did when YOU moved in, right?

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-07 22:22:51 UTC

You have expressed the fear that "others" from outside your communities

will

Post by Amy Blankenship
come into your area and change its character.

Just as YOU did when YOU moved in, right?

I live about 20 miles from the hospital I was born in.

George Conklin

2007-04-08 01:45:16 UTC

Post by Pat
I find a number of things interesting in the group.
First, "everyone" wants major changes in their communities: more
growth, "smart growth", better "smart growth", or no growth at all.

Post by Pat
find it interesting that "no one" except me says "Hey, I like my
community. I recognize its shortcomings but accept them. I also
accept that it will change over time -- and that's good". If you
don't like you community, why don't you just move to someplace you
like.

You have expressed the fear that "others" from outside your communities

will

Post by Amy Blankenship
come into your area and change its character.

Just as YOU did when YOU moved in, right?

I live about 20 miles from the hospital I was born in.

People on the average move every 7 years.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 14:04:50 UTC

Post by Pat
I find a number of things interesting in the group.
First, "everyone" wants major changes in their communities: more
growth, "smart growth", better "smart growth", or no growth at all.

You have expressed the fear that "others" from outside your communities

will

Post by Amy Blankenship
come into your area and change its character.

Just as YOU did when YOU moved in, right?

I live about 20 miles from the hospital I was born in.

People on the average move every 7 years.

Not here.

George Conklin

2007-04-08 14:35:07 UTC

Post by Pat
I find a number of things interesting in the group.
First, "everyone" wants major changes in their communities: more
growth, "smart growth", better "smart growth", or no growth at all.

You have expressed the fear that "others" from outside your communities

will

Post by Amy Blankenship
come into your area and change its character.

Just as YOU did when YOU moved in, right?

I live about 20 miles from the hospital I was born in.

People on the average move every 7 years.

Not here.

That is a national average. Mortgages are sold with the expected life of 7
years, maximum.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 16:28:52 UTC

Post by Pat
I find a number of things interesting in the group.
First, "everyone" wants major changes in their communities: more
growth, "smart growth", better "smart growth", or no growth at

all.

Post by George Conklin
I

You have expressed the fear that "others" from outside your communities

will

Post by Amy Blankenship
come into your area and change its character.

Just as YOU did when YOU moved in, right?

I live about 20 miles from the hospital I was born in.

People on the average move every 7 years.

Not here.

That is a national average. Mortgages are sold with the expected life of 7
years, maximum.

What does that have to do with whether or not I moved into this community.
Sometimes I find it amazing that you EVER manage a salient point, given how
eager you are to drag the debate off into something that makes no
difference.

George Conklin

2007-04-07 11:52:06 UTC

Wrong. I think that the past 30-40 years of urban growth has been quite
correct and should continue. I have lived in 1 place for almost 30 years
and have intention of moving to a 'better' one. I hate to see economic
opportunity squandred by the fake promises of smart growth. There are close
to 80+ families a DAY moving into the Raleigh/Durham area, and I say,
"fine."

I recognize its shortcomings but accept them. I also

Post by Pat
accept that it will change over time -- and that's good". If you
don't like you community, why don't you just move to someplace you
like.
Second, too many people are convince their way is the only/best way.
Cities are better than suburbs. Cities have too much crime.

Cities do have more crime. That is a simple fact.

Lots

Post by Pat
should be big. Lots should be small. All housing should be high-
density. All housing should be spread out. I know what's wrong/right
and no one else does so just listen to me and the world will be
perfect.
You're absolutely right. For you, that's the case. But the world is
a big tent. There are different strokes for different folks. You
might love something but that doesn't mean anyone else does.
Finally, none of you have even a basic idea of what causes sprawl or
growth or suburbs or dense housing. It is money. Let me repeat it to
be perfectly clear. It is money. It is NOT zoning or planning or
transit or anything else. It is money.

Actually it is the decline of farming and the need for workers in rural
areas which are concentrating people in fewer and fewer places. We are
sprawling as a nation. We are desprawling.

Post by Pat
Almost all development is done by developers (that's why they are
called developers). Developers want to make money. So they are going
to develop in a manner that makes them the most money -- probably
taking the path of least resistance. If you want to make a certain
type of housing going in a certain place (or to keep it from
somewhere), then just go make it profitable and/or easy for the
developer. They will go to (and do) whatever is the best combination
of ease and profit. So if you put up all kinds of barriers in the
city, they will go to the suburbs. If you make the city profitable,
they will go there. Approvals are their life-blood. They will fight
for them, pay for them, or scheme for them; but they will go for
whatever is the easiest. So if you don't have happening what you want
happening, look within.
Oh, by the way they don't care at all about New Urbanism or Smart
Growth or whatever today's fad is but they will use it if it helps
them make a profit or market a development. They know that the fads
come and go, but the profit motive lasts forever.

Correct.

Pat

2007-04-08 05:50:29 UTC

Wrong. I think that the past 30-40 years of urban growth has been quite
correct and should continue. I have lived in 1 place for almost 30 years
and have intention of moving to a 'better' one. I hate to see economic
opportunity squandred by the fake promises of smart growth. There are close
to 80+ families a DAY moving into the Raleigh/Durham area, and I say,
"fine."
I recognize its shortcomings but accept them. I also

Cities do have more crime. That is a simple fact.
Lots

Actually it is the decline of farming and the need for workers in rural
areas which are concentrating people in fewer and fewer places. We are
sprawling as a nation. We are desprawling.

Correct.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This is my main point. If planners really truly wanted smart growth
or new urbanism or green buildings for developers who danced the hokie
pokie it is all EXTREMELY easy to do. Just make it profitable. It's
that simple. Say you want a zero emission building, it's simple to
achieve in a growing community. Zone a place zero emissions and put
in an expediated review process so the developer knows, with absolute
certainty, that he or she can get all approvals in place in 6 months.
Publish the regs in advance, keep to them, and don't jerk the
developer around. Guess what, you'd get a zero emission building.
You'd probaby get a bunch of them. and it wouldn't cost you anything.
They will get built because the developers will follow the path of
least resistance to getting it done and making money.

If as a planner, you know what you are doing, you should have no
trouble publishing your regs in advance and making them reasonable.
there's no reason to jerk people around. developers will meet the
regs if they are reasonable. the problem is that you have too many
people reviewing for things that are not consistance and don't matter
a rat's ass. if a area is zoning multifamily, you know that's what
you want there so there's no reason to require additional studies like
traffic studies. that should have been done when the comp planning
was done.

Granted, getting things built the way you want is only possible in
growing areas, but contracting areas will usually go along with more
things just because they need to.

So instead of trying to fight the river, why not just offer incentives
such as speed, consistancy, professionalism, and profitability to
developers and get them to do as you want with a big smile on their
face the whole time.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 14:10:13 UTC

Post by Pat
This is my main point. If planners really truly wanted smart growth
or new urbanism or green buildings for developers who danced the hokie
pokie it is all EXTREMELY easy to do. Just make it profitable. It's
that simple. Say you want a zero emission building, it's simple to
achieve in a growing community. Zone a place zero emissions and put
in an expediated review process so the developer knows, with absolute
certainty, that he or she can get all approvals in place in 6 months.
Publish the regs in advance, keep to them, and don't jerk the
developer around. Guess what, you'd get a zero emission building.
You'd probaby get a bunch of them. and it wouldn't cost you anything.
They will get built because the developers will follow the path of
least resistance to getting it done and making money.

That is what the county here says it is doing. However, it takes more than
that to make Smart Growth happen. For instance, you need to have sewer and
road infrastructure in place, and you need to have all that fast enough that
it is in place BEFORE the sprawl.

Post by Pat
If as a planner, you know what you are doing, you should have no
trouble publishing your regs in advance and making them reasonable.
there's no reason to jerk people around. developers will meet the
regs if they are reasonable. the problem is that you have too many
people reviewing for things that are not consistance and don't matter
a rat's ass. if a area is zoning multifamily, you know that's what
you want there so there's no reason to require additional studies like
traffic studies. that should have been done when the comp planning
was done.

What if you're not a planner, but just an ordinary citizen or citzens group
that would like to make that happen?

Post by Pat
Granted, getting things built the way you want is only possible in
growing areas, but contracting areas will usually go along with more
things just because they need to.

But it's harder in a growing area, too, because people want to grwo NOW, not
wait until the regs are in place to make sure the growth is nice.

Post by Pat
So instead of trying to fight the river, why not just offer incentives
such as speed, consistancy, professionalism, and profitability to
developers and get them to do as you want with a big smile on their
face the whole time.

Sure, if you're in a position to do that, it's great. If it were YOUR
community under threat (and you smugly point out that geography makes that
less likely), would YOU, personally, be in a position to make that happen
before things got out of hand?

2007-04-08 17:12:05 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
Sure, if you're in a position to do that, it's great. If it were YOUR
community under threat (and you smugly point out that geography makes that
less likely), would YOU, personally, be in a position to make that happen
before things got out of hand?

Run for office. That's how you get to change things.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 18:01:04 UTC

Run for office. That's how you get to change things.

In our county, the elected officials don't seem to make these sorts of
decisions. They are made by the salaried county employees.

2007-04-08 19:57:12 UTC

Run for office. That's how you get to change things.

In our county, the elected officials don't seem to make these sorts of
decisions. They are made by the salaried county employees.

Those people report to the county commissioners. Or you don't live in a
democractic system.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 20:30:31 UTC

Run for office. That's how you get to change things.

In our county, the elected officials don't seem to make these sorts of
decisions. They are made by the salaried county employees.

Those people report to the county commissioners. Or you don't live in a
democractic system.

Our Board of Supervisors basically seem to just do whatever the employees
say. Reporting to them that they're not making the decisions they ought to,
but that they just listen to whatever the county employers tell them is not
likely to win any friends. I suspect they've run into the same situation we
have, which is that the employees tell them what they want at the moment and
then go and do whatever they were going to do.

George Conklin

2007-04-08 21:16:00 UTC

Run for office. That's how you get to change things.

In our county, the elected officials don't seem to make these sorts of
decisions. They are made by the salaried county employees.

Those people report to the county commissioners. Or you don't live in a
democractic system.

What the commissioners do is say, "We hired the planner. Our only choice is
to do what he wants or fire him. We are not going to fire him. Therefore
we must do what we are told."

Pat

2007-04-12 18:42:35 UTC

On Apr 8, 10:10 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
<stuff snipped>

Actually, if you are installing new water and sewer lines to
accomodate growth, I doubt very much that you even need to bother much
with the likes of zoning and planning laws. The laws of nature are
much more powerful than the laws of man. Put your water and sewer
lines in right, and you can instantly set the pattern of growth for
decades to come -- without much ability to appeal or change a
decision. Water and sewer lines move the world and are the basis of
almost all growth. They are the key to your future.

What if you're not a planner, but just an ordinary citizen or citzens group
that would like to make that happen?

If you are not a planner, you need to get involved at the Comp Plan
stage. After that, the plan is set, the die is cast, the game is
fixed, ....

Post by Pat
Granted, getting things built the way you want is only possible in
growing areas, but contracting areas will usually go along with more
things just because they need to.

But it's harder in a growing area, too, because people want to grwo NOW, not
wait until the regs are in place to make sure the growth is nice.

See comments re water and sewer lines. Put in a good comp plan, put
in appropriate w/s/ss and then let it happen as planned.

If my area was growing quickly, I'd be on the forefront of it. I work
in development. We have a 20 unit apartment complex under
construction and a 32 unit complex getting ready to be built. Nothing
I would love more than building maybe a hundred new units. It would
be a good thing for the community. If I just had land with good water
and sewer lines ....

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-12 23:17:16 UTC

Post by Pat
On Apr 8, 10:10 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
<stuff snipped>

Actually, if you are installing new water and sewer lines to
accomodate growth, I doubt very much that you even need to bother much
with the likes of zoning and planning laws.

What makes you think that hasn't been thought of? But to the county,
anything that increases growth and hence tax base is good, no matter what it
does long term.

Post by Pat
The laws of nature are
much more powerful than the laws of man. Put your water and sewer
lines in right, and you can instantly set the pattern of growth for
decades to come -- without much ability to appeal or change a
decision. Water and sewer lines move the world and are the basis of
almost all growth. They are the key to your future.

Duh.

What if you're not a planner, but just an ordinary citizen or citzens group
that would like to make that happen?

If you are not a planner, you need to get involved at the Comp Plan
stage. After that, the plan is set, the die is cast, the game is
fixed, ....

What makes you think I haven't been? But the county is great at lip service
and really sucks at actual follow through.

Post by Pat
Granted, getting things built the way you want is only possible in
growing areas, but contracting areas will usually go along with more
things just because they need to.

But it's harder in a growing area, too, because people want to grwo NOW, not
wait until the regs are in place to make sure the growth is nice.

See comments re water and sewer lines. Put in a good comp plan, put
in appropriate w/s/ss and then let it happen as planned.

Sure in a world of instant sewer lines you would be right. How long do you
think it takes to even PLAN sewer lines?

I'd like to see what you say if you actually try to get things like that
implemented LOL.

Pat

2007-04-13 04:11:48 UTC

On Apr 12, 7:17 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
On Apr 8, 10:10 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
<stuff snipped>

Actually, if you are installing new water and sewer lines to
accomodate growth, I doubt very much that you even need to bother much
with the likes of zoning and planning laws.

What makes you think that hasn't been thought of? But to the county,
anything that increases growth and hence tax base is good, no matter what it
does long term.

Duh.

What if you're not a planner, but just an ordinary citizen or citzens group
that would like to make that happen?

If you are not a planner, you need to get involved at the Comp Plan
stage. After that, the plan is set, the die is cast, the game is
fixed, ....

What makes you think I haven't been? But the county is great at lip service
and really sucks at actual follow through.

Post by Pat
Granted, getting things built the way you want is only possible in
growing areas, but contracting areas will usually go along with more
things just because they need to.

But it's harder in a growing area, too, because people want to grwo NOW, not
wait until the regs are in place to make sure the growth is nice.

See comments re water and sewer lines. Put in a good comp plan, put
in appropriate w/s/ss and then let it happen as planned.

Sure in a world of instant sewer lines you would be right. How long do you
think it takes to even PLAN sewer lines?

I'd like to see what you say if you actually try to get things like that
implemented LOL.

I'm not sure I followed your sentence. Tried to get things like what
implemented, the contruction or the water and sewer lines. As for the
apartments, they are under way. One is being built and the other will
start in the next month or so. As for the water and sewer lines, for
the one that is under construction they were at the street. For the
one state we are starting, water is at the street and sewer is about
800' away. Not too bad. Storm is about 900' away. That's a bit of a
run but we are looking at other options. The engineer thinks he can
design a dry-well system to take the storm, retain it and then let it
go into the ground. That works for me because it keeps the water out
of the river and puts it into the ground where it belongs. It's less
of a change to the environment. Plus, it's cheaper :-))

We are using the newer of the developments to buffer a single-family
home neighborhood from an industrial one and took the zoning
"backwards" from industrial to residential. It's been a long road but
we're getting close. We're clustering the 32 units on 8.5 acres and
leaving most of the land undisturbed.

Our clustering, our storm system, our sewer line extension, our
sidewalks, etc are not done out of any "New Urbanism" or whatever. I
couldn't care less. They are done to make money. That is the force
of nature that will prevail.

george conklin

2007-04-14 19:16:46 UTC

Post by Pat
Actually, if you are installing new water and sewer lines to
accomodate growth, I doubt very much that you even need to bother much
with the likes of zoning and planning laws. The laws of nature are
much more powerful than the laws of man. Put your water and sewer
lines in right, and you can instantly set the pattern of growth for
decades to come -- without much ability to appeal or change a
decision. Water and sewer lines move the world and are the basis of
almost all growth. They are the key to your future.

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Pat

2007-04-14 19:35:03 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic. Wells don't work well because you have constant
testin gof the water. If you have 5 or more units on a well, you are
subject to exactly the same requirements as a muni water system. Same
goes for restaurants and any other place selling food/beverages. As
for septic, that's hard too because of the amount of water that you
need to process. Package plants are expensive and septics don't work
that well. Plus if you get anyone throwing anything into them that
they shouldn't, that plugs things up. Single family homes and such
are okay, but multi-family and commercial needs water/sewer. That's
why I said you can control your development pattern by controlling
where the lines are going.

george conklin

2007-04-14 19:50:02 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-14 21:46:41 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

Exactly why do "we" need to encourage the building of housing on 1 acre-plus
lots? According to your own statistics that you like to parrot, that is
below the density that is cost-effective for a government to serve.

2007-04-14 22:10:51 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

You don't need an acre for a septic system leach field.

Baxter

2007-04-14 23:41:03 UTC

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Amy Blankenship
Exactly why do "we" need to encourage the building of housing on 1 acre-plus
lots? According to your own statistics that you like to parrot, that is
below the density that is cost-effective for a government to serve.

You don't need an acre for a septic system leach field.

Depends on the soil. In fact, for some soils you need far more than an
acre. And once a septic system goes bad and starts contaminating, it can
contaminate far more than an acre.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-15 00:41:25 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

You don't need an acre for a septic system leach field.

In my area, the code says 1/2 acre is the minimum size for a lot with a
septic on it, 1 acre if the house does not also have access to a source of
water that is off the property (i.e. if they're on a well). Therefore, by
code, without water and sewer, the minimum lot size is 1 acre.

george conklin

2007-04-14 23:01:47 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

Exactly why do "we" need to encourage the building of housing on 1
acre-plus lots? According to your own statistics that you like to parrot,
that is below the density that is cost-effective for a government to
serve.

As density goes up, cost to government goes up too. Cost-effective reaches
an optimal at about 4 per acre, not apartment-dweller density.

Baxter

2007-04-14 23:47:03 UTC

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin
As density goes up, cost to government goes up too.

Largely because more services are rendered.

Post by george conklin
Cost-effective reaches
an optimal at about 4 per acre,

You're pulling that number out of your ass. Ladd's number showed about 10
acres per family

Post by george conklin
not apartment-dweller density.

You can have Single-family dwellings at substantially more than 4 per acre.
And a LOT of people don't want yards and are quite happy with
"apartment-dweller density."

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-15 00:42:03 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

Exactly why do "we" need to encourage the building of housing on 1
acre-plus lots? According to your own statistics that you like to
parrot, that is below the density that is cost-effective for a government
to serve.

As density goes up, cost to government goes up too. Cost-effective
reaches an optimal at about 4 per acre, not apartment-dweller density.

You cannot have septics 4 to an acre.

george conklin

2007-04-15 11:23:17 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

Exactly why do "we" need to encourage the building of housing on 1
acre-plus lots? According to your own statistics that you like to
parrot, that is below the density that is cost-effective for a
government to serve.

As density goes up, cost to government goes up too. Cost-effective
reaches an optimal at about 4 per acre, not apartment-dweller density.

You cannot have septics 4 to an acre.

True, but less density is more cost-effective than apartment-house
densities. As the cost curve shows, densities such as NYC are as expensive
as farming densities. But suburbs are not farming densities either, even
with septic tanks. At best, Smart Growth densities save no money over
septic-tank densities for government, but are cost owners more in terms of
less house for the $.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-15 15:09:59 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

Exactly why do "we" need to encourage the building of housing on 1
acre-plus lots? According to your own statistics that you like to
parrot, that is below the density that is cost-effective for a
government to serve.

As density goes up, cost to government goes up too. Cost-effective
reaches an optimal at about 4 per acre, not apartment-dweller density.

You cannot have septics 4 to an acre.

True, but less density is more cost-effective than apartment-house
densities. As the cost curve shows, densities such as NYC are as
expensive as farming densities. But suburbs are not farming densities
either, even with septic tanks. At best, Smart Growth densities save no
money over septic-tank densities for government, but are cost owners more
in terms of less house for the $.

Nobody's arguing for apartment house densities. Certainly arguing that
communities should be planning growth that requires septic tanks doesn't
make any sense on any level.

Pat

2007-04-15 00:09:59 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

I am not saying that we should, or should not, encourage homeownership
or apartments. I am saying that you can control it by where/if you
put water and sewer lines. Unlike zoning, this is not something that
is easy to change.

If, for example, you want to build homes at 3 or 4 per acre along a
sewer line and I want to build apartments at 8 or 12 per acre, it is
very likely that I will outbid you for the land because I get a better
return. Then, you go build somewhere without water and sewer on 1/2
or 1 acre sites that don't have water and sewer because that's where
you maximize your profit since the people who are purchasing the homes
want that size lots because they don't have water and sewer. It is
not a matter of good or bad, right or wrong. It is a matter of
economics and the fact that the physical world is much harder to
change than the political world.

Now, if you were to zone the area around that water and sewer pipe to
not allow the multi-family development, then there are two effects.
First, I'll go try to change the zoning. It'll become a matter of
money and political influence. Also, if the multifamily housing is
needed, then you've created a housing crisis because you've screwed
with the housing market in a manner that reduced the supply of
housing. In the end, it might result in higher taxes to pay for the
new lines to serve the new area where someone is building multi-
family.

george conklin

2007-04-15 11:24:41 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic.

Good. So? We need to encourage home ownership, not more apartments.

But it is easy to change zoning from single-family to Smart Growth
densities. You have a tear-down situation called infill, which is supposed
to be good. You tear down affordble housing and put up something for the
much better off group.

Baxter

2007-04-15 19:47:55 UTC

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin
But it is easy to change zoning from single-family to Smart Growth
densities. You have a tear-down situation called infill, which is supposed
to be good. You tear down affordble housing and put up something for the
much better off group.

"Infill" is NOT tear-down. Check any city, you'll find thousands of empty
lots. Infill is building on those already empty lots.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-14 20:20:01 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the coasts,
where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now lives. Even
in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades. Also, septics
force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing since sliced
bread, but it should not be forced by poor infrastructure.

-Amy

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-14 20:23:26 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the
coasts, where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now
lives. Even in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades.
Also, septics force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing
since sliced bread, but it should not be forced by poor infrastructure.

Sorry, meant to say that George proudly announced, not you, Pat.

george conklin

2007-04-14 20:53:47 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the
coasts, where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now
lives. Even in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades.
Also, septics force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing
since sliced bread, but it should not be forced by poor infrastructure.
-Amy

Poor infrastructure is what is causing people to have to leve rural areas.
Our population is DE sprawling.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-14 21:00:50 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the
coasts, where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now
lives. Even in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades.
Also, septics force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing
since sliced bread, but it should not be forced by poor infrastructure.
-Amy

Poor infrastructure is what is causing people to have to leve rural areas.
Our population is DE sprawling.

Then why are you arguing against infrastructure that allows people to
_actually_ desprawl?

george conklin

2007-04-14 21:47:21 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the
coasts, where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now
lives. Even in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades.
Also, septics force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing
since sliced bread, but it should not be forced by poor infrastructure.
-Amy

Poor infrastructure is what is causing people to have to leve rural
areas. Our population is DE sprawling.

Then why are you arguing against infrastructure that allows people to
_actually_ desprawl?

By moving to a city area, they are desprawling. Crowding them to please
some type of social theory is dysfunctional.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-14 21:49:12 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the
coasts, where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now
lives. Even in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades.
Also, septics force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing
since sliced bread, but it should not be forced by poor infrastructure.
-Amy

Poor infrastructure is what is causing people to have to leve rural
areas. Our population is DE sprawling.

Then why are you arguing against infrastructure that allows people to
_actually_ desprawl?

By moving to a city area, they are desprawling. Crowding them to please
some type of social theory is dysfunctional.

Septic systems, as practiced _most_ of the time, are environmentally
dysfunctional. However, you have demonstrated time and again that you don't
care if current policy pollutes drinking water for future generations, just
as long as George Conklin doesn't dehydrate today...

2007-04-14 22:10:52 UTC

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the
coasts, where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now
lives. Even in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades.
Also, septics force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing
since sliced bread, but it should not be forced by poor infrastructure.
-Amy

Poor infrastructure is what is causing people to have to leve rural
areas. Our population is DE sprawling.

Then why are you arguing against infrastructure that allows people to
_actually_ desprawl?

By moving to a city area, they are desprawling. Crowding them to please
some type of social theory is dysfunctional.

Septic systems, as practiced _most_ of the time, are environmentally
dysfunctional.

Cite?

george conklin

2007-04-14 23:03:55 UTC

Post by Pat
Actually, if you are installing new water and sewer lines to
accomodate growth, I doubt very much that you even need to
bother
much
with the likes of zoning and planning laws. The laws of nature are
much more powerful than the laws of man. Put your water and sewer
lines in right, and you can instantly set the pattern of growth for
decades to come -- without much ability to appeal or change a
decision. Water and sewer lines move the world and are the
basis
of
almost all growth. They are the key to your future.

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic tanks which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic. Wells don't work well because you have constant
testin gof the water. If you have 5 or more units on a well, you are
subject to exactly the same requirements as a muni water system.
Same
goes for restaurants and any other place selling food/beverages.
As
for septic, that's hard too because of the amount of water that you
need to process. Package plants are expensive and septics don't work
that well. Plus if you get anyone throwing anything into them that
they shouldn't, that plugs things up. Single family homes and such
are okay, but multi-family and commercial needs water/sewer.
That's
why I said you can control your development pattern by controlling
where the lines are going.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the
coasts, where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now
lives. Even in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades.
Also, septics force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing
since sliced bread, but it should not be forced by poor
infrastructure.
-Amy

Poor infrastructure is what is causing people to have to leve rural
areas. Our population is DE sprawling.

Then why are you arguing against infrastructure that allows people to
_actually_ desprawl?

By moving to a city area, they are desprawling. Crowding them to please
some type of social theory is dysfunctional.

Septic systems, as practiced _most_ of the time, are environmentally
dysfunctional.

Cite?

No can do.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-15 00:59:07 UTC

Post by Pat
Actually, if you are installing new water and sewer lines to
accomodate growth, I doubt very much that you even need to
bother
much
with the likes of zoning and planning laws. The laws of nature are
much more powerful than the laws of man. Put your water and sewer
lines in right, and you can instantly set the pattern of growth for
decades to come -- without much ability to appeal or change a
decision. Water and sewer lines move the world and are the
basis
of
almost all growth. They are the key to your future.

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic
tanks
which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic. Wells don't work well because you have constant
testin gof the water. If you have 5 or more units on a well, you are
subject to exactly the same requirements as a muni water system.
Same
goes for restaurants and any other place selling food/beverages.
As
for septic, that's hard too because of the amount of water that you
need to process. Package plants are expensive and septics don't work
that well. Plus if you get anyone throwing anything into them that
they shouldn't, that plugs things up. Single family homes and such
are okay, but multi-family and commercial needs water/sewer.
That's
why I said you can control your development pattern by controlling
where the lines are going.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the
coasts, where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now
lives. Even in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades.
Also, septics force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing
since sliced bread, but it should not be forced by poor
infrastructure.
-Amy

Poor infrastructure is what is causing people to have to leve rural
areas. Our population is DE sprawling.

Then why are you arguing against infrastructure that allows people to
_actually_ desprawl?

By moving to a city area, they are desprawling. Crowding them to please
some type of social theory is dysfunctional.

Septic systems, as practiced _most_ of the time, are environmentally
dysfunctional.

Cite?

No can do.

You're an idiot. Of course I can.

http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/septic_technologies.pdf (see page 9 and
12, in large print for the comprehension challenged)
http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/onsite_handbook_fs.pdf

"If properly managed (sited, designed, maintained), decentralized systems
are capable of treating wastewater to a high level of quality. However, it
is estimated that nationwide, between 10 and 20 percent of these systems are
malfunctioning as a result of inadequate management. Decentralized systems
are identified by State water quality agencies as the second greatest threat
to groundwater quality (the greatest threat is leakage from underground
storage tanks)."

2007-04-15 01:35:43 UTC

Post by Pat
Actually, if you are installing new water and sewer lines to
accomodate growth, I doubt very much that you even need to
bother
much
with the likes of zoning and planning laws. The laws of nature
are
much more powerful than the laws of man. Put your water and
sewer
lines in right, and you can instantly set the pattern of growth
for
decades to come -- without much ability to appeal or change a
decision. Water and sewer lines move the world and are the
basis
of
almost all growth. They are the key to your future.

Beyond water and sewer lines, there are wells and septic
tanks
which
work quite well except on city-sized lots. They can go anywhere, in
general.

Not really. It is hard to develop multi-family or much commercial on
wells & septic. Wells don't work well because you have constant
testin gof the water. If you have 5 or more units on a well, you are
subject to exactly the same requirements as a muni water system.
Same
goes for restaurants and any other place selling food/beverages.
As
for septic, that's hard too because of the amount of water that you
need to process. Package plants are expensive and septics don't work
that well. Plus if you get anyone throwing anything into them that
they shouldn't, that plugs things up. Single family homes and such
are okay, but multi-family and commercial needs water/sewer.
That's
why I said you can control your development pattern by controlling
where the lines are going.

Also, many soil types are not suitable for septics, such as near the
coasts, where you've proudly announced that 50% of our population now
lives. Even in good soils, septics tend to fail after several decades.
Also, septics force sprawl. I know, to George sprawl is the best thing
since sliced bread, but it should not be forced by poor infrastructure.
-Amy

Poor infrastructure is what is causing people to have to leve rural
areas. Our population is DE sprawling.

Then why are you arguing against infrastructure that allows people to
_actually_ desprawl?

By moving to a city area, they are desprawling. Crowding them to please
some type of social theory is dysfunctional.

Septic systems, as practiced _most_ of the time, are environmentally
dysfunctional.

Cite?

No can do.

You're an idiot. Of course I can.
http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/septic_technologies.pdf (see page 9 and
12, in large print for the comprehension challenged)
http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/onsite_handbook_fs.pdf
"If properly managed (sited, designed, maintained), decentralized systems
are capable of treating wastewater to a high level of quality. However, it
is estimated that nationwide, between 10 and 20 percent of these systems are
malfunctioning as a result of inadequate management. Decentralized systems
are identified by State water quality agencies as the second greatest threat
to groundwater quality (the greatest threat is leakage from underground
storage tanks)."

Even if true (and the EPA is not trustworthy in matters that affect
their power) 10 to 20% is not _most_ systems.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-15 02:56:29 UTC