Tea Party and Smart Growth

[a630]

Thoughts?

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/20...le-development

[Ron Newman]

I wasn't a big fan of Mitt Romney but recall him having reasonable positions on subjects like 'smart growth'. So I'm not sure there's a real partisan divide here.

[Patrick]

Note: I am a registered democrat.

That being said, I can see how some of these view would emerge. Half the people who advocate for it don't even know what the word "sustainable" means. Planning in many areas has become an exercise in nothingness. And, when it amounts to something, not everyone likes that something. I am pro-urban development and traditional neighborhoods, etc., but mandating this for everyone goes against traditional American independence attitudes. I think smart growth is best for everyone, but I can see how others would disagree, especially when they are being fed the idea by people that don't know what they are talking about half the time. There are limits to planning, and they are more pronounced when the people actually doing the planning don't have a clue. That being said, I think the Gateway 1 project here in Maine (regional corridor planning initiative linking land use and transportation) being attributed to a United Nations conspiracy by the Tea Party (true story) is a bit far fetched and probably a way for the more educated members of that sect to further brainwash their idiot followers.

Lastly, I don't really see a huge partisan difference in land development attitudes, because the Democrats usually want to conserve the environment, and the Republicans are often behind hugely dense projects like skyscrapers...those two actually go hand in hand. density = conservation. And wasn't it Nixon who established the EPA? EPA has been a HUGE proponent of smart growth.

[czsz]

mandating this for everyone goes against traditional American independence attitudes

Current highway funding priorities, gasoline subsidies, and zoning codes in much of the US mean that everything associated with "traditional American independence attitudes" is not actually associated with "independence" whatsoever. Not only has this landscape been dictated by government planners; it deprives Americans of meaningful everyday choices. Tell these people this, and then ask them if they have the "freedom" to walk or bike anywhere.

You will either find them surprised they didn't know this before or reveal that their real stance is neither libertarian nor "traditionalist" (unless you count only the last 50 years as "tradition"), but merely pro-suburb and pro-car, ideology be damned.

[a630]

That's right czsz. At a meeting down here in Texas on the Fort Worth Trinity River Vision (http://www.trinityrivervision.org/Projects/CCTU.aspx) - they showed up and claimed the TIF wouldn't pay for all of the necessary improvements and that the taxpayers would have to bail out the city - a claim contradicting the numbers the city had. Asked why they didn't protest all the highway improvements in the region that taxpayers had to 'bail out' they switched the subject to China (?). It seems they don't mind government spending on things they like, and oppose projects that accommodate lifestyles different from their own, even if they pay for themselves.

[Lurker]

Snob zoning - discouraging height and density, while super sizing lot sizes. Allows for legal segregation. Restricts freedom of ownership of private property.

Environmental regulations - delays and adds to the expense of developing a lot of property even in cases where the environmental impacts are dubious.

The automobile & trucks - decentralizing civil infrastructure to the point it is no longer efficient, but requires infrastructure which defeats the point of self sufficiency normally linked to decentralized societies. Requires vast public expenditures for private transportation methods and creates a permanent welfare state of road construction.

Mortgage deductions -encouraging people to buy a bigger home on more land than they could otherwise afford. Inflates property values as well.

The shift away from property taxes as the chief financial supporter of local governments - encourages wasteful land use and requires increased infrastructure spending to support sprawl. Also encourages local governments to offer more services or inflate their payroll unrealistically for what the local economy can actually support.

[a630]

all fair observations lurker. so what do you think of what the tea party has to say about 'smart growth'?
more food for thought:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...mist-hysteria/

[Lurker]

Socialists have done as much damage as pseudo-libertarians to US development policies since the 1900s. Everyone's ideology ignores part of the economic picture and in trying to build their version of Utopia through government interference suffers unintended consequences.

The removal of most of the restrictions on the funding, growth, and scope of government has also exponentially increased the potential trouble that can be wrought by whichever ideologues happen to be in office in a particular era. The TEA party is correct in regards to wanting to dramatically shrink the size of government and cut spending. The problem lies in dismantling a lot of unsustainable infrastructure, both political and physical.

I don't think they realize a lot of suburbia's sprawl is going to have to be returned to productive rural farm land and cities are going to require a non auto-centric renaissance of density to get back to a sustainable economic balance.

Building lots of duplicitous roads to nowhere as part of political complex is maintaining a welfare state just as much as paying welfare recepients to not work. One set is being subsidized to be 'free' to travel and live anywhere the want on someone's dime, while the other set is 'free' to live without working on someone's dime.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by a630

That's right czsz. At a meeting down here in Texas on the Fort Worth Trinity River Vision (http://www.trinityrivervision.org/Projects/CCTU.aspx) - they showed up and claimed the TIF wouldn't pay for all of the necessary improvements and that the taxpayers would have to bail out the city - a claim contradicting the numbers the city had. Asked why they didn't protest all the highway improvements in the region that taxpayers had to 'bail out' they switched the subject to China (?). It seems they don't mind government spending on things they like, and oppose projects that accommodate lifestyles different from their own, even if they pay for themselves.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that "subsidy" has become a proxy for departure from the status quo. If it is the status quo, people are less likely to see it as a subsidy, even if it in fact is. That's why these things are such an uphill battle. The switch to suburbia was also an uphill battle (GM with Greyhound funded a HUGE media campaign to sell cars to people and systematically dismantle rails across the country). It's always an uphill battle, and the tipping point comes from either the ability to afford the campaign or from necessity. Gas previously allowed the suburbanists to afford the campaign, but necessity will reign in their excesses.

[a630]

true. check out christopher leinberger's "the option of urbanism" in which he makes a case for leveling the playing field between suburbanism and urbanism.

[a630]

and lurker ... yes it is a shame that the US has chosen to build its cities around what must be the most expensive types of infrastructure out there in the world - and not just in terms of cost to the taxpayers en masse, but individuals, who each have to buy and maintain their own cars in order to take advantage of this infrastructure. i've noticed that some tea party candidates are in favor of pulling spending out of defense and some other areas that republicans traditionally haven't been willing to cut from - do you think the tea party may mobilize against spending for new highways, bridges, etc. and wither sprawl?

[Lurker]

Many highway projects, and more recently HSR, are make work projects for unions and favored contractors. If the TEA Party succeeds in reducing spending there should be less money and an appetite to fund expansion of non essential infrastructure instead of maintaining what is already built.

Defense spending is a whole other issue. Contractors are overcharging the government, procurement is a mess, and many officials have been using defense projects as make work projects for their home states. Vital replacement of worn out equipment was getting deferred during the Clinton years in favor of make work projects. When the shooting wars started, most of the pork remained as the budget was upped for emergency replacement of vital equipment.

There's also a huge excess of senior leadership left over from the WWII mentality of needing extra officers to quickly lead a large conscripted army in case of a World War. With an all volunteer army and large reserves of professionally trained people, there's no need for all the expensive desk jockies to be sitting around anymore. Especially whereas they are expensive, draw large benefits, and greatly contribute to the procurement mess.

It also doesn't help that we are staging troops in areas they are no longer needed at insanely high costs. If most of peaceful world wants our defense umbrella they should be paying us for protection rather than having us foot their defense bill. There are strategic exceptions and the Navy requires overseas basing to protect shipping interests, however we must stop subsidizing other countries defense and paying them leases to do so.

With significant reform defense spending could probably be cut 20-25% for an actually MORE effective military. The problem is getting all the fat trimmed out of the hamburger. An across the top cut would devastate the military's effectiveness without addressing the gross inefficiency of spending issues.

I honestly expect the country is eventually going to default or at least get very close to it. Followed by a period of austerity which sees the government dramatically reigned, by shear force of the economic reality, in to pre-New Deal size and public sector unions abolished. There'll probably be a dramatic fear of inflation, similar to what's in Germany, and an absolute paranoia about ever letting the government get to a large enough size, with a big enough spending capacity, to cause another default.

Did I mention we are boned?

[BostonUrbEx]

Anyone want to start the Urban Party movement?

[Ron Newman]

It also doesn't help that we are staging troops in areas they are no longer needed at insanely high costs.

Those areas being everywhere outside the territory of the US. Imagine how well we could balance the budget if we abandoned imperialism.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Ron Newman

Those areas being everywhere outside the territory of the US. Imagine how well we could balance the budget if we abandoned imperialism.

Without the US Navy maritime trade would become impossible. Ron Paul style isolationism as you are proposing would lead to a collapse of the global economy as we know it. That would be affect the tax base at a magnitude far greater than defense spending.

Defense is only 1/3 of the problem. Entitlements and very scary compounding interest on the debt are the other 2/3rds. We could completely eliminate defense spending and in less than a decade still be broke from the current trends.

[czsz]

I honestly expect the country is eventually going to default or at least get very close to it. Followed by a period of austerity which sees the government dramatically reigned, by shear force of the economic reality, in to pre-New Deal size and public sector unions abolished. There'll probably be a dramatic fear of inflation, similar to what's in Germany, and an absolute paranoia about ever letting the government get to a large enough size, with a big enough spending capacity, to cause another default.

Except that Germany, despite its excessive fears of inflation and purported "austerity" measures, still has a massive public sector, and a powerful labor movement, relative to the US. The difference is really that Germany has a successful export economy and doesn't run trade deficits like the US does. It can afford to be "austere" without making the kind of cuts that would restructure it from a "social market economy" to a laissez-faire one.

Without the US Navy maritime trade would become impossible. Ron Paul style isolationism as you are proposing would lead to a collapse of the global economy as we know it. That would be affect the tax base at a magnitude far greater than defense spending.

Isn't this the case for the army, too? Places like South Korea are important trading partners for the US, and for the US' other trading partners. Removing the security guarantee of a major military presence might cause a scare with all kinds of negative effects.

Arguably you could remove the presence in Germany, but as long as there's any conceivable need to project power into the Middle East / South Asia, which is not something I think any US administration is going to give up, there's also a need for some kind of refueling/recuperation point in Europe.

[Ron Newman]

South Korea is an affluent enough country that it really doesn't need this kind of subsidy from the US anymore. So is Germany. Let's get our own economy in order instead of satisfying male fantasies of "projecting power".

[czsz]

Even if that's the case, Ron, it might take South Korea a little while to actually build up its defensive posture to the same position as it enjoys with US protection. And even if it could step up to that immediately, investors would panic over US withdrawal, and that would have negative implications for the world economy as a whole.

I'd love to see the US military presence worldwide reduced for all kinds of reasons, but bad things happen when empires retrench too quickly (see India/Pakistan, Partition of).

[Lurker]

Ron, without the ability to project power the military becomes a useless entity. Look at piracy off the Horn of Africa. Guys in fishing boats can seize billion dollar tankers with impunity because they know in their area of operations there aren't naval forces with sufficient projection of power to patrol the swath of ocean they terrorize.

Power projection is really important and it HEAVILY plays into diplomacy. Countries whom know there is a credible threat of force will negotiate because of the potential consequences. It's like a parking ticket, if the meter maid wasn't backed up by a credible threat of enforcement, would you ever pay the ticket?

That said:

All of our bases in Europe could be closed and consolidated in Poland for a significant savings. We don't need to maintain boots on the ground, or training facilities in Europe anymore. Just logistics hubs. The same is true for most of the rest of the world with the exception of ports. Instead of keeping troops and equipment far away where it is expensive, we should be maintaining logistics hubs, air force and navy bases, to facilitate movement of those troops and equipment from CONUS.

If the troops have to embark on planes or ships to a new staging area for a build up prior to a conflict. What's the point of having them leave from an expensive warehouse overseas when they could just be traveling from home? There isn't much of a change in response time, as the forces always need a build up period anyway, or at least the Marines could act as a rapid reaction force operating from the sea if need be. All we need is the few key logistic relay points to do basically what we already do now. It's rather stupid that we have training, barracks, and medical facilities overseas when none of those functions couldn't be handled domestically.

[briv]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Ron, without the ability to project power the military becomes a useless entity. Look at piracy off the Horn of Africa. Guys in fishing boats can seize billion dollar tankers with impunity because they know in their area of operations there aren't naval forces with sufficient projection of power to patrol the swath of ocean they terrorize...

How many of those tankers are flying American flags? You wont find many, if any, American tankers docked in Chelsea or Everett; nor will find any American-flagged cargo freighters docked in South Boston. The US has hardly any shipping industry. If shipping companies see fit to register their vessels to other countries for financial reasons why should we foot the bill to protect them? If a vessel flies a certain country's flag, that country should be charged with protecting them--or maybe the company should protect its own cargo.