Well, Finagle, according to this site:
http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpages/19990406_naturescape.htm
which cites the EPA study, commercial and residential gardening equipment accounts for seven percent of the ozone forming pollutants from all mobile sources, including automobiles.
Hardly trivial.
And here’s a little nugget for snowmobile and ATV owners:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36cc7fa518f9.htm
Fortunately, the EPA is stepping in to impose emissions standards on these polluters.
(Let’s see now, under a libertarian government, this problem would have been addressed… how? By ignoring it, I suppose. Sorry, all you libertarians out there, but there is most definitely a place for government intervention in the arena of pollution control.)
Dammit, same deal. Where’s the attribution for the statistic? Nothing is cited. The statistic appears in the same article as the acronym “EPA”, that’s about it.
Anyway, the original claim that I objected to was that “Two of the worst air pollution offenders are outdoor grills and lawnmower motors.”
Even if you factor in the commercial gardening tools and tractors, 7% isn’t a major factor in anything. When was the last time you got excited by a “get 7% off sale”? Yes, cutting the emissions of lawnmowers will be a good thing. In 2010, after all the old mowers have gone to mower heaven, we’ll be down to 4% or so on this statistic. That will be a good thing. But the LA skies won’t suddenly turn blue and clear.
spoke-:
Okay, I have a little time for this, but you’re not going to like it. I amazed that you claim to have libertarian friends. I assume you don’t subject them to the kind of unsolicited attacks that you do the libertarians on this board. I have decided to adopt the same sort of snide tone with you that you have with me.
So, what? Is there a shortage of farms? Since, the U.S. is a net exporter of agricultural products, I would say no. Espcecially when you also consider that the government feels the need to subsidize farmers to not grow on some of their land to keep prices up. Sounds to me like there are too many farms.
I maintain that they are attractive comfortable places to live. Since people continue to move from other places into suburbs, I think it is obvious that I am not alone in this opinion.
What path is that? Cars become cleaner and more fuel efficient every year. Overall pollution levels in the country are declining. Is the dangerous path the one that leads to people being happy in lifestyles that you don’t approve of?
Yep, that’s a problem. When this happens, not all communities make decisions that you like. How 'bout if we put you in charge?
Now, you’re talking: More bureaucracy. I assume this is going to be really expensive, too, right? I can’t enjoy it if it doesn’t cost a shitload of money.
I don’t see any way that divemaster can live in your community that doesn’t have these effects. You just don’t want any more people there?
Lucky thing streets don’t need a lot of rain to grow.
One of the nice thing about suburbs is that a lot of people have big ole yards with grass and trees in them. Helps break up the general asphault covering.
Whereas, time spent at bus-stops is extremely productive.
Yes. I even deny that they are problems.
If I were home, I could look out my window and see two big oak trees and a bunch of grass in my yard. I blame them on sprawl.
It seems to me that most of your gripes are about what you see when you look out your window or drive through town. Thought about moving? I hear there are some really nice suburban areas on the outskirts of Atlanta.
Because they want one and are willing to pay for one. I know, it destroys the farm land that we are in so short supply of. If it helps, some years I grow tomatoes and okra in my yard.
In fact, why can’t everything just be communal? We haven’t even given socialism a chance!
If you like the idea, I say you go build it and live in it. Personally, I think I’d just as soon be in jail.
Is this a great country or what? Individual freedom. I can choose what sort of area to live in. And I am largely protected from “planning on a grand scale”. Just those words give me the creeps.
And still, overall pollution levels are going down.
Nasty freedom-mongers. I can’t believe they expect their voices to be heard as well as yours. Here, you’ve gone to the trouble to figure out the solutions for everyone and they have the nerve to disagree? I’m flabbergasted.
Lock 'em out. Don’t let 'em come in and take advantage of you that way, working in your city, spending their money. That’ll teach 'em. Lock 'em out and show 'em what a prosperous city you’ll have without their constant encroachments.
Absolutely. The people on the coast should be paying for the sewers in Atlanta. How much more fair can you get than that?
Let’s pack all these losers into the cities. If it’s good enough for me, it’s good enough for them. Besides, it’s environmentally desireable–why, the environment was just talking to me about this the other day.
And you can see the whole country, right?
Are you seriously suggesting that we need more farms? What in the hell for?
How am I supposed to keep an eye on these people if they keep moving around like that? And, eewww, they’re sprawling.
My parents live in a nice, suburban neighborhood, with a big ole yard full of pine trees. They can drive to the grocery, drug store, any number of restaurants in under 15 minutes. They like it.
What is wrong with the idea of building new developments on this pattern?
Hmmm, let’s see. We’ve got more farms than we need, lots of different choices for people looking for a place to live. Trees are increasing, lumber use becoming more efficient. Air and water pollution are decreasing. Sounds like we’re in a pretty good place and things are generally getting better. What’s your beef?
What if I don’t want to know my neighbors?
Once again, what problem? The only problem you’ve given evidence of is that you don’t like the view out your window. You’re gonna mobilize the whole country to provide you with a more pleasing view?
Why not? You have some evidence that the water is now dangerous?
And, let me guess, it’s because of sprawl.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe we’ve got too much freedom. Just like Europe had too many Jews.
Whatever the hell that means. Libertarianism is not “intolerant” of government action; it does, however, closely specify those times when government can act. You like to imply that forests are torn up and valuable farms dismantled because of too much focus on private property. Where does most clear-cutting take place? Why, in our publicly owned national forests. Why would private owners clear-cut their land? Would it not be more profitable to cut selectively, replant, and maintain the land as a continuous source of lumber? And why do you keep insisting that we have a shortage of farms?
You still haven’t convinced me there’s a problem, spoke-.
And those reasons are?
Yes, many of us are unconvinced that “sprawl” is a problem. It’s because libertariansim sucks.
So what you see proves that pollution is getting worse? And you have evidence that this yellow-brown smog came from SUV’s?
Please support your assertion that water resources are dwindling.
There is a problem because I say so.
I don’t think anyone has tried to dispute either of these points.
Have you some evidence, other than the view out your window, that the country is in danger or running out of either of those? I mean, other than the lack of cedars in Lebanon.
The rallying cry of the technocrat: Things are changing–we must stop things from changing. We must control any changes that happen. All change is bad.
So, your concerns are not necessarily for forests in general, or even development in general. You are mainly unhappy that Atlanta has gotten bigger than you want it to be and people keep building houses and moving in. In the words of SingleDad, you are free to move.
Okay, let me get this straight. Suburb dwellers tend to have big yards full of grass and trees and tend to be more spread out, and you don’t like this because it is sprawl. Instead, you want to pack everyone together into tight cities, with only small, shared parks. Sounds to me like you want less trees and more concentrated heat islands.
And how do they both compare to, say, 10 years ago? 20 years ago? It’s not enough to say pollution exists. Is it getting worse or better? Is sprawl really causing it? Is it possible to reduce pollution without having to also fight against sprawl?
More farm shortages? Is your position just that any time the number of farms goes down, it’s a problem? And what’s so great about rural areas?
Trees are gained and lost regularly. If you chop down a tree in Atlanta and plant two in, say, Alabama, have you hurt the environment?
You cannot have civilization without some amount of air pollution. The question is, how much air pollution can be tolerated? If air pollution is generally declining, what the hell are you complaining about?
Look, if you want to suggest taking this level of control of people’s lives, you need to provide better evidence of a problem. You need to provide evidence that this problem is not already being addressed. You need to provide evidence that your solution is the best course. You’ve done none of these things.
And you’re still being a complete hypocrite, and not admitting it. Kimstu did the exact same thing. I actually did not want to enter this debate, but when I saw her posting links to the Sierra Club, I thought it would make sense for another view to be presented, and so I offered some counter-links. If you, in fact, had a problem with people using links in place of arguments, you would have attacked Kimstu in the same derisive manner as you attacked me.
No, but you’d do a lot better if you wouldn’t confuse your opinions with facts.
Here are a few for you:
-In the most recent National Air Quality Trends report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had this to say: “Since 1970, total U.S. population increased 29 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 121 percent, and the gross domestic product (GDP) increased 104 percent. During that same period, notable reductions in air quality concentrations and emissions took place.” Since 1970, ambient levels of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide have fallen by 75 percent, while total suspended particulates like smoke, soot, and dust have been cut by 50 percent since the 1950s.
-Ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide, prime constituents of smog, are both down by 30 percent since the 1970s. According to the EPA, the total number of days with air pollution alerts dropped 56 percent in Southern California and 66 percent in the remaining major cities in the United States between 1988 and 1997. Since at least the early 1990s, residents of infamously smogged-in Los Angeles have been able to see that their city is surrounded by mountains.
-Ambient levels of particulates and sulfur dioxide have been declining ever since accurate records have been kept. Between 1960 and 1970, for instance, particulates declined by 25 percent; sulfur dioxide decreased by 35 percent between 1962 and 1970. More concretely, it takes 20 new cars to produce the same emissions that one car produced in the 1960s.
-The EPA estimates that between 60 percent and 70 percent of lakes, rivers, and streams meet state quality goals. That’s up from about 30 percent to 40 percent 30 years ago.
-A 1994 World Conservation Union report found known extinctions since 1600 encompassed 258 animal species, 368 insect species, and 384 vascular plants. Most of these species, he explains, were “island endemics” like the Dodo. As a result, they are particularly vulnerable to habitat disruption, hunting, and competition from invading species. Since 1973, only seven species have gone extinct in the United States.
-In 1920, U.S. forests covered 732 million acres. Today they cover 737 million acres, even though the number of Americans grew from 106 million in 1920 to 272 million now.
Yes, I am able to find these facts by reading Reason. Since it is a reputable source, and not a collection of tracts, the authors base their conclusions on publicly available data from agencies that even you probably wouldn’t question, like the EPA. Your reputable sources pull details out of a report about where some pollution comes from. My reputable sources go ahead and read the whole report to find out whether we should be worried. They actually insist on proof of a causal link before they start suggesting disrupting everyones lives and wasting their money. You keep trying to put the burden of proof on me, but it is not me who is suggesting this level of disruption. The burden of proof is on you.
Problem? What problem?
[If your behavior in past threads is any guide, this is the part where I expect you to abandon this thread and start posting your ridiculous arguments somewhere else]
-VM
Smartass! So you do have some opinions of your own after all! You managed to put together a whole post without quoting Reason Magazine or Ayn Rand! How impressive!
Hey, thanks for citing all the EPA statistics on declining air pollution levels as a result of the 1970 passage of the Clean Air Act! What delicious irony!
May I assume that, like most libertarians, you favor eliminating the EPA and dismantling the Clean Air Act? It must be really galling for you to have to post the statistics proving the success of both!!
Face it: the EPA statistics you cite showing declining pollution levels since the 1960’s prove one thing: Government intervention works!!!. (Would this be some of that “planning on a grand scale” you’re so afraid of?)
Here’s the EPA link, for those who wish to read more:
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd97/brochure/lngtrm.html
What about the reduction in L.A. smog? Well, it sure hasn’t been libertarians addressing that problem, either. Instead, it the heavy regulation of pollution sources that has been put in place. Yes! Evil government bureacrats save the day! They must be your heroes!
Of course, if libertarians had been in charge, none of the government regulations which have been reducing pollution would be in place. Instead, you would have wasted our time trying to tell us that all that smoke we saw coming out of smokestacks in the 60’s and 70’s wasn’t really a problem, and that we shouldn’t worry about pollution. Libertarians would have probably tried to convince us that the Cuyahoga river catching on fire was just a sign that the river was “nutrient rich!”
Now the bad news. The reductions in pollution levels you cite have been achieved through government regulation of industry and of auto emissions. Unfortunately, numerous sources of pollution are more difficult to regulate. (The so-called “non-point-source” polluters.) This includes such things as lawn runoff, parking lot runoff, etc., that are described in earlier posts. This type of pollution is caused and/or exacerbated by the types of suburban development I am talking about.
You want some links on deteriorating environmental conditions caused by Atlanta’s growth? You got 'em:
http://www.amrivers.org/report.txt (Scroll down for info on Atlanta’s Chattahoochee River.)
http://augustachronicle.com/stories/030499/bus_MNS-6821.001.shtml (Article on non-point source pollution)
http://www.accessatlanta.com/news/1999/07/26/allatoona2.html (Article describing the effects of development on Lake Allatoona, one of Atlanta’s water sources, and the reluctance of homeowners there to accept tax responsibility for the problems.)
http://www.nitrate.com/nit-nuz-old.htm Scroll down for information on the Chattahoochee River. A quote from the site:
http://www.onlineathens.com/1997/121297/1212.a2lanier.html (Article on the decline of Lake Lanier, another of Atlanta’s water sources.)
Oh yes, and you wanted proof that Georgia, Alabama and Florida are litigating over their common (and strained) water supply. Here it is:
http://augustachronicle.com/stories/021998/met_LG0424-8.001.shtml
http://www.onlineathens.com/1998/021998/0219.a2water.html
The litigation continues…
Why don’t I think libertarianism will work? I could write a treatise. (But that’s for another thread…) In the meantime, Kimstu has answered that question with far more eloquence and humor than I in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26365
I will address a few of your other points:
Nah. Of course not. Heck, maybe I’ll build a big ol’ house in the suburbs myself. I hear Lebanon cedars are a great building material…
Thanks, bureacrats! Thanks, regulators!
On the contrary! Fewer bureacrats, since we are talking about taking a whole level of government (cities and counties) out of the formula!
Freedom-mongers my ass! Freeloaders is more like it. I am talking about citizen groups who band together to thwart sewer taxes, for example, thus thwarting any effort to impose upon them the actual costs of their lifestyles.
The idea of taxing suburban dwellers to cover the costs of the increased burden they place on infrastructure is a nice dream. Unfortunately, they refuse to accept such taxation. In fact, two suburban sections of Atlanta’s Fulton County are talking about breaking away to form their own governments, for the very purpose of avoiding such taxation. Without regional planning and regional taxation, it will never be possible to get them to accept their share of the burden.
…Nah. It’s too easy.
Yes. See the link on the Chattahoochee posted above.
No, it would be most profitable to plaster the Great Smoky Mountains with exclusive resorts, which developers would surely do if given the chance. But that’s OK with libertarians, right?
This post is long enough, so I’ll wrap it up for now. More as events warrant.
Oops! The date on the Clean Air Act was 1963.
And damn those smileys!
[QUOTE]
**
May I assume that, like most libertarians, you favor eliminating the EPA and dismantling the Clean Air Act? It must be really galling for you to have to post the statistics proving the success of both!!
[quote]
**
I voted libertarian in the last presidental election. I think pollution is one of the areas government has a right to step into. There does reach a point where the pollution coming off someone’s property is detrimental to the wellbeing of others.
**
Throw enough money at anything and you’ll get results. The EPA loses something like 65% of all the cases they bring to court. In the 60’s they started a study on pesticides that still hasn’t been completed. I wouldn’t dissolve the EPA but I think they might need some signifigant changes.
[quote]
**
Nah. Of course not. Heck, maybe I’ll build a big ol’ house in the suburbs myself. I hear Lebanon cedars are a great building material…
[quote]
**
Is there a signifigant danger to us losing to much farm land in the future? Is the US population growing to fast and if so what can we do to change that?
[quote]
**
On the contrary! Fewer bureacrats, since we are talking about taking a whole level of government (cities and counties) out of the formula!
[quote]
**
Won’t work. We like having shared powers between local, county, state, and federal governments. I like having a bigger on what goes on in my town then someone who doesn’t live here.
[quote]
**
Freedom-mongers my ass! Freeloaders is more like it. I am talking about citizen groups who band together to thwart sewer taxes, for example, thus thwarting any effort to impose upon them the actual costs of their lifestyles.
[quote]
**
Sure, people in the suburbs don’t pay for their sewer, water, or electricity. We’re taking you city slickers to the cleaners. While you might find examples of this you’ve provided no evidence that this is a huge concern. How many mayors complain that their cities are being bled by suburbs?
Marc
MGibson wrote:
Please read again the article on the problems faced by Lake Allatoona. Here’s the link again:
http://www.accessatlanta.com/news/1999/07/26/allatoona2.html
From that article:
To sum up, all the suburbs are screwing up the quality of Atlanta’s water supplies, yet, no one in the suburbs wants to pay the actual costs to fix problems they are causing. Sounds like a parasitic relationship to me.
Guess who I am describing:
They cut down most of the trees on their land leading to erosion and deforestation. They routinely pour hundreds of thousands of gallons of water on this dirt, which washs away top soil and fills the rivers with silt. They spray thousands of gallons of fertilizer onto the land. They also spray tons of herbicide and pesticide onto their land. All of which flows into the streams.
Yup, its the farmers. I woneder, who is more dangerous to the environment: Farmers or suburbanites.
I wonder what the pollution output of a combine is?
This might shock you so please sit down. Atlanta is not the whole of the United States. The problems you are facing over there might not be applicable to the problems faced in Los Angeles, Dallas, Denver, or Houston. We have no natural lakes in Texas. So when suburbs are being built they've actually created artifical lakes to help with the water supply. So you can see at least in that regard we're not having that problem.
If Atlanta feels as though it is being screwed they should either attempt to work out an agreement or failing that sue the suburbs.
Marc
spoke-:
First off, I’ve just got to know: What the hell is the hyphen for?
I’m feeling reasonable today. Having been involved in a number of these libertarians vs X threads, I’m growing bored with this continual sniping. While entertaining, it accomplishes nothing.
First, I don’t know what libertarians you’ve been talking to, but your understanding of our beliefs is incorrect. Libertarianism, even in its most utopian guises, does not object to government involvement in the control of environmental pollution. Libertarians are not offended with the idea of a government agency overseeing these efforts per se; we object to the specific methods of the EPA.
Here’s the thing: While we are big on property rights, there are certain things that it just isn’t possible to own, which we often refer to as “open-access commons”. A river is a good example. If I tried to grant you title to a section of river, all the water I just granted you title to has moved on to someone else’s property before we can even get the documents signed. Same with air: You can’t own it because it moves around on its own. For this reason, if you are polluting the air over your lumber mill, you are polluting air that I have just as much right to as you do. Similarly, if fertilizer is running from my yard into a river, then I am violating everyone’s rights.
Given these facts, it makes sense for the government to be involved in this situation. After all, we think the purpose of government is to protect everyone’s rights equally. And we like things that make sense.
A knee-jerk (and uninformed) reaction to this situation would be to say, then, that no one is allowed to pollute open-access commons. Unfortunately, we cannot have even a primitive society without producing some amount of air and water pollution. Let’s face it, even without any kind of society, humans have to shit somewhere.
So, we must accept that some amount of pollution is unavoidable. The questions we should be asking are questions like
-What level of pollution is acceptable without destroying the habitability of the planet?
-What are reasonable targets for pollution reduction?
The good news is that technology improves every year. The result of this is that with each passing year, we are capable of supporting and feeding more humans with less farm land and less environmental pollution.
Now, let’s look at your position (as I understand it)
-Environmental pollution is generally bad and should be minimized.
(No argument here)
-Government action is required to make sure that we work to continually lower pollution levels
(Again, no argument)
-Cars, lawnmowers, lawn treatments, factories, etc. all contribute to environmental pollution
(Still with you)
-People who have lawns, drive cars, create sewage, etc. contribute to environmental pollution.
(Seems logical)
-The condition known as sprawl leads to more lawns, more cars, etc. and, thus, more pollution.
(See, now you’re starting to lose me. It is the desire of people to have lawns and provide their own transportation that leads to what you call “sprawl”. Sprawl is a manifestation of people living the way they want to.)
-We must prevent sprawl in order to reduce pollution.
(Now you’ve lost me. I won’t argue that prohibiting sprawl wouldn’t reduce pollution. However, I would argue that we can approach this goal without necessitating telling people how they must live their lives.)
Now, my position:
-People, in general, are entitled to freedom.
(We may differ on the way freedom is defined, but I imagine we generally agree here)
-No one person’s freedom is more important than any other’s.
(I expect you to agree with this also.)
-Envioronmental pollution is a danger to everyone’s freedom, and so should be minimized.
(Still with me?)
-In dealing with the problem of environmental pollution, we should endeavor to find solutions that minimize restrictions on freedom while maximizing results.
(Makes sense, no?)
-We can achieve our greatest success in reducing pollution by taking advantage of the power of markets and people’s desires to promote their own best interests.
(Probably lost you here)
As you see, we, for the most part, don’t really disagree on the ends. We disagree on the means.
As I mentioned in a previous thread, a libertarian approach to pollution is not to ignore it and assume it will go away. On the other hand, a libertarian approach is also not to come up with a bunch of rules for how people go about their lives and work. Well, then, what would a libertarian approach be like?
Here’s an–admittedly simplified–example of a libertarian approach. Let’s say we want to lower the amount Chemical X being released into the atmosphere. First we set a target for the total amount that is allowable this year. Then we create a market of permits allowing for the release of some portion of this target amount. The total permits add up to the target quantity. Firms are able to buy these permits and to trade and sell them among each other. Some firms may insist on not cleaning up their operations this year, but it will cost them.
Next year, we lower the total amount permitted. And we keep lowering it until we reach an acceptable level. Firms that produce more pollution than they have permits for are fined heavily.
The system has several advantages:
-We don’t have to formulate and try to enforce massive tomes of regulations.
-We minimize violation of the rights of business owners to conduct their businesses as they see fit.
-We allow for the possibility that someone can come up with a way to improve their “cleanliness” that we haven’t even thought of. In fact, we are encouraging people to come up with new ideas.
Does this not make sense? Does it not accomplish goals that we both share?
The same logic applies to the problems that you are attributing to sprawl. Your stated objection to my having a large yard is not the yard itself, but rather the pollution I create in trying to maintain it. So why insist on me getting rid of my yard? I don’t insist on you getting rid of things you like. Wouldn’t it make more sense to insist that people find better ways of maintaining their yards?
Obviously, it’s a thornier issue, and I don’t claim to have all the answers. However, I think libertarian ideals can be applied here as well. For one, you can sell permits for the use of X chemical by lawn fertilizer makers. Over time, some companies will still use X chemical while others are finding better solutions. This is a little too indirect for my tastes, though. I would be more interested in a solution that addresses not what chemicals I put in my yard, but whether or not they are running out of my yard and into local water supplies (or others’ property). If we could focus on this area, we would leave maximum options for people to come up with new and innovative ideas.
Does this make sense to you?
Moving on to your concern for forests, I’m not sure I get where you are coming from. If you look at the data, forests are recovering and incresing on private lands, particularly those owned by lumber producers. This makes sense: If they make their livings off of lumber, they would be idiots not to manage their land well.
As it turns out, and this may seem counter-intuitive to you, but where we are losing forests is primarily on public lands. When the government allows lumber companies to come into public land, they clear-cut, rape, and pillage at will. Why? It’s not their land; what do they care what happens to it? Of course, more recently the government has figured out that it can destroy forests much more quickly and efficiently by lighting them on fire in dry, windy weather.
Yes, some trees are cut down to allow for development. However, at the same time, other trees are planted in other places. The amount of forest we have is increasing. Based on current data, if you really want more forests, you should be for selling off of public land. Experience to date indicates that people who own land and are able to profit from it are far more motivated to care for it.
Now, as far as development around Atlanta goes, I don’t have much sympathy for you. Chances are, you knew that Atlanta was huge–and still growing–when you moved there. If you find development unsightly, you are living in the wrong town.
wrt suburban people taking atvantage of the central city, I’m just not buying it. You bitch about the problems that they cause but don’t acknowledge the benefits that the city obtains from them. And I bet, if you try thinking more like a problem solver and less like a planner, you can come up with some ways of recouping any unfair costs that don’t require redesigning state governments and interfering so heavily in people’s lives.
Things are better now than they were 10 years ago, and a whole lot better than they were 20 or 30 years ago. The future looks bright for Americans. And it’s coming–no bridges required. Rather than trying to plan it all out in advance, I say we welcome it and the many surprises that it will bring.
-VM
Now we’re getting somewhere. Rational points, thoughtfully laid out (not that I’m agreeing with your approach, mind you).
First off, I notice that some folks in the property rights corner sort of dismissed the Sierra Club’s report out of hand. I wonder if y’all read it? Here’s the link again (please read it- hey, I read the libertarian stuff):
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00/intro.asp
The report discusses at some length the hidden subsidies that have been encouraging sprawl over the years. For example, sewer hook-up fees that do not cover the actual cost of extending sewer lines, much less the increased burden on the wastewater system.
What the Sierra Club is proposing, among other things, is that the costs of living in the suburbs be accurately reflected in fees charged to developers and in taxes. That way, if you insist on having your two-acre lot, then OK, but it is going to cost you sucbstantially more than it does today, because you’re going to have to underwrite the solutions to the problems these developments cause.
The effect of that would be a financial disincentive to live so far out. (Note: The taxes and fees are not punitive. They are intended only to reflect the actual costs of the problems you are imposing on the community.)
The article also touches on (but does not cover in any depth) the other problem to which I have alluded. Let’s say you are a county commissioner in a rural county, near a city. Your incentive is to encourage development, because that will increase your tax base. You are concerned, perhaps, but not overly concerned, about transportation issues, riparian issues, pollution concerns, etc. Let the state worry about those things, you might think.
On the other hand, if development decisions were made at the state level, then the person making the decision can look at the bigger picture. Increasing the “tax base” in this or that fiefdom will not be the primary concern. Instead, the planner will be looking at broader transportation, pollution and water/sewer availability issues, as they affect the entire community, not just a particular county.
Thanks to Governor Barnes, Georgia is beginning to take the reins away from local governments on at least some planning decisions. (I fear it may be too little, too late…)
Smartass, I want to apologize for any snideness that I may have initiated in this debate. I would prefer a rational discussion.
Smartass wrote:
The problem, as I see it, is that people who live in “sprawl” developments are not paying the true cost of the burden their lifestyles place on the rest of the community. In other words, these folks living “the way they want to” has an (unreimbursed) cost for me. (See the articles linked above on the problems caused by Georgia’s sprawling developments, and see the Sierra Club link.)
I would think a libertarian could appreciate this view, and would want to see the costs imposed where they belong. (Y’all are against subsidies, right? ;))
If the true costs are imposed, suburban life may suddenly become much less affordable, and therefore, much less attractive. If, in the meantime, zoning authorities are encouraging cluster developments, adjacent to mass transportation and giving such developments the tax incentives they deserve (since they do not place as great a burden on community resources), then cluster developments may become a much more attractive way to live.
See? I’m not talking about holding a gun to anybody’s head and marching them into a condominium. Sounds like a market solution, doesn’t it? I just know you’ll like that. 
I don’t necessarily object to at least experimenting with the “permit” approach to pollution control at the industrial level, but I don’t hold out much hope for it solving the problem. The problem I see is that it would not prevent heavy polluters from clustering in urban areas. As long as they’re all polluting, how does the “market” put a stop to it? Factory “A” and Factory “B” are both heavy polluters. Neither wants to go to the trouble or expense of installing pollution controls. They are in competition with each other. What’s to prevent an unspoken “gentlemen’s agreement” that both will buy whatever permits are needed, rather than investing in lowering their emissions, and will then simply pass along the cost to consumers?
Furthermore, a permit approach doesn’t help you with non-point-source pollution. (Parking lot runoff, roof runoff, or driveway runoff, for example.) The only remedy for those sorts of pollution would be curbs on the sprawl which creates them. As I pointed out above, sprawl can be curbed through market means, but only if we have the political will to impose upon suburbs the true cost of their existence.
Depends on your time frame. We have considerably more forests than we had during the Great Depression. Most people lived on farms in those days, and much of the countryside was cleared to accomodate those farms. Following World War II, there was a migration to the cities, and much farmland returned to forest. The recent trend, in north Georgia anyway, has been in the opposite direction. (As shown by a couple of the links above.)
As to your assertion that forests are recovering on land owned by lumber producers, I would love to see a source on that. At any rate, what a lumber concern and I call a “forest” might differ. In the southeast, the “ultimate forest” is hardwood. (Meaning that any piece of ground, if left fallow long enough, will revert to hardwood trees.) A step along the way in that process is a pine forest. (The pines get replaced by hardwoods.) The problem 'round these parts is that pulpwood producers never allow land to reach the hardwood stage. In fact, they actively kill hardwoods, in favor of pine trees, often planted in rows. Then they clear-cut the pines, kill any hardwood trees that have sprung up, and plant more pine seedlings. Pines grow pretty fast. The result is not so much forests as “tree farms”.
I share your concern about clear-cutting in national forests. Your apparent proposal of selling the national forests won’t stop that problem, it will exacerbate it. I propose instead that we simply ban the sale of timber from national forests. Period.
Riddle me this: Do you truly believe we should sell off the Great Smoky Mountains, and our other parklands? A yes or no answer, please, and then you can explain if you wish. Maybe we should open a separate thread on this one.
For those posters who have suggested that sprawl is just a Georgia problem, or just an Atlanta problem, it is not. It may not be a problem in your specific location, but it is a problem on a national level. In a survey cited in the Sierra Club link above, “sprawl” was tied with “crime” as the issue of most concern to respondents.
To those who suggest that if I don’t like Atlanta’s problems, I should just leave: Coward’s way out, isn’t it? Leave the problem behind and let someone else deal with it? No thanks. I’ll stay in my home and fight to make it a better place.
I suggested that some of the problems you stated weren't problems in all suburban areas of the country. Houston has a huge air pollution problem, worst than L.A., because of all the chemical processing plants there. Not because of commuters. And so far as crime goes I was always under the impression that the city has a higher rate of crime then the suburbs.
So before I decide that I want to destroy my local government how is Plano, Richardson, and the Colony (all suburbs of Dallas) draining the resources of Dallas? Mayor Ron Kirk isn't complaining about the suburbs nor is the mayor of any other city in the state that I'm aware of. That leads me to believe that perhaps the problem isn't as severe or existing everywhere like you say it is.
Marc
What it means is that the subsidies are subtle, and well-hidden. Did you read the Sierra Club report?
Smartass, I admire your dedication and ability to consistently say things I agree with, and often better than I could.
I certainly agree that sprawl is not in and of itself a problem. Unlike you, I find suburbs æsthetically offensive, but unlike my state’s illustrious senior senator, Ted Kennedy, I can see things I don’t like without trying to enact legislation to change them.
Now, I think I’ll help spoke- out with his argument, and propose some less drastic solutions for some of the problems. I’ll admit that I’m ripping this off from the Cato Institute, specifically this paper.
They propose encouraging higher density development in the suburbs by having developers who are prevented by overly restrictive zoning regulations from developing at a higher density sue for damages.
Short of that, they propose having these developers offer home-value insurance to the new neighbors who would be afraid that their property values would drop.
Another idea that is mentioned in passing is that the highways between the cities and their suburbs should charge tolls to cut down on congestion. This would allow the city to recoup some of the costs spoke- claims have been externalized by suburbanites.
I think that these proposals are far more prudent than eliminating an entire level of government, and subjecting us all to having our way of life planned by bureaucrats who are not at all familiar with the area in which we live. Also, that lowest layer of government is much more efficient at providing services such as liquor licenses and keeping birth certificates. I like the idea that if I want to open a bar, the people whose approval I need are familiar with the area, and are not trying to base the decision on where I fit in a statewide master plan.
Fine. Keep local government for those purposes, and for police protection and courts, and to outlaw spitting on the sidewalk; but take local government out of the picture on development issues.
Good luck rewriting state constitutions.
Marc
One thing that I don’t think has been addressed here yet is the cost of preserving farmland. Let’s say you’re a farmer who’s worked hard all his life, whose kids are all grown and who don’t want the hard farm life. A developer comes and offers the farmer some ungodly amount of money for the farm. What the farmer does is take the ungodly amount of money and retire to Florida, while the developer puts in a subdivision on the formerly pristine farm land. If people are keen on preserving farm land and cutting sprawl, then they had better be prepared to pay the farmer, and all the similarly situtated farmers, the same ungodly amounts of money the developers are willing to pay. Preservation of farmland doesn’t come cheap.
Oh, gosh, well…if fixing sprawl is going to be difficult, then screw it! :rolleyes:
I think you overestimate how difficult it is to change state constitutions (as opposed to the federal constitution). Georgia’s constitution gets fine-tuned in almost every election. All it takes is a referendum.
Spoke-:
Hmmm, a valid point. Have you thought about getting the government out of this business? Probably too radical.
As you’ve stated it here, this makes sense. I don’t expect you to pay for my sewer service, and I don’t want to pay for yours.
Or, if you didn’t insist on centralizing the service, it might be an incentive for people farther away to have their own separate system.
If this is a problem, it falls upon the people affected to elect representatives who will serve them better. Moving the authority to the state level gives them less influence with which to do this.
You’ve given no reason to expect that a state “planner” would be any more likely to have his priorities in order than a local politician. Rather, you’ve just given him more power to abuse.
Consider the hatchet buried and peed on.
Absolutely. Where we part ways is when, instead of distributing costs fairly, you propose to force people to change their lifestyles.
This is true, but it is not valid to assume that it will be. People may just be willing to bite the bullet and pay more for what they prefer.
See, this is where you start to become–in my opinion–unreasonable. It’s not enought for people to pay proportional costs for their choices, you want to go ahead and start pushing them to make different choices.
If the sprawlers are now paying the appropriate costs, then you have already taken care of the burden on “community resources”. Now, you are talking about taking people’s money and making their choices for them in advance. If these cluster developments and mass transportation are as efficient and pleasing as you expect them to be, then people will choose them without you having to force them to.
It started off like a market solution–then you started involving zoning regulations and diverting tax dollars. That’s not respecting freedom; that’s making people’s choices for them.
At which point, it becomes a local problem. There’s nothing in this approach that removes the ability of local government to get involved also. However, the needs and situation of the individual community can’t be overlooked. Some communities may think a little extra pollution is worth the extra jobs. Others may have too much already and say, hey, you’re going to have to go use your permit next to someone else’s house.
What’s to prevent someone else from starting a third business, with cleaner emissions, and underpricing these guys right out of business? Markets work because it is a very rare business that can afford not to compete.
And also remember, the whole two times these guys are in collusion, they’re both thinking, If I can figure out a cheap way to clean up my operation, I can run this guy out of business. Meanwhile, with pollution levels being lowered at the federal level, this gentlemen’s agreement gets more expensive to maintain every year.
Hey, I didn’t say it was the final solution to every problem. I said, this is an example of using libertarian ideals to come up with solutions. There’s no reason to assume we can’t also come up with libertarian solutions to the other problems you mentioned.
Nope. That’s just the only solution you’re pushing. Maybe if we focus on the sources of the pollution (and not the lifestyles), we can lower the pollution levels enough sprawl is no longer such a problem.
…I’ll skip over the part where you’re talking about what kind of forests you prefer…
Based on?
And how much will it cost to maintain these forests when they are no longer producing any revenue?
Yes. Although, I doubt anyone would have enough money to own a whole mountain to themselves. What would you do with a Great Smoky Mountain if you had one? Cart it off and install a prairie? I guess now is the wrong time to point out that Disney folks keep their parking lots in much better shape than the Park Service keeps our National Parks. Do you truly believe that, in private hands, these national parks would be worth more as something other than well-maintained parks?
Would it not make more sense to seek local solutions than try to dictate the way the whole country works to solve an Atlanta problem?
Oh, I found a great link for you, from the Reason Public Policy Institute:
The Sprawling of America: In Defense of the Dynamic City by Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D.
Please have a look at it (I read your Sierra Club stuff). I expect you to find a lot to disagree with.
waterj2:
Stop it. You’re making me turn colors. Besides, you’re wrong:
I could not possibly have said that any better.
-VM