Why is suburban sprawl not a campaign issue?

[BrainGlutton]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

You need to stop listening to catchy protest mantras. Please explain how military action was in any way necessary to secure an oil supply. Every country in the Middle East recognizes they need to sell more than we need to buy. No one’s going to shut off the spigot because that would be suicide. Even if we had let Saddam keep Kuwait in 1990 – hell, even if we had let him march into Saudi Arabia – we’d still have a steady crude supply because that’s the only way Saddam could fund his endeavors.

Don’t tell me you really believe we would have gone into Iraq – or, for that matter, Kuwait – if there were no oilfields in the Middle East? Why else? To depose a dictator and free a people? There are dictators and dictatorships all over the world – Cuba would have been easier and closer. Myanmar has just as brutal a government as Hussein’s and would have been easier to pacify and rebuild post-conquest, even thought it is in Southeast Asia where we have so many bitter memories. To eliminate a threat to world peace, an aggressive regime armed with WMDs? North Korea is a real threat with real WMDs, and Bush knew it. To fight terrorism? That would be funny if it were funny. To protect Israel? I would think either Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iran poses a worse threat to Israel than Iraq ever did. No. It was for oil. The other points made the project easier to sell, but it would never have happened if not for the facts that we need oil, and the Middle East has oil, and OSP and PNAC seem to be of the opinion that our supply is not secure unless we have some real military presence in that turbulent and dangerous region.

[Voodoochile]

@BrainGlutton

I say it’s a threat to our national security to need that much foreign oil in the first place.

You still dont get it. The threat to our national security isnt in the middle east halting the flow of oil, its in the threat of it being ~increased~. The propping up of US oil companies is seen as a national necessity. Any threat of overseas competition to US oil companies is framed in the language of national security.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@BrainGlutton

No. It was for oil.

You still haven’t explained how our supply of oil was in any way threatened in 1990 or in 2003.

[Steve_MB]

@BrainGlutton

Because the oil we could get out of ANWR is only a drop in the bucket compared to our consumption needs

Irrelevant. It would be a nonzero contribution. Do you support it? (I’m not looking for a treatise; “Yes” or “No” should suffice.)

[Steve_MB]

Situation: Joe Blow owns a few acres about thirty miles outside of downtown. There’s no mass transit line in the area, and the plot is several orders of magitude too small to develop anything that would justify building one.

Ergo, a prohibition on “automobile dependent development” would prevent any economic use of his property.

Since you “know the law”, you know what that means – the guvmint has to either pay up or back off.

[BrainGlutton]

@Voodoochile

You still dont get it. The threat to our national security isnt in the middle east halting the flow of oil, its in the threat of it being ~increased~. The propping up of US oil companies is seen as a national necessity. Any threat of overseas competition to US oil companies is framed in the language of national security.

Now that’s a new one on me! Has anyone else speculated along those lines, that you know of?

[BrainGlutton]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

You still haven’t explained how our supply of oil was in any way threatened in 1990 or in 2003.

You are (again) missing the point. Our oil supply was not directly threatened in 1990 or 2003 (and I said so at the time). The danger, in 1990, was that Hussein’s obvious megalomaniacal aggression would lead him to try to conquer Saudi Arabia and go on to try to conquer and unite all the Arab lands. If he failed, there would still be a protracted regional war – endangering the security of our oil supply. If he succeeded, we would be faced with the position of having to depend for most of our oil on a new Middle Eastern Stalin ruling all of Arabia east of Eqypt – who would simply want to sell the stuff most of the time, but who might, on occasion, have tried to use his control of oil as a weapon against the West. In 2003 that possibility no longer threatened, but the neocons persuaded the Admin that we needed a real, controlling military presence in the MENA just to forestall the possibility of our supply being threatened, in the future, by events spinning out of our control.

And you still haven’t explained: Do you believe we would have invaded Iraq – or liberated Kuwait – if there were no oil in the region? If so, please explain your thinking. What would have been our grounds for invading?

[BrainGlutton]

@Steve MB

Irrelevant. It would be a nonzero contribution. Do you support it? (I’m not looking for a treatise; “Yes” or “No” should suffice.)

Actually, I do support it. We need the oil. But, as I said, we need it for a lot of things other than fuel.

[Steve_MB]

@BrainGlutton

Do you believe we would have invaded Iraq – or liberated Kuwait – if there were no oil in the region?

Dunno – maybe we could have gotten the oil from Kosovo or Haiti instead…

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

What Steve MB said.

[BrainGlutton]

@Steve MB

Dunno – maybe we could have gotten the oil from Kosovo or Haiti instead…

Exactly. The contrast between Kuwait/Iraq and Kosovo/Haiti points up the difference between what motivates a Republican administration to go to war and what motivates a Democratic administration to go to war.

[Monocracy]

I agree with much of what BrainGlutton is saying, except that i don’t think the solution to suburban sprawl is to discourage development of suburban areas. I think the solution is to create an efficient transportation system that deals with suburban sprawl effectively. Unfortunately, this will cost money, and money equals spending equals taxes. And people would rather have their $600 so they can afford to fill the tank of their Hummer.

Automobile travel is already highly subsidized, at the local, state, and federal level. Divert some of costs of the D.O.T. into subsidizing rail travel, and you could make trains a viable alternative for commuting. Many of the issues with trains in this thread have been about comfort, time, and money. If you put more trains on the rails, make them and their stations more comfortable, and reduce the costs for parking and riding, it could go a long way towards attracting more riders, and easing congestion on the highways.

The solution to the automobile problem and energy crisis is not to put fewer cars on the road, but to get people to use their cars less. Judging from gridlock during rush hour, much car use is for the commute to and from work. An effective public transportation system focused mainly on commuting could ease gridlock and substantially reduce the amount of car use. A good start would be a “park and ride” system in the suburbs, and a van line, mostly focused around train stations, in the urban areas.

If you make it worth the while for people to take trains, they will.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@BrainGlutton

Exactly. The contrast between Kuwait/Iraq and Kosovo/Haiti points up the difference between what motivates a Republican administration to go to war and what motivates a Democratic administration to go to war.

:rolleyes:

How much oil is there in Somalia, BTW?

[BrainGlutton]

@Steve MB

Situation: Joe Blow owns a few acres about thirty miles outside of downtown. There’s no mass transit line in the area, and the plot is several orders of magitude too small to develop anything that would justify building one.

Ergo, a prohibition on “automobile dependent development” would prevent any economic use of his property.

Since you “know the law”, you know what that means – the guvmint has to either pay up or back off.

Probably not. Maybe, but probably not. From Fla.Jur.2d, (Florida Jurisprudence, 2d), Volume 21, Eminent Domain, Section 199 – Regulatory takings distinguished:

. . . In order to establish a claim of regulatory taking of private property without just compensation, contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as owner must establish that (1) the regulation goes too far and has in substance taken the landowner’s property, and (2) any proffered compensation is not “just.” There is no set formula to determine where regulation ends and a taking of property begins under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; it is a question of degree and cannot by disposed of by general propositions. However, demostrating that the landowner was deprived of a particular requested use is not sufficient.

Illustration: A landowner who applied for a land use permit to utilize his property in accordance with its current commercial zoning classification but in conflict with a county comprehensive land use plan designating the area for low-density residential use was not subjected to a compensable taking remediable in inverse condemnation proceedings by virtue of the county’s denial of his application pending resolution between the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive land use plan, where the county’s temporary denial was authorized by the enabling legislation, and where the landowner at no time sought to use his property for a use consistent with the plan, thus precluding an argument that he had been denied any and all beneficial uses for his property.

Purchasers are deemed to purchase property with constructive knowledge of the applicable land use regulations. A subjective expectation that the land could be developed is no more than an expectancy and does not translate into a vested right to develop the subject property. Where property continues to exist in the state in which the purchasers have contracted to acquire it, there has been no compensable taking and no inverse condemnation. Generally, the denial of a permit will not render the land useless in an economic sense. Although development of one segment of rights or uses of the property has been precluded, other uses may continue to exist. If so, no taking has occurred. On the other hand, where the owner is left with no viable economic use of the land, a taking has occurred. Thus, in an inverse condemnation suit, the denial of the landowner’s dredge and fill permit by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), which deprived the landowner of all economically viable or reasonable uses of her property, constituted a taking, where the language of the denial made it clear that the subject land was limited to just being looked at; even though the wetlands protection act that the DER was enforcing was in force at the time the landowner bought the property, the land was purchased with a legitimate anticipation of future development and with no existing bar thereto, and the taking therefore did not occur until the DER denied the landowner’s permit application.

This is how lawyers think. (We’re a bit like Tolkein’s elves. “Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will answer both yea and nay.”) If you’ve read all the way through the above you will see why I hesitated to answer with a plain “yes” or “no.” The answer to your hypothetical would probably depend on conditions you did not specify; but, in most such cases, the answer would be “no.”

But I repeat my earlier point: The modern American “property rights movement” in general is, indeed, braindead or worse. All its arguments depend on a set of radical economic-libertarian legal theories which are not supported by our history of common law, statutory law, or constitutional law – and the issue of landowners’ rights to develop their property profitably is plainly intended as just the thin end of a very ugly wedge. From http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/privprop.html:

Regulatory takings doctrine holds that government regulatory action that negatively affects the value–actual or potential–of private property constitutes a “taking” of property and, as such, is prohibited under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution unless affected property owners are fairly compensated. (The relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment reads, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”) Historically, the courts have interpreted the takings clause as pertaining to cases of condemnation under eminent domain–that is, the government cannot confiscate your land or other property without paying you a fair price for it. However, only in instances where government regulations have been found to eliminate virtually all economic value of property have some Supreme Court justices supported financial compensation for a “regulatory takings.” By contrast, regulatory takings doctrine deems a vast array of public interest and regulatory laws to be illegal.

The regulatory takings movement appears to have its origins in the libertarian school of legal thought associated with the University of Chicago and epitomized by professor Richard Epstein. Epstein’s 1985 book, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, provided the impetus for a regulatory takings legal and legislative strategy. It is useful to examine Epstein’s writings, for although proponents of regulatory takings legislation invariably argue that the scope of such laws would be finite, Epstein openly asserts that his position on regulatory takings “invalidates much of the twentieth century legislation,” including the National Labor Relations Act, minimum wage laws, civil rights legislation, virtually all government entitlement programs, and quite possibly Social Security. In fact, Epstein proposes to challenge the entire New Deal as “inconsistent with the principles of limited government and with the constitutional provisions designed to secure that end.”

For instance, Epstein argues that minimum wage laws are “undoubted partial takings, with all the earmarks of class legislation, which requires their complete constitutional invalidation.” Under regulatory takings doctrine, employers forced to pay a statutory minimum wage higher than wages set by free market forces suffer from a government takings of their property. “Collective bargaining,” Epstein asserts, “is yet another system in which well-defined markets are displaced by complex common pool devices whose overall wealth effects are in all likelihood negative and whose disproportionate impact, especially on established firms, is enormous.”

Here Epstein’s argument raises the obvious question: for whom are the wealth effects of collective bargaining negative? It also provides the answer: the owners of “established firms.” Collective bargaining has increased the economic means of the great majority of working people in the United States by securing decent wages and benefits for union members, and driving wages higher even for the unorganized. Thus, while regulatory takings has come to be deployed in the war against environmental regulations, and, by extension, the environmental movement, it threatens to undo the gains of other great movements for progressive social change of the last century and a half: the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the anti-poverty movement, and others. Indeed, this is part of the strategy of takings advocates, who hope to use anti-environmental campaigns to popularize “property rights” rhetoric and build support for takings legislation, as well as a redefinition of takings by the courts.

Proponents of takings legislation argue that it will provide relief to small property owners who, they say, are increasingly restricted by wetlands ordinances, growth management laws, and other environmental statutes. Such arguments can be persuasive, since government bureaucracy does sometimes generate burdensome, irrational, and even harmful regulations, and as the relationship between, for example, wetlands protection and the public health is somewhat technical, as well as indirect. However, under regulatory takings doctrine, in order to prohibit industrial polluters from fouling air, land, and water, the public would be required to pay the cost of pollution prevention. This quite direct relationship between regulatory takings law, environmental protections, and the public health is either ignored by proponents or is resolved in the manner suggested by Ron Arnold: if a citizen can show a violation of rights by a corporate polluter or anyone else, let her or him sue.

[Mtgman]

Ok, I consider myself an environmentally aware guy. We recycle, especially paper products, we conserve electricity and a large point in favor of our last vehicle purchase was the gas mileage it got over similar vehicles. I don’t think urban sprawl is necessarially a problem. I live in one of the least dense large cities in the US. The D/FW area is the sixth largest metropolitan area when ranked by population in the US according to the 2000 census, but it is 69th when ranked by population density(19th if you only count urban areas with over a million residents instead of the smaller urban areas the census tracks). There are a lot of us and we take up a lot of space. We also love our trucks, SUVs, and single-passenger cars. Consequently pollution is a big factor here.

I still don’t support most of the “solutions” I’ve seen in this thread. I don’t think population density is a problem that can be adequately solved with mass transportation. Not enough of that “mass” is going to close enough places to get it used without causing people to shiver on train platforms. More efficient and environmentally friendly solutions like telecommuting or hybrid/alternative fuel cars would do a lot to clean it up. These are steps which we could take right now to improve the situation and give us more time to solve the ultimate problem or develop anti-smog technology like we have done with other environmental pollutants. Technology has led to dozens of new ways to fight oil spills, for instance, which make cleanup much more thorough and effective. Perhaps some giant HEPA filter, air-cleaner technology will be developed to fight urban air pollution. We need time to make this happen though, which is why I support aggressive moves to promote things like hybrid/alternative energy vehicles and telecommuting.

The larger picture of moving people where they need to go on a daily basis, to the store or to the office, is more complex. Clear preferences for individual transportation/habitation make the solution more difficult. Can’t centralize all the origins because people like their individual living space, can’t centralize all the destinations because people need to do different things and go different places. Distributing everything and having it all within walking distance seems prohibitive as well. Busses and trains are fine for some segments of travel, but the overhead in transfers and wait times make them less attractive than personal transportation. My solution would be something like a web of cable car tracks(ski lift style, not streetcars), each person having an individual “pod” or two which they can hop in and select a destination. Then they trundle down an overhead cable/track, parallel to existing streets, until they can join a main line, just like we do with roads today. This is essentially a version of the “electric road” that has been harped on for so long, except not earthbound. The advantages are individuals can hop on/off a line at any point and since the lines go everywhere there is no need to use cars. They can transport people and goods in relative safety and comfort. Automatic traffic controls of the grid make the decisions about which route is the fastest and merging. If at all possible it will run at least the speed of passenger cars. Traffic can be routed around damage and since it is essentially rail lines with power supplied through the support towers, sections can be repaired easily just like power lines are today. Centralized power allows for high-efficiency/low-pollution stations to produce the power and people could pay on a per-mile basis which would probably be cheaper than operating a motor vehicle per mile.

Still, I disagree that we should just wait and see what the market comes up with. Government regulation, even heavy-handed regulation, is necessary at some points. There needs to be a baseline above which the market should not be allowed to operate, even if it is profitable. A car with crappy emissions may be really cheap to produce and sell, but it shouldn’t be allowed. The governments came down on toilet manufacturers and even though there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, we now have toilets which can handle every bit as much waste as the old three gallon per flush models and do it on 1.6 gallons per flush.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Odesio]

@Mtgman

The larger picture of moving people where they need to go on a daily basis, to the store or to the office, is more complex. Clear preferences for individual transportation/habitation make the solution more difficult.

Americans like the autonomy that an automobile provides which is one of the big obstacles to mass transit. Even when I lived in Germany and had access to decent trains we still owned an automobile. I moved away from D/FW not to long after DART set up their light rail from Plano to Dallas. I liked using the light rail to get from Plano to the West End area rather then driving all the way there.

Still, I disagree that we should just wait and see what the market comes up with. Government regulation, even heavy-handed regulation, is necessary at some points. There needs to be a baseline above which the market should not be allowed to operate, even if it is profitable. A car with crappy emissions may be really cheap to produce and sell, but it shouldn’t be allowed.

Sure. I don’t think most of us believe that any regulation is a bad idea.

Marc

[Voodoochile]

@Monocracy

I think the solution is to create an efficient transportation system that deals with suburban sprawl effectively. Unfortunately, this will cost money, and money equals spending equals taxes. And people would rather have their $600 so they can afford to fill the tank of their Hummer.

Or their Honda, or their Subaru, or whatever.

This is part of the problem; if you have 2 mill people in an area, who work in say 1 mil different places, who visit umpteen million relatives or friends in umpteen million different places, then you have 2 million different standards of efficiency. Its totally rediculous to state there needs to be a ‘more efficient’ transpo system, when noone has any way of knowing whats more or less efficient for each one of those 2 million people. There is no objective standard of efficiency to go by; its purely relative to the needs and desires of each and every one of those individuals as they go through their lives.

[Una_Persson]

As one of the few, possibly only, Dopers who has worked on designs for new rail lines in the US, I want to throw out one opinionated point: IMO there will be no large-scale building and operation of new lines, high speed or low, in the US, without massive, sweeping, tort reform of Biblical proportions. I mean Old Testament-type tort reform, with fire and brimstone and Satan and little guys in red suits poking trial lawyers with pitchforks…

Of the three major rail projects I’ve worked on, and the dozen or so minor ones, 100% of them have been stopped cold by nuisance lawsuits from Environmental Groups, Indian nations, homes associations, competing rail companies, and various small towns, all barking for payouts like sea lions at the zoo. I do know of one expansion (no cite, sorry, I can’t legally do that but I’m sure threre are numerous other examples) which was successful which ended up costing $9M a mile, where the actual cost was $2M per mile, and the legal costs/payouts were $7M. Thank God this was only “a few” miles of track…

Regardless of the merits, major rail development will only succeed if legislation prevents frivilous lawsuits, and punishes those who bring them with serious penalties and jail time.

[Voodoochile]

@Una Persson

As one of the few, possibly only, Dopers who has worked on designs for new rail lines in the US, I want to throw out one opinionated point: IMO there will be no large-scale building and operation of new lines, high speed or low, in the US, without massive, sweeping, tort reform of Biblical proportions. I mean Old Testament-type tort reform, with fire and brimstone and Satan and little guys in red suits poking trial lawyers with pitchforks…

Well, there will be no private or state/county city ones, no. Which is why massive rail advocates pretty much always speak at the fed level, because the fed govt excludes itself from the vast majority of those regulations. Most arguments against the fed level resolve around consitutional arguments such as the takings clause, and not around arguments based on regulations such as you describe.

Its for reasons such as this that its hard to take seriously for example claims of ‘subsidy’ for instance by the existance of govt financed of roads claimed in other parts of this (and other) threads. Private roads, turnpikes etc could all be built, but private initiatives are hampered by many regulations that the govt is not. Govt regulates its competitors, excludes itself from those same regulations, and then some people use the result as proof of govt ‘subsidy’ that for some reason we are all supposed to be grateful for.

Basically, dont expect tort reform from the govt; the system is working exactly as planned.

[BrainGlutton]

@Voodoochile

Or their Honda, or their Subaru, or whatever.

This is part of the problem; if you have 2 mill people in an area, who work in say 1 mil different places, who visit umpteen million relatives or friends in umpteen million different places, then you have 2 million different standards of efficiency. Its totally rediculous to state there needs to be a ‘more efficient’ transpo system, when noone has any way of knowing whats more or less efficient for each one of those 2 million people. There is no objective standard of efficiency to go by; its purely relative to the needs and desires of each and every one of those individuals as they go through their lives.

But there are some objective measurements we can use, Voodoochile. E.g., the amount of gasoline a given metro area consumes per capita each year. If the factor of individual satisfaction holds more or less steady (that is, everybody appears to be able to get where they want to when they want to most of the time), then the lower the per-capita fuel consumption, the higher the efficiency – “efficiency” in a sense that is of paramount importance to the community. Also, the lower the per-capita rate of traffic accidents, injuries and fatalities, the higher the efficiency, on a different but likewise important axis.