The Antiplanner

Yglesias Is Baffled

19th March 2010

Yglesias Is Baffled

posted in Follow up, Regional planning |

Matthew Yglesias is baffled by reality. At least, he finds the Antiplanner’s post about how zoning codes actually work, as opposed to how Yglesias imagines they work, to be “baffling and bafflingly long.”

He boils his case down to three simple statements:

  1. Throughout America there are many regulations that restrict the density of the built environment.
  2. Were it not for these restrictions, people would build more densely.
  3. Were the built environment more densely built, the metro areas would be less sprawling.

Reality is never so simple. As you can see, it all depends on statement 1: are there regulations throughout America that restrict density? As evidence that there are, Yglesias cited the Maricopa County Zoning Code, which he claimed allows development no denser than duplexes. Apparently, he didn’t read (or was baffled by) chapter 7, which allows housing at 43 units per acre, or chapter 10, which allows anyone with 160 acres to build as dense as they want.

Sometimes I think I have ADD, as I have a hard time reading long, boring articles. Perhaps Yglesias has the same problem (or my article was especially boring), as he doesn’t seem to have read much of my “bafflingly long” post (he actually refers to this one, not the one on the Antiplanner, but they are substantially the same).

The Antiplanner, he says, “seems to want to engage in a complicated counterfactual hypothetical about whether or not most people would still prefer to live in large single-family homes even in the absence of regulatory restrictions.” Actually, very little of my post was about that: my post showed that the regulatory restrictions he reads into zoning codes actually aren’t restrictive at all, since most cities that don’t engage in growth-management planning are extremely flexible about the use of vacant land. And when I did use counterfactual cases (examples of low-density development even when there are no regulations), they weren’t at all hypothetical.

Yglesias, a philosopher by training, betrays the typical planner’s ignorance of economics when he argues that “the high cost of housing in New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco, Santa Monica, etc. indicates that there’s market demand for walkable urbanism.” I suppose he would say that the high cost of the “I Am Rich” iPhone application — a $999.99 app that does nothing but display an image of a red jewel, and which eight people bought before Apple removed it from its app library — proves there is a market demand for expensive, useless things. In other words, we shouldn’t confuse price with demand — demand is a function that considers both price and quantity.

To the extent that there is a market demand for walkable communities, builders will and do meet that demand. Yglesias claims that “classic tall apartment buildings with no attached parking facilities would be totally illegal to build in virtually ever contemporary American city.” But in fact you can find tall apartment buildings, with parking, in every major metropolitan area, regardless of local parking rules (and most parts of Texas, among other places, have none). To me, this shows not that builders are prevented by regulation from meeting the demand for apartment buildings without parking, but that builders know that including parking enhances the value of their buildings even if a few people want to live without cars.

Perhaps the most anti-car city in America, Portland, has spent millions of tax dollars subsidizing construction of parking for developers in supposedly walkable Pearl District and other parts of the city. There is a Whole Foods on the streetcar line, but the fact that the city built Whole Foods a parking garage has more to do with the store’s location than the streetcar. Meanwhile, as faithful Antiplanner ally John Charles has shown, Portland-area transit-oriented developments with limited parking have high vacancies. The lesson is not the regulation requires parking but that developments of almost any kind won’t succeed unless they have sufficient parking.

I don’t know where Yglesias lives now, but part of the problem may be that he has spent most of his life in New York City, Massachusetts, and Washington, DC, three places (including DC suburbs in Virginia and Maryland) that are heavily regulated. If he lived (as Kunstler does, and who therefore should know better) in upstate New York, Kansas, Texas, or any of at least 30 states that do not have growth-management planning, Yglesias would be less quick to assume that zoning codes control development.

Yglesias chastises John Stossel (whose show that inspired this debate was broadcast last night), the Antiplanner, and other free marketeers for implicitly supporting (by not objecting to) the regulations that Yglesias claims prevent builders from meeting the market demand for dense, walkable communities. In fact, I have frequently expressed an eagerness to dispense with all zoning codes and other government land-use regulation, and to rely on deed restrictions and homeowner associations to protect property values in neighborhoods that are already developed.

I have invited smart-growth advocates to join me in a campaign for such deregulation. Other than Andres Duany, most have rejected this invitation, as they want to make land-use rules as restrictive as Yglesias thinks they already are in order to force the dense development they want and prevent the low-density developments that most Americans want (as indicated both by surveys and actual housing choices). Though he states he does not want to “debate the ‘smart growth’ slogan,” by joining with them in claiming that current zoning forces sprawl, Yglesias is helping their cause by ignoring the facts about just how flexible pre-growth-management zoning codes actually are.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 19th, 2010 at 12:00 am and is filed under Follow up, Regional planning. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 69 responses to “Yglesias Is Baffled”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On March 19th, 2010, Dan said:

    Randal, your poor Houston point was pre-bunked the other day in one of your comment threads. So you don’t know why zoning was invented. And you can’t speak to Houston which pays for some of its roads and highways out of the general fund. Shocking, surely.

    DS

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 1:10 am

  2. 2 On March 19th, 2010, Dan said:

    Oh, and as a reader points out, you are wrong about MaricopaCo as well. The minimum lot size is 6000 sf for SFD, not ‘as densely as you would like’. The chapter you for some reason cited is about overlay zoning, which is not by right. It is by approval. So the assertion is either profoundly ignorant or made in hopes no one would check the actual claim. Someone take Randal’s shovel away.

    DS

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 1:39 am

  3. 3 On March 19th, 2010, Andy said:

    Dan, you are debunked over and over again, every day. Your postings are either profoundly ignorant or profoundly stupid. Someone give Dan a pacifier.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 7:17 am

  4. 4 On March 19th, 2010, Dan said:

    Writing Three Stooges-worthy gibberish is not ‘debunking’ to the sane and to those not dwelling in the small minority fringe.

    Nonetheless, the three simple statements that Randal can’t address are basic knowledge to the reality-based community. Any competent developer with a few acres wants to build as many DUs/ac as they can to maximize ROI. Nothing can be more basic than that.

    DS

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 7:57 am

  5. 5 On March 19th, 2010, TexanOkie said:

    You tend to slam New Urbanism and Smart Growth with every chance you are able, yet you say that Andres Duany was willing to join you in your quest to deregulate and get rid of zoning and land use codes. Duany is the founder/god of New Urbanism, and I believe the organization he founded, CNU, actually has the terms “SmartGrowth” and “New Urbanism” tradmarked. They ARE SmartGrowth and New Urbanism… everyone else have taken bits and pieces and ignored others, coming up with the hybrid systems that you (rightfully) disparage.

    And, again – yes, I am a professional urban planner.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 8:11 am

  6. 6 On March 19th, 2010, bennett said:

    Andy,

    What is it about personal attacks on Dan that makes you think you are somehow adding to the conversation? Dan was talking about the post. You are talking about Dan. Now, I’m talking about you. Crap! ;)

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 8:47 am

  7. 7 On March 19th, 2010, bennett said:

    So let me get this straight. Is the Antiplanner arguing that the assumption “that zoning codes control development,” is misguided?

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 8:52 am

  8. 8 On March 19th, 2010, Dan said:

    Is the Antiplanner arguing that the assumption “that zoning codes control development,” is misguided?

    No, he is peddling the false premise

    they want to make land-use rules as restrictive as Yglesias thinks they already are in order to force the dense development they want and prevent the low-density developments that most Americans want (as indicated both by surveys and actual housing choices)

    In order to get rid of all zoning, which the vast majority of voters reject every time it comes up on the ballot (which may be why we haven’t seen any recently). The “surveys” is a blatant lie (as many have pointed out here many times), and the false statement of ‘actual housing choices’ is either stupendous ignorance or blatant falsehood (as many have pointed out here many times).

    DS

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 9:35 am

  9. 9 On March 19th, 2010, Scott said:

    So, humans don’t really like yards & open space, but really prefer being crowded?

    The fact that certain residential neighborhood zoning came AFTER people already established preferences of larger lots, is immaterial. Very similar to the fact from the ice core data of the last 400,000 years: CO2 increases (only a 100 ppm variance) came AFTER, the temps rose (22F variance). Sure, that matches with the last 150 years of another 100 ppm CO2 rise & a 1.4F rise.

    If 2 items occur “kinda” together, just say that one causes the other, even though it’s out of order. And don’t be concerned with 3rd & 4th & numerous other factors causing the 1st & 2nd factors.

    According to this suburban causation idea & the AGW alarmist faith, their type of thinking leads to the conclusion that umbrellas cause rain, because (I’m spelling it out for those short on reasoning) there is a correlation & umbrellas occurred AFTER, therefore umbrellas are the cause–like zoning is established AFTER, housing patterns & wants have been established.

    Zoning also protects current inhabitants from excessive traffic, noise, shadows, etc, if higher density was allowed next door. There are plenty of buffer areas to transition to higher density if wanted, and that occurs. Suburbs have many multi-family dwellings. And up-zoning happens often.

    Really! People would prefer high density if it was just allowed more often?
    The exodus from the most of the older, larger core cities, since the 1950s, was just an anomaly?
    People forget the power of free enterprise. Companies build & create what the consumer want. Yes, there are distortions in the price mechanism, but that does not wholly make or erase demand. See elasticity.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 9:38 am

  10. 10 On March 19th, 2010, Dan said:

    So, humans don’t really like yards & open space, but really prefer being crowded?

    Strawman.

    The fact that certain residential neighborhood zoning came AFTER people already established preferences of larger lots, is immaterial.

    False. But let’s see your evidence please. Let’s see the average parcel size prior to and after WWII to back your claim.

    Very similar to the fact from the ice core data of the last 400,000 years: CO2 increases (only a 100 ppm variance) came AFTER, the temps rose (22F variance). Sure, that matches with the last 150 years of another 100 ppm CO2 rise & a 1.4F rise.

    False. But 40 easy points for me in our Silly Denialist Game! Yay me!

    The small minority, not surprisingly, does not have command of the facts. Still.

    DS

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 9:58 am

  11. 11 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    Andy:“Dan, you are debunked over and over again, every day. Your postings are either profoundly ignorant or profoundly stupid. Someone give Dan a pacifier.”

    ws:I’m not sure if you have a crush on Dan or something, but your posts on this website don’t really try and discuss the topics at hand, rather you try and attack Dan without an even relevant counter point. Granted, I am guilty as hell for talking off topic, but seriously? Feel free to go back on recent posts, the trend is simply annoying.

    edit:

    I actually did not see bennett’s post about the very same thing I brought up. Kind of funny how that worked out. I’ll leave it up here so you can take note that people do notice your attacks.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 11:41 am

  12. 12 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    Yglesias’ rebuttal to this article: “…I don’t think the problem is “libertarian” hypocrites per se, the problem is specifically John Stossel and Randall O’Toole who are stridently opposed to anti-sprawl regulations but seem totally uninterested in sprawl-promoting ones. I believe that Stossel, for example, lives on the Upper East Side in Manhattan a neighborhood whose classic tall apartment buildings with no attached parking facilities would be totally illegal to build in virtually ever contemporary American city. That’s a shocking fact of which few are aware and would be well-worth doing an episode on.”

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/03/libertarians-sprawl-and-land-use.php

    And that’s why O’Toole is a free-market impostor.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 11:48 am

  13. 13 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    ROT: “To the extent that there is a market demand for walkable communities, builders will and do meet that demand. Yglesias claims that “classic tall apartment buildings with no attached parking facilities would be totally illegal to build in virtually ever contemporary American city.” But in fact you can find tall apartment buildings, with parking, in every major metropolitan area, regardless of local parking rules (and most parts of Texas, among other places, have none). To me, this shows not that builders are prevented by regulation from meeting the demand for apartment buildings without parking, but that builders know that including parking enhances the value of their buildings even if a few people want to live without cars.”

    ws:There hasn’t been too many new apartment buildings built w/o parking stalls for sometime, unless you’re in a special district.

    Is it people don’t want to live w/o cars, or people can’t live w/o cars? We’ve built the auto-only landscape for 60 years now, of course people want their cars because they can’t live without their car…

    All due to zoning and regulations if someone was not catching on to my point.

    ROT:“Perhaps the most anti-car city in America, Portland, has spent millions of tax dollars subsidizing construction of parking for developers in supposedly walkable Pearl District and other parts of the city. There is a Whole Foods on the streetcar line, but the fact that the city built Whole Foods a parking garage has more to do with the store’s location than the streetcar.”

    ws:It depends on what store, but the issue is you can’t build something with reduced parking or no parking at all…you won’t get financing in the first place. Thanks for mentioning that tidbit.

    ROT:“and to rely on deed restrictions and homeowner associations to protect property values in neighborhoods that are already developed.”

    ws:What if those deed restrictions and neighborhood associations are more restrictive of personal freedom than the zoning and city codes?

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 11:57 am

  14. 14 On March 19th, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan says so, therefore it is.
    Don’t provide for evidence, and ask for facts that are obvious, often tangential.
    Congratulations on providing links to alarmist, anti-development, biased, anti-human agendas.
    Strawman? How so? It’s pretty clear that the high density coalition’s central theme is that people prefer small spaces, and have only chosen larger lots because that was the only choice.
    Those ~80 million people who live on 1/2 acre or more, do not really like their privacy, nature, quiet, space, neighbors, etc. It’s just fake happiness because they chose a place to live which was made by zoning.

    Your link on AGW does not show that warming occurred after CO2 rose.
    The fact that CO2 rose BEFORE warming, is not disputed.
    I know what you are trying to get at, but you did not word it that way & neither did I.
    Using your logic, zoning just reinforced what people like.
    That can actually have merit, but certainly does not mean that people would choose high density, because that has been available.

    The national avg parcel size is too broad a measurement to show much.
    For one thing, the % of population that is urban, almost doubled, in 65 years.
    What would that avg. parcel size show?
    BTW, from the 2000 Census, the median lot size is 1/3 acre.
    So what you are saying is that for people (~2/3 of house owners) who have lots larger than ~1/5 an acre, they don’t really want that much land?
    If more people really wanted the disgusting 10 DU/acre, then more would be built.
    The opposite is often true–medium sized lots are not available, so people have to deal with small.
    When comparing several variables, what can an avg show?
    Change over time, for your question; that’s about it.

    The urban density of the LA area (7,000/sq.mi.) is the highest, & over double the avg.
    The claim is that people in other areas want to be that dense?
    It’s true that LA housing prices are over double national.
    That demand is not for small lot sizes.
    You think people are willing to pay more for less?

    Here’s a good test question:
    Ask 100s of homeowners how they like there place & if they would prefer a smaller lot.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 11:59 am

  15. 15 On March 19th, 2010, Scott said:

    ws said, people want their cars because they can’t live without their car.
    All due to zoning and regulations

    The car offers much better options & choice, including access to a much larger area in a much smaller time capacity, plus storage (trunk) & many other advantages.
    For driving, it’s better to avoid high density areas, particularly because of high congestion & very high parking costs.
    So, ws, better transportation (mobility, time, efficiency, time, convenience, etc.),
    is not really wanted? They are just created demands, by zoning & other regs?

    History is forgotten too much. High density & public transit were very prevalent.
    People have chosen away. The source & reason for regs are often over-looked.
    For one thing, if people didn’t like low density, why would there be that type of zoning?
    There are numerous multi-family buildings in low density cities. If more people demanded them, more could be built. Don’t forget that infrastructure (ie roads) should be expanded then (often not).

    Imagine housing or retail w/out sufficient parking (ignoring zoning requirements).
    That is limiting tenants & users (shoppers, workers) to only people who take transit or live nearby.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

  16. 16 On March 19th, 2010, Dan said:

    I have submitted an inquiry to the moderator of our Silly Denialist Game to see if I can continue to collect points from the RubeRhetoric on this thread, so I am withholding celebrating more points at this time. Sadly, we do not have a gibberish game to date, else I’d make a killing on this site.

    Nonetheless, we appreciate the fact that Scott – shockingly – cannot back his certain residential neighborhood zoning came AFTER people already established preferences of larger lots claim and eschews evidence for hand-flapping.

    DS

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 1:15 pm

  17. 17 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    Scott:“The car offers much better options & choice, including access to a much larger area in a much smaller time capacity, plus storage (trunk) & many other advantages.
    For driving, it’s better to avoid high density areas, particularly because of high congestion & very high parking costs.
    So, ws, better transportation (mobility, time, efficiency, time, convenience, etc.),
    is not really wanted? They are just created demands, by zoning & other regs?”

    ws: I never said anything in regards to the benefits of car ownership. My comments were in regards to an environment where your car is your *only* option. You can be in downtown Paris and still drive in a car.

    This is important to note. No wonder why so many NU developments and TODs “fail”…because they’re smack dab in a sea of auto-dependent sprawl. The connections in and out of such developments are, of course, dependent on the automobile. And when they try and tame the auto’s presence, of course they’re not going to succeed very well.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 1:40 pm

  18. 18 On March 19th, 2010, Andy said:

    Thank you, ws and bennett, for noticing. I provide my substantive comments under a different pseudonym. The sole purpose for the “Andy” identity is to parrot Dan’s rude and snarky comments back at him.

    Dan posts more than anyone else on this site. While I enjoy reading his substantive comments, his rudeness deserves to be spanked. Everyone else on the site has learned to play with others. When Dan plays like a grown up, then “Andy” disappears. Its not perfect justice, but its better than calling for him to be moderated or banned from the site.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 2:55 pm

  19. 19 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    Andy:

    There wasn’t anything he said that was really out of line in this article. I’m not sure “Andy” coming out today was necessarily warranted, unless you’re trying to call out someone for behaving appropriately.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 3:32 pm

  20. 20 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    ROT:“Reality is never so simple. As you can see, it all depends on statement 1: are there regulations throughout America that restrict density? As evidence that there are, Yglesias cited the Maricopa County Zoning Code, which he claimed allows development no denser than duplexes. Apparently, he didn’t read (or was baffled by) chapter 7, which allows housing at 43 units per acre, or chapter 10, which allows anyone with 160 acres to build as dense as they want.”

    ws: As some people have already mentioned before

    From Chapter 10 of Maricopa’s zoning:

    “The Commission may recommend and the Board of Supervisors may approve conditions to the approval of a PAD including maximum density/intensity, maximum building heights, maximum lot coverage, minimum setbacks, timing and phasing, and other reasonable considerations deemed necessary to promote the purpose of this Ordinance.”

    Just a question for the die-hard O’Toole’s in the world: what do you think of being mislead like this? Obviously you can’t build as densely as you want.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 3:48 pm

  21. 21 On March 19th, 2010, lgrattan said:

    Transit and High Density Supporters.
    My guess is that in a few short years it will be recognized that Tranist pollutes more than cars and high density housing pollutes more than single family homes.

    What will be the fall back position for growth management supporters to limit hoomeowners choice?

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 4:29 pm

  22. 22 On March 19th, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan is under the impression that zoning has always existed & that it is immutable.
    A historical-based search for each area is unwarranted.
    It is a ridiculous supposition that people choose low density because that is the only option & that high density is preferred, & locks common sense.

    I have provided plenty of examples & reasoning.
    It is peculiar that Dan doesn’t know the history of urbanization.
    Open space & yards are big reasons why the population of suburbs surpassed that of core cities in 1973.

    Dan is up to his typical ploy, ignore about all points & ask a question for some obscure fact.

    ws, It cannot be expected to have much of a public transit option for many areas.
    How can so many people avoid the fact that high density, over a large area is needed for transit. Even the Bay Area, with its high level of transit, has many limitations once you get below a density of ~8,000. And BART & Caltrain hubs only offer so much.

    If you want widespread transit, you cannot choose anywhere.
    Look at the ~75,000 sq.mi. of urbanization.
    Within all of the UAs, maybe 1/5 of the area has a stop within a 1/3 mile.
    It would be ridiculous to have transit for all major roads in areas down to, say, 2,000 ppl./sq/mi.
    Costs will be exorbitant & energy/passenger-mile will be much more than cars.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 4:38 pm

  23. 23 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    Scott:

    Density has a lot of meanings to people. Single family homes can be quite dense, but most people wouldn’t realize what is “dense” and what is not. There has to be a criteria for that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUvR9QNAzvc

    No, rapid transit will not be doable in low dense areas. I never stated that.

    Scott:“Open space & yards are big reasons why the population of suburbs surpassed that of core cities in 1973.”

    ws:Manhattan has more open space opportunities than most suburban communities.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 4:44 pm

  24. 24 On March 19th, 2010, Andy said:

    ws: You made a good point. Dan was rude and obscuring his substantive points with personal attacks, but Andy shouldn’t try to make him polite — Andy should just throw the stuff back at him when he is really bad.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 4:54 pm

  25. 25 On March 19th, 2010, Dan said:

    Dan is under the impression that zoning has always existed & that it is immutable.

    Pfffft.

    You are making sh– up again.

    Just the other day I corrected Randal’s incorrect assertion about the origins of zoning.

    The Three Stooges continue to make sh– up to spam the thread. And hand-flap away from the fact they can’t back their claim.

    Randal continues to make blatantly false assertions and the Three Stooges attempt to obscure those who point out his false assertions.

    Thank you ws.

    DS

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 5:29 pm

  26. 26 On March 19th, 2010, Spokker said:

    I like the idea of different areas being able to offer different packages of goods and services while offering different tax burdens. Enable the progressive, left-leaning cities to do what they need to do and enable the conservative right-leaning cities to go that way. Then let’s see who moves where.

    I think people on both sides are demanding a one size fits all approach and expects every city to conform to one standard. Who gives a flying fuck if San Francisco wants to promote cycling, rail transit and tries to enforce a million laws that nobody follows? On the other side, who cares what Orange County, CA does? If sprawl is so bad, then let it be their demise.

    We see an exciting natural experiement in Southern California. Los Angeles County is going crazy over light rail. Orange County builds lanes, not trains. Let’s see who prospers and who doesn’t.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 5:52 pm

  27. 27 On March 19th, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan, For zoning, you seem to forget, as I pointed out, that it’s residents that make zoning. Residents are there first, usually in unincorporated areas–”towns” form, then the a city is incorporated. You seem to believe that wherever people first move, there is fixed zoning already there.

    Show us how zoning existed before people moved into areas & that it was low & not changeable.

    Oh, You still missed the point about CO2 & warming. That shows your low comprehension.
    Let me repeat. Most people are under the impression that CO2 rose first, before warming, and that was clearly the impression from Algore’s science fiction mockumentary An Inconvenient Truthiness The link that you provided even mentioned that warming occurred first, BEFORE CO2 increased.
    I didn’t mention anything about amplification or what the IPCC position is.

    You also missed the comparison, in favor of person’s choices creating zoning.
    Here’s the point of your link:
    Warming occurring–>more CO2–>CO2 amplifies warming (actually false)
    People choose low density–>zoning made–>maintains the trend (upzoning exceptions made)
    Above is the similarity.
    Thanx for proving my point.

    Another thing that is ignored is that out of the ~2/3 homes that are owned, about 80% of those are houses. And just about any core city, homeownership is less than avg, & that goes down with higher density & more multi-family units.

    There are plenty of opportunities to choose any level of density.

    Open space in Manhattan is ridiculous. Central Park yeah!
    Are you counting water?
    Forty mile radius, still buildings.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 6:06 pm

  28. 28 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    Scott:“Open space in Manhattan is ridiculous. Central Park yeah!
    Are you counting water?
    Forty mile radius, still buildings.”

    ws:You do realize that that space between the home envelope and the lot property is not considered open space, but is private property? I retain my initial assertion: New York does provide a lot of open space for an incredibly dense area, and a good number of suburban communities lack quality and quantity of “open spaces”. At some point, a playground and jungle gym gets a bit overplayed (and on the other end of the spectrum, a stark plaza every few blocks is not going to meet everyone’s open space needs).

    You can use the water in Central Park by rowboats:

    http://www.nycgovparks.org/facilities/rowboats

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 6:49 pm

  29. 29 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    Spokker:“If sprawl is so bad, then let it be their demise.”

    ws:From an environmental aspect, I care about the goods I buy that are made in China, where environmental laws are often flouted for so called “progress”. While not in my country, it still makes an impact on the environment. Ecologically speaking, we are all connected, and I do worry about the loss of land to development. Fewer bird migration spots, degraded water quality, air pollution, etc.

    Despite the completely asinine claim by some people that 95% of the US is “open space” or non-developed, the loss of land to development is absolutely a concern. Great, how much of that land is farming? How much of that land is used for natural resource extraction? How much of the land is even possible for modern habitation patters of today’s society? How much more land will be needed in the future to keep our consumptive economy going? What’s the effect of dividing and segregating a contiguous swath of undisturbed natural land via development? These questions and points aren’t answered by such “statistics” that get thrown around as the one I mentioned.

    I hear the Sahara is 99% open space. Great, but that doesn’t tell the whole story…

    I think anyone can be concerned about loss of land by simply going on Google Earth and poking around any metro area above 2 million people. You’ll see the city, the suburbs, some farmland, and you’d be hard pressed to pan anywhere on your screen and see a section of earth that has not been converted to some sort of human use.

    I can’t say that it’s all bad, but it should be concerning to some people that European-Americans have settled this land for only 400 years, and we have had profound, often irreversible impacts on the landscape.

    So in short, yeah, that’s why I care if a city “sprawls”.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 7:08 pm

  30. 30 On March 19th, 2010, sprawl said:

    My farmer friend tells me his grandfather needed 2/3′s more farmland to produce what he produces on 1/3 of the land his grandfather needed. Because 2/3rds of his grandfathers farm was used to feed the horses that pulled the plows.

    He is very thankful for tractors and gasoline.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 7:32 pm

  31. 31 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    That’s actually pretty interesting fact, sprawl. I never really thought of that, and I don’t disagree that farming technologies are going to produce food on less land. But, countering that point, our population is increasing in size, we are eating more total calories, and agricultural advancements certainly don’t come without some potential negatives to get those outstanding results like GMOs.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 8:08 pm

  32. 32 On March 19th, 2010, Scott said:

    ws, imagine:
    “I moved to Manhattan because of the open space opportunities.”
    That is laughable.

    A lot of private property is open space, much of it “wanted,” just to look at or not be built on.
    Within metros, major open space would be farmland, forests, grassland, etc. Beyond, it’s obviously just rural.

    In many suburbs (non-West Coast), there are avg. lot sizes above one acre & that are primarily, residential.
    People consider that a lot of open space, in addition to many forest preserves. You seem to confine your definition to just parks.

    BTW, trivia point, the Chicago UA sprawls considerably more than the LA area.
    Chicago has 1/3 less people on 1/3 more land.

    The amount of farmland taken out of production, is incredibly much less than the amount of land that has become urbanized.
    There is not a shortage of land. Gov regs create scarcity.
    China & India each have more farm output than the US.
    GM food is great, which includes most produce & about all livestock, & has increased productivity. Are you concerned about horror movie stuff?

    The area that is taken up by 80% of the population can all fit in Wisconsin.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 9:52 pm

  33. 33 On March 19th, 2010, Scott said:

    I take back my comment on any GM animals & the amount of GM plants.
    I just found out that the definition is more precise (altering DNA) than the name suggests.
    I took “changing genes” to mean any kind of breeding or altering from what occurred in nature.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 10:03 pm

  34. 34 On March 19th, 2010, ws said:

    Scott:

    It doesn’t matter what people consider as open space. It’s not open space by any definition of the word in planning sense…nobody wants unwanted neighbors playing all over their yard.

    posted on March 19th, 2010 at 11:26 pm

  35. 35 On March 20th, 2010, Scott said:

    How did this get about trespassing? You are still thinking of parks & public space.

    Open space is wanted by many people just to view some nature & not have development.
    I mentioned that previously. It’s a common thing.
    You don’t seem to be familiar with planning & urban terminology.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 3:09 am

  36. 36 On March 20th, 2010, bennett said:

    Andy,

    Now that I know who you are, I have a whole new appreciation for “Andy’s comments.” Unfortunately for “Andy” it makes me respect Dan’s comments a whole lot more too. He’s obviously striking a chord. Wow! If only my comments could give my opponents multiple personality disorder.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 8:21 am

  37. 37 On March 20th, 2010, Dan said:

    So the moderator of our Silly Denialist Game has ruled and I can only score points once on the long-ago refuted talking points in the RubeRhetoric upthread. That’s too bad, as there is a rich treasure trove of parroted PR phrases to mine.

    Ah, well. Let us observe and note the grade school-level Gish galloping to spam the thread to obscure the patently false statements made by Randal.

    DS

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 8:34 am

  38. 38 On March 20th, 2010, Frank said:

    Dan said: “Let us observe and note the grade school-level Gish galloping to spam the thread…”

    Dan, you’re the one spamming the thread and taunting others like playground bully.

    You and ws continue to dominate the spam with over 50% of the comments on this thread–no doubt mostly on the government dime–with Dan’s comments laden with appeal to ridicule and name calling while dripping with condescension and sarcasm.

    Get a hobby. Get a life. Get back to work.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 10:42 am

  39. 39 On March 20th, 2010, StevefromMKE said:

    Hey Dan, what is like waking up everyday acting like a little tyrant everyday? Truly, what amount of brainpower does it require and how much energy do you waste getting like this? Does it bring joy to your life telling others how right, in your mind, you are or others should live their lives?

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 12:26 pm

  40. 40 On March 20th, 2010, Dan said:

    Niiiice.

    Blatant victim role play and making sh– up!

    Surely it is being victimized by the bully, and not obvious distraction away from Randal’s patently false statements about Houston and Maricopa County, as well as ignorance of zoning origins, misrepresenting survey findings, peddling false premises and stating false housing choice decisions that drives the harrumphing false outrage on this thread.

    Poor babies.

    DS

    Thank you bennett and ws.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 12:52 pm

  41. 41 On March 20th, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan, More of your learning disability & lack of ability to comprehend reading is becoming apparent.

    I previously did not make any comments about denying AGW or on warming causation.
    I basically gave an order of events & what most think.
    Here’s what you do when reading, see a few key words, but don’t understand the content. So, you make your own interpretation.

    Similar for how you type. You have your own ideas of how things should be & type a few key words that form a basis of your opinion or some other statist opinion, but actually have little meaning. You often typr with no meaning whatsoever too.

    For the 3rd time, I typed that CO2 has increased AFTER past warming.
    That’s not in dispute by the IPCC or either side of the AGW debate.
    For some reason, you think that you refute that because you have sources which agree.
    Most people think that CO2 increased first; you have not shown otherwise.
    You have been unable to differentiate between what the official alarmist position is & what the masses think & what I actually typed.

    It would help you to read thrice, slowly, before coming to conclusions.
    Also, you could better communicate by proofing your comments & think what others, without the love & faith in the nanny-state might think. And it will greatly help to provide substance that supports your claims, labels assertions.
    You get caught up in absolutes & binary choices too.

    Don’t feel bad about your imperfections, many lefties suffer from that, especially Jon Stewart, but you are only funny in that people laugh at you. Actually, you should feel bad about improper comprehension & reasoning. You can still improve & learn. So far, a what a waste of tax $ to “educate” you & pay your salary for “work”.

    Good luck with you pay sites: big.gov.by.dan.ugh
    dans.incoherent.obscure.vocabulary.nazi my.rules.for.inefficiency.guv

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

  42. 42 On March 20th, 2010, Andy said:

    I love reading the Dan, bennett and ws posts, as they just show how these Three Stooges have their planning hats shoved up their sewer pipes. Hey, maybe Andy will start to mix substance with his mocking of Dan’s snarky comments!

    1. Dan thinks his every utterance is universal truth, and he has a heart attack every time the Anitplanner doesn’t follow his twisted logic. Dan thinks everyone else lies and is stupid, and his proof is that he owns a Thesaurus. Andy exists to do what most readers want to say to Dan. (Memo to Dan: That is most readers, not most postings, as the Three Stooges scribble 60-70% of the comments on this site).

    2. The Three Stooges think that open space cannot be suburban lawns, even though that is where all the kids play. Cul-de-sacs cannot be open space, even though that is where all the kids play. To planners, open space can only be government owned land, like wetlands, where kids cannot play but lots of mosquitoes and drug dealers can hang out.

    3. The Three Stooges think they “prove” something about development by quoting a small part of a zoning code. Anyone but government suckled urban planners knows that government development permitting is a process of graft, raw politics, a little civic pride, and a lot of the free market. Planners hate that, so they make up a fictional world and teach that in little planner school. A realist would know that if you want to know how it works in Maricopa County, just drive around Maricopa County and see what is allowed.

    4. The Three Stooges think that NYC is the planner Nirvana. After all, there people jog and paddle canoes. In fact, their little planning school textbooks define good planning as NYC Central Park. But it never occurs to them that .001% of the population paddles the canoes, .01% of the population jogs in the park, and no kids would be allowed to play there without nanny supervision. But hey, its planning Nirvana that will solve the obesity problem! Better that than suburban lawns where kids actually play outside for hours at a time without nannies or au pairs.

    5. If Andy is messed up for being a pseudonym that hounds Dan, what does that make Dan who posts more than the Antiplanner himself, yet won’t start his own website?

    You can’t make this stuff up!

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 2:05 pm

  43. 43 On March 20th, 2010, bennett said:

    That was pretty rich. Let me just say these few things is my defense. Re: Andy’s #2 (no pun intended) I would agree accept I think something like a privately held ranch could qualify as open space, but not streets or residential yards per se. Re: #3, I totally agree “that government development permitting is a process of graft, raw politics, a little civic pride, and a lot of the free market,” and probably planning too. RE: #4, As I recall some of my favorite planning books are extremely critical of Central Park, especially the use of eminent domain while developing the park. But yes, I do marvel at NYC. Re: 5, touche. I’ve been thinking about starting my on blog, but Mr. O’Toole does such a good job stirring the pot, I figure why not participate here.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 3:32 pm

  44. 44 On March 20th, 2010, Dan said:

    More blatant mischaracterization and transparent demonization as a low-wattage obvious distraction away from Randal’s patently false statements about Houston and Maricopa County, as well as ignorance of zoning origins, misrepresenting survey findings, peddling false premises and stating false housing choice decisions that drives the harrumphing false outrage on this thread.

    Poor babies.

    DS

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 3:53 pm

  45. 45 On March 20th, 2010, ws said:

    Andy:“The Three Stooges think that open space cannot be suburban lawns, even though that is where all the kids play. Cul-de-sacs cannot be open space, even though that is where all the kids play. To planners, open space can only be government owned land, like wetlands, where kids cannot play but lots of mosquitoes and drug dealers can hang out.”

    ws:May I go and play on your private, residential open space? You have zero basis to call a home’s front yard “open space”. There is a criteria that defines open space. This isn’t just being nitpicky, it’s being accurate. You can’t just make definitions up.

    Andy:“The Three Stooges think that NYC is the planner Nirvana. After all, there people jog and paddle canoes.”

    ws:Um, no, Scott made the assertion that as far as area, the water in central park couldn’t be considered open space. By all means, that area is usable and therefor can be count as usable “open space”.

    I made no assertion that Central Park was a planning “nirvana”. My argument was the “open space” area for suburban communities is actually quite small and often inaccessible because you can’t count a private lawn as open space (not everyone is allowed to use it). Something that gets looked past because the O’Toole’s, Cox’s, and Kotkins of the world seem to think that suburbs give people access to “nature”…unless you think pretty pink petunias, water consuming lawns, dinky ornamental street trees with no purpose or function, and slabs of asphalt and concrete for maximum automobile comfort is “near nature”…then I guess that’s some pretty damn loose criteria.

    I can find more shade and “green” in highly urbanized Chicago rowhome neighborhood than I can find in suburbia (usually they cut down the nice native trees without any reason to in the first place and put that wonderful grass down that won’t ever be used).

    Andy:“A realist would know that if you want to know how it works in Maricopa County, just drive around Maricopa County and see what is allowed.”

    ws:…What? Just drive around and see what is allowed? What are you talking about? That wasn’t even the point. The point was O’Toole was wrong about Maricopa’s zoning regs.

    Andy: “Three Stooges scribble 60-70% of the comments on this site”

    ws: “The Three Stooges” post so much on this site because they feel serious about the misleading nature of the “antiplanner” and the negative path he might be sending the built and natural environment towards.

    I applaud the antiplanner for giving us a voice and updating his blog regularly. I actually agree with the crux of antiplanner’s sentiments that government makes many mistakes and have seriously caused harm on a lot of things…not to mention they have restricted the personal freedoms of individuals, which is a value I personally enjoy having and would like to preserve.

    But on the same token, I don’t think that someone has the innate right to strip mine and pollute and wreck the environment.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 6:46 pm

  46. 46 On March 20th, 2010, ws said:

    Scott: “Within metros, major open space would be farmland, forests, grassland, etc. Beyond, it’s obviously just rural.”

    ws: How much forestland, farmland, grassland, etc. occurs in a given metro area? The very definition of metro area denotes an area of high population concentration. Not too many people live in grassland prairies ;-)

    We’re discussing the open space access of suburban areas to urban areas. My mission is not to mess with rural lifestyles. Suburbia is an urbanized environment.

    Most quaint, small towns are not apart of any core city metro area, btw.

    But I will tend to agree that even a privately owned forest operation could be considered as “open space”. I simply will not agree, based under any definition, that a patch of Kentucky Blue Grass in your front yard is open space. I don’t mean to break the definition of open space to public vs. private, if that is what you mean.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 7:11 pm

  47. 47 On March 20th, 2010, Andy said:

    The Maricopa County debate is a good example of talking past each other:

    Iglesia: The County zoning code requires no density greater than a duplex.

    Antiplanner: Another chapter of the County zoning code allows for much denser development.

    Dan: Somewhere in his moronic blather he says something that rhymes with an idea that the denser development must be applied for and may not be permitted (and everyone who doesn’t agree with Dan is a corrupt lying idiot and blah blah blah).

    Andy: One can’t tell what is allowed by a graft/political/free market system just by Googling zoning codes — you have to look at what comes out of the process.

    Meanwhile, the whole point Iglesia was trying to make was that if wasn’t for Maricopa County zoning laws, thousands of people in Arizona would build dense high rise condos outside the city limits of the Phoenix metro area. Andy’s point was that if Iglesia drove around Maricopa County, everyone there would laugh at his theory.

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 8:19 pm

  48. 48 On March 20th, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan, Again you have no substance, just vague wording w/no backing. Dan just figures on different vocabulary to say “this past content is wrong & I know best; trust my claims.”

    ws, I made no assertion on water & open space. I asked if the open space for Manhattan, included water.
    That usage should imply the rivers & oceans, not ponds.
    Central Park is great usable open space, but its area is not measured after subtracting the ponds.
    Andy wasn’t even focusing on water or the definition of open space. It was basically about the recreational activity of canoeing. He was also being slightly sarcastic. I don’t know how you mixed up that point, in 3+ ways.

    ws, Maybe the suburbs where you are familiar w/are fully built up & have little public space. NW Cook County (Chicago) where I grew up had plenty, including forest preserves. It seems peculiar that some high density ares could have more open space. Could be; I’m not acutely aware of many UA details like that. Many yards together might not be thought of as open space, but overall, when there is more exposed ground, with plants, that can have an open space “feeling” (actual, big part of open space, not just in physical occupation), compared to heavily built areas.

    It’s kind funny that this aspect of open space discussion is minor. The real discussion is about municipalities “appropriating” private land as “public open space” by zoning (no build), for the purpose of viewing or for there not be development there.

    There is plenty of zoning, at all densities in Maricopa County, including smart-ass growth–increasing with the new LRT. Strange that its ridership has tied the VTA LRT, which has double the length, is 22 years old, & higher densities.

    My parents have their own house w/space, 10 acres on a hillside in Scottsdale. The other hillside homes have 5-10 & those below have 1-2 acres. But building is prohibited near the ridges, because the higher part of personal property is seen as quasi-public for open space viewing. That’s common practice in many states & a clear violation of eminent domain. However, many judges & lawmakers are collectivists, & ignore parts of the Constitution.

    ws, My point of rural areas is that, even though they are open space, we are not considering that part of the land in discussion. I don’t know why you thought I was including them. Although, for the people (could be ~10% of total) living on the edges of an UA, that is very relevant. And for mountainous regions, that rural area is relevant (by view) to all.

    Metropolitan areas are counted by whole counties.
    Within that, urban areas are continuous parts of developed areas.
    Look it up, for whole definition.
    Of the contiguous US, ~20% of the area is “metropolitan” & ~3% is in an urban area (UA).
    I did not say prairies, in relation to grass. There are often many areas of grass (1-10+ acres), occasionally w/trees, (could be shrub) throughout metros. That is open space, right?

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 9:09 pm

  49. 49 On March 20th, 2010, Scott said:

    Note: When editing, & time expires, it’s lost.

    I just tried to add one paragraph, in relation to previous post.

    People can laugh at Iglesia just by reading his articles. Although those lefty statists might agree or just miss reality. Similar to people who appreciate liberty, responsibility & free enterprise, can laugh at Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, and also be disgusted, while the big gov types think “right on.” Or can be funny while saddening to read fallacious logic, by many pro-gov people, especially Jon Stewart.

    Sorrow for those people in the PHX UA, living in houses at 4-6 DU/acre, when they could live at 10-20 DU/acre, or in multi-family structures, if only the locals didn’t “mandate” some yard. (I partially grew up on a 1/2 acre & thought that was small. I’m still trying to grow up.)

    posted on March 20th, 2010 at 9:26 pm

  50. 50 On March 21st, 2010, Dan said:

    One wonders why the usual small-minority suspects comically trot out th’ fraydom one moment and comically disparage attempts to bring more housing choice to freedom-loving patriots the next.

    Is it cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy?

    We report, you decide.

    DS

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 10:23 am

  51. 51 On March 21st, 2010, Andy said:

    Hey ws and bennett: Dan has commented 11 times on this AP post alone. Only 3 of them had any minimal substance at all. Are you going to call him out on 8 non-substantive comments on one day’s posting? Otherwise, the rest of us will continue to mock him, and your side of the debate will have to suffer from the collateral damage.

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 11:08 am

  52. 52 On March 21st, 2010, StevefromMKE said:

    Dan said:

    One wonders why the usual small-minority suspects comically trot out th’ fraydom one moment and comically disparage attempts to bring more housing choice to freedom-loving patriots the next.

    Is it cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy?

    This superior intellect…is laughable…

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 11:20 am

  53. 53 On March 21st, 2010, Dan said:

    Ah. Cognitive dissonance or dishonesty then.

    Why do the usual suspects trot out th’ fraydom one moment and disparage attempts to bring more housing freedom and choice the next?

    That’s basically the number one consistent issue on this blog. The number one failure of the argument.

    DS

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 11:31 am

  54. 54 On March 21st, 2010, msetty said:

    Ignoring the merits or demerits of any given type of zoning, zoning is a major intervention in land markets, any way you look at it.

    Scott et al seem to be in favor of “democracy” regarding this issue, but otherwise are strongly against other market intervention, consistent with being conservatives or libertarians.

    But if zoning intervention in the land markets is OK by their reasoning, what is their criteria for this obviously major deviation from free enterprise, free market principles? I haven’t see any spelled out yet in this too long thread.

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 12:39 pm

  55. 55 On March 21st, 2010, StevefromMKE said:

    So now Dan is responding to his own posts…check the ego would’ja?

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 2:07 pm

  56. 56 On March 21st, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan, You are showing your misunderstanding of reality by typing, “[pro-freedom people] disparage attempts to bring more housing choice”. Wrong!!! Holy firkin crap! How can you believe such nonsense?
    The statists ignore many property rights, set much land off limits to build, demand high density in many areas where larger lots are preferred. The statist are the one limiting freedom & choice. You are twisting into opposites. Slavery is freedom. One option is choice. Must take transit is choice. Crowdedness has open space.

    Dan continues wild assertions with no support.
    Th death penalty is very good, even for ongoing slander.
    How is advocacy for fewer regs, less zoning, less gov, more zoning, more building, lower pricing, etc…. lead to the conclusion of less “housing freedom and choice”?

    msetty said But if zoning intervention in the land markets is OK by their reasoning, what is their criteria for this obviously major deviation from free enterprise, free market principles?

    False perception. How do you think that free marketers have reasoning for zoning?

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 2:47 pm

  57. 57 On March 21st, 2010, Dan said:

    Maybe Mike Setty has a point that the intellectual quality of the comments is declining.

    Low-quality spam notwithstanding, why do the usual suspects disparage attempts to bring more housing freedom and choice the next?

    DS

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 3:47 pm

  58. 58 On March 21st, 2010, Andy said:

    Hey Dan. Due to your reputation, no one reads your normal posts.

    Now no one reads your bold faced posts.

    Try underlining them, using all caps, lots of exclamation points, and frowny faces after your posts. :-(

    posted on March 21st, 2010 at 9:52 pm

  59. 59 On March 22nd, 2010, t g said:

    Randal,

    I’m under the impression that you rarely read too far down the comments. In a thread like this it is understandable. As a heads up, your blog reflects on you, and that includes the comment section. Your house is falling apart here, Randal. Control your commenters.

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 9:48 am

  60. 60 On March 22nd, 2010, ws said:

    Maybe this blog’s comment section is a microcosm for unfettered free markets? ;-) Would ROT’s filtering of content go against his beliefs?

    Despite a toxic environment, he does a good job of updated content and letting people speak their minds w/o micromanagement. I applaud him for that…and I have been on blogs before where simply disagree with the blogger gets your post deleted or not posted at all.

    Very annoying.

    Maybe some more rules (clearly visible before posting) would benefit the blog, and we could hopefully abide by them and hold ourselves to a better standard.

    I know I could certainly work on my e-etiquette. It’s easy to talk trash when you’re behind an anonymous veil.

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 11:29 am

  61. 61 On March 22nd, 2010, bennett said:

    tg & ws,

    Agreed. I’ve let my emotions get the better of me on the blog from time to time and will do better.

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 11:41 am

  62. 62 On March 22nd, 2010, Scott said:

    So Dan, it sound like you agree with being intellectual?
    Are you going to follow through with support for your vagueness, wild accusations, assertions, labels, etc.?
    And discontinue your immaturity & fallacies?

    It is funny how people want big gov, but don’t give any valid reasons why.
    They often give invalid reasons & false analogies, such as using anarchy as the only other option.

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm

  63. 63 On March 22nd, 2010, t g said:

    Scott,

    A preference for government intervention or unfettered markets is ultimately an issue of moral philosophy. Economists agree on this. And the populace is nearly split on how our country should conduct itself.

    Please tone down the rhetoric.

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 1:30 pm

  64. 64 On March 22nd, 2010, Dan said:

    I think (for the regular reader) Greasemonkey on the handful of usual suspects would alter the perception of toxicity, and surely eliminate puerile spamming/false statements/transparent mischaracterizations/strawmen to attempt to hide the main points of the thread .

    But GM would do nothing to eliminate spam and drivelous hand-waving for the drive-by reader. But such is the nature of blogs, esp the few on the right that allow comments.

    DS

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 1:47 pm

  65. 65 On March 22nd, 2010, Andy said:

    To ws, bennett, highwayman, and tg:

    I not only don’t mind criticism of the Antiplanner, I enjoy reading contrary comments. Sure you might make snotty comments that detract from the debate, and I wish you wouldn’t, but you mostly try to debate issues.

    Dan is not like that. He is a troll who wants to submarine this website with snotty comments and yet is too much a coward to try his own website, yet he is by far the most common commenter on this website. Perhaps he has a fetish, or perhaps he is just a cowardly troll.

    Please join us who are isolating Dan as a troll, yet welcome contrary opinions and debate. We aren’t asking that he be banned, only that he be shunned when he acts like a troll.

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 1:55 pm

  66. 66 On March 23rd, 2010, Scott said:

    tg,
    You are way too vague to have meaning & mis-characterize issues:
    Gov & markets & morality?
    Me tone down rhetoric? ???

    I could really tear apart whatever you are trying to say, but that would require speculation.
    You are too broad encompassing.
    The items here are usually about urban issues, mainly about property rights & building, and transportation.
    You seem to be talking about banking, stocks, censorship, medicine drugs… It’s unclear.

    Your linked article, by Mankiw, is 18 months old. It could have relevance, but many now see how they were tricked by BO. Although he is still foling many people. His speeches say nothing, except for him contradicting himself & hoping for better stuff. And people blame the recession on laissez-faire, when it was gov intervention that caused it.

    Dan, the only thing I got out of your comments are things that only apply to you.
    BTW, “spam” for the purpose of selling something; that’s not done here.
    What is a toxic perception?
    Name the false statements, w/evidence.

    posted on March 23rd, 2010 at 2:09 am

  67. 67 On April 3rd, 2010, foxmarks said:

    Since off-topic stuff has become a topic, count one more vote for the camp that holds Slobbering Dan sux. I don’t bother with the comments here anymore, thanks to that pompous drooler.

    It has been months since I even glanced past AP’s postings and into this cess-pit. Nice to see it is the same as it ever was. Same voices, same arguments, same pointlessness.

    I suppose I could have learned to accept Slobber-boy’s tone as part of his character. But that he was first to snap onto nearly every post and dominated all the threads like a sad lickspittle…

    Well, I guess it is my loss that I no longer bask in his Salivary Glory.

    posted on April 3rd, 2010 at 9:07 pm

  68. 68 On April 5th, 2010, Scott said:

    Good points. How true.
    I stayed away from this board for almost a year, because there were a few that had no intention of debating/discussing the issues, but just denounced topics & persons with vagueness & loaded words.

    It’s like avoiding a restaurant because there are a few kids there throw food around & are otherwise disruptive.

    Opposing points are fine, but they need to be points. In other words, support your claims with data & logic, and explain why the opposition is supposedly wrong.

    posted on April 5th, 2010 at 10:58 am

  69. 69 On May 11th, 2010, Transformational Yet Futile Strategic Plan » The Antiplanner said:

    [...] The plan also opines that, since the share of families with children has declined, and households without children make up most of those who live in dense, mixed-use developments, that the market for such developments is growing fast. In fact, the evidence indicates that the market for such developments remains very limited as even households without children overwhelmingly prefer single-family homes. Naturally, the plan attributes this seeming preference to evil zoning codes that force people to live in low-density neighborhoods (a claim the Antiplanner has challenged). [...]

    posted on May 11th, 2010 at 12:02 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.