The Portland Tribune reports that Portland’s mania for high densities is imposing significant costs on the region’s watersheds. This has been an open secret in Portland for a long time.
Back in the 1960s, Oregon’s Willamette River was an open sewer. Cities like Eugene and Salem and various pulp mills and other industries poured untreated pollution in the river, so by the time it got to Portland, it was not safe to swim in and the fish were dead or dying. Before he ever ran for elective office, Tom McCall (who started out as a television news reporter) famously called on the state to clean it up, and it did, passing legislation requiring all cities and other point-source polluters to make the water they put in the river cleaner than any water that might take out. By 1980, the fish were back and no one hesitated to swim in the river.
The Environmental Protection Agency threw a monkey wrench into this when it required cities to treat storm sewer runoff (normally considered non-point source pollution). The EPA gave cities the option to tie their storm sewers into their sewage treatment plans knowing that major rain storms would overwhelm the plants, forcing the cities to dump storm sewage and untreated human sewage into the river. This is what Portland did, which meant that the Willamette is now clean only when it hasn’t rained recently.
Potent herbs in purchase viagra online this herbal pill increases secretion of testosterone. Kamagra Available viagra prescription buy at the Affordable Prices The significant role of web drug stores encouraged millions of ED patients and the selling rate of this medication. Reflexology when performed on male genital leads in better circulation of blood in the viagra samples for sale area, stress reduction on the genital, and stimulating the nerves to function normally. Its intake facilitates the flow of blood towards the penis turning the muscles indenture & the nerves tapered sildenafil prescription in form.
Portland is now spending $1.4 billion to expand its sewage treatment capacity so that “combined sewage overflow” does not take place during rain storms. But, says the Tribune, this won’t be enough thanks to all the new residents Portland is packing in to its New Urban high-density neighborhoods. Density not only means more people flushing more sewage down the drains, it means less permeable area, such as lawns, to absorb the storm runoff.
A few years ago, the National Marine Fisheries Service published guidelines saying that, for watershed protection, new development should render no more than 10 percent of any acre impermeable. This demands low-density development; probably no more than one home every two acres. Portland simply ignored this rule because it did not fit into planners’ preconceived notions of “environmentally friendly development.”
High-density development is not a prescription for a cleaner environment. In many ways, it is harmful to the environment, and its impact on watersheds is one of them.
In many ways, it is harmful to the environment, and its impact on watersheds is one of them.
This is a design issue, hence LID and detention ponds as semiamenities and open space set asides and green roofs and underground detention and and and.
And the NMFS ‘guideline’ is not a ‘rule’, despite your wishing it to be so, as they know development at those densities isn’t sustainable.
At any rate, you’ll find few developers building affordable housing at your wished 1:2 ac. density, as the infrastructure costs are prohibitive and cities won’t take them on in large numbers due to repaving and service delivery costs.
But you can get back to the design issue and cluster houses at higher densities and preserve open space that way.
DS
DS,
My point about the NMFS guidelines was that Portland claims it is so environmentally aware, but it only pays attention to environmental issues that support its preconceived notions.
I can find lots of affordable housing at 1:2 acre densities simply by going to places that don’t have growth-management planning.
Sure, I can buy the argument that more water currently runs off into rivers through high density development than suburban development. Of course as Dan points out, this can be solved by design. I actually have questioned the necessity for the big pipe project when perhaps swales, rainwater recycling and green roofs could stop the issue at the source (of course I don’t know everything about the project so I can’t form what in my opinion would be a valid argument against it…doesn’t seem to stop people around here though).
This pinpointed view on high density development also seems to ignore the benefits of such developments, as well as the issues with alternate forms of development. Our modern world has an impact on the environment however we design it. One of the aims of high density development is to lessen that impact. On the whole, does high density development cause less or more damage to the environment than suburban development?
I disagree with both of your implications, Randal. You’ve failed to enumerate the environmental tradeoffs inherent in densification and explain whether the community and the market prefer these tradeoffs. You’ve merely made an argument from incomplete premises.
And I’m quite sure you’ll have lots of time to mow your 2 acre yard, rake leaves, all that. There are reasons why there aren’t more developments like this all over the place, as I said and you ignored: it costs too much to extend infrastructure to those densities and many cites won’t or can’t pay those maintenance costs. In addition to sensible people not wanting lots that size -only those who want all that maintenance get those lot sizes – why do you think average lot sizes are 1/10 that, besides developers maximizing their profit on equilibrium lot sizes? Who do you think you are convincing with this dubious line?
DS
Dan I disagree with both of your implications, Randal. You’ve failed to enumerate the environmental tradeoffs inherent in densification
JK: Wrong – he laid out a case against a sacred cow. The densifiers have been spreading BS in support of their side’s crap for years. Suddenly when he pokes a hole, he is unfair? Give me a break!
Dan and explain whether the community and the market prefer these tradeoffs.
JK: Why should he, the densifiers never bothered with what people wanted? The community clearly DOE NOT PREFER more density. The 2002 Metro region vote was decisive: over 65%, probably 75-85%, voted against increased density, but the densifiers continue to ignore the people’s will. see http://www.DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/MetroDensityVote.htm
Dan You’ve merely made an argument from incomplete premises.
JK: Your side’s argument is from no premise – only “feel good†crap from the 19th century.
Dan And I’m quite sure you’ll have lots of time to mow your 2 acre yard, rake leaves, all that.
JK: Now you introduce another red herring, like zoning supporters always bring up the possibility that someone will spend a few hundred million to buy up part of the Pearl district and put in a pig farm, unless they are allowed to zone every detail of everyone’s land, sometimes right down to the location of the windows and exterior colors. A lot of large lots, except the house, are left in their natural state – something you can’t say for the crap that the densifiers build.
Dan There are reasons why there aren’t more developments like this all over the place,
JK: You bet! Planners and UGBs have driven up the cost of land so much that a back yard is no longer affordable by the middle class.
Dan as I said and you ignored: it costs too much to extend infrastructure to those densities and many cites won’t or can’t pay those maintenance costs.
JK: But the planners think it is good to $200,000 PER UNIT for high density. Just for “bricks and mortarâ€Â, before even talking about schools, police and fire.
Dan In addition to sensible people not wanting lots that size -only those who want all that maintenance get those lot sizes
JK: You are showing a typical planner’s arrogence by telling us what people want. And defining people who disagree with you as not “sensibleâ€Â. You assume high maintenance for a large lot, while the multi acre lots in Portland’s close in sprawl are mostly wooded.
Dan – why do you think average lot sizes are 1/10 that
JK: Something that planners have trouble understanding: COST!
Dan Who do you think you are convincing with this dubious line?
JK: Rational people. As opposed to the gullable that buy the planner’s crap.
Thanks
JK
For some reason, JK, you:
o believe that ‘failing to enumerate’ means ‘laying out a case’, and
o continue to think that I find it OK that you reply for Randal.
Well, I’m tired of your puerile widdle name-calling and marginalization rhetoric.
From now on, when I see your comments I’ll skip them without reading.
DS
Poor picked on Dan.
Are you the same Dan that uses multiple names on Sam’s blog?
Thanks
JK
I don’t feel picked on at all.
The reality is: who wants to waste their time on a discussion with someone who must resort to name-calling and relies on partial information to have play?
Buh-bye now.
DS
While I agree with Jim on many issues, I too think he would attract more flys with honey. I understand the frustration of being on the right side when the other is in power(kind of makes you understand how the founding fathers must have felt). I think Dan brings A LOT to this party and that both sides can benefit greatly from a real and civil discussion of these issues.
I seem, sadly, to only rarely agree with johng, but I know he’s going to make me think hard about what I’m writing. Thinking thru an issue well enough to write it down so others can understand it is a valuable exercise.
DS
On February 13th, 2007, Dan said:
“This is a design issue, hence LID and detention ponds as semiamenities and open space set asides and green roofs and underground detention and and and. ”
First high density is forced, then LID and green roofs and underground detention and and and. So much coercion, so little humility.
“you’ll find few developers building affordable housing at your wished 1:2 ac. density, as the infrastructure costs are prohibitive and cities won’t take them on in large numbers due to repaving and service delivery costs.”
And, if true, that’s just fine. Anti-planners like me don’t care to see cities taking on infrastructure or service delivery costs, or anything else other than the protection of citizen’s natural rights. We don’t wish for 1:2 ac. density, or any other particular density. Let freedom reign.
“you can get back to the design issue and cluster houses at higher densities and preserve open space that way.”
Not if force must be used to do so.
“You’ve failed to enumerate the environmental tradeoffs inherent in densification and explain whether the community and the market prefer these tradeoffs.”
The preference of the community is of no consequence. The natural rights of the individual do not evaporate even if the majority says they should.
“o continue to think that I find it OK that you reply for Randal.”
I can’t speak for JimKarlock, but OK or not, I intend to comment on anything posted here by anyone, anytime I feel like it.
“Well, I’m tired of your puerile widdle name-calling…”
And I’m tired of your endless and childish sarcasm (widdle?). I struggle to give fair hearing to everything you post, and your positions are not always without merit, but your unwillingness or inability to disagree without being disagreeable sure does make the job harder. JimKarlock is too abrasive for my liking, too, but he consistently backs freedom, so he gets a pass. As to name-calling, what has JimKarlock called anyone other than planner or densifier? Although, now that I think about it, I’m sure he doesn’t intend those labels as compliments.
“From now on, when I see your comments I’ll skip them without reading.”
‘From now on’ = +/- 2 1/2 hours
On February 13th, 2007, johngalt said:
“I think Dan brings A LOT to this party and that both sides can benefit greatly from a real and civil discussion of these issues.”
Hear, hear!
I fully agree with Dan’s comments on Jim’s posts, and agree that Dan could be a little more gentle. I must also say that it’s not about hurt feelings as Jim accuses, but more of sound argument. I must say that Dan generally brings logical and well-reasoned arguments to the table (at least in comparison with Jim’s), while Jim seems only to present comments that are shortsighted or aimed at the arguer instead of the argument (I have held off on this little bit of hypocrisy for a while). For this reason, I generally read Jim’s comments, but try my hardest to disregard them because I feel that they only detract from the antiplanner stance.
Unfortunately, I can’t help but think that Jim’s position is the norm for the antiplanner side, which has actually caused me to view the antiplanning side with more skepticism and as a reinforcement for the opposite side. I had hoped to see several of those with the antiplanner philosophy distance themselves from Jim’s comments and troublesome reasoning in a previous post, but I believe John was the only one who commented (yet only in his presentation form, and not in the rationality of his thought, or the accuracy or relevence of his data). Further, the antiplanner links to Jim’s web site to back his own claims.
â€ÂAs to name-calling, what has JimKarlock called anyone other than planner or densifier?â€Â
I listed some of the personal attacks in the logical fallacies post (a couple weeks ago – contained a list of a few of the logical fallacies presented so far). If you want I’ll go dig that up.
“I understand the frustration of being on the right side when the other is in powerâ€Â
How do you define the “right sideâ€Â. How do you know that you are right? Religions around the world believe that only their position could be correct. Are you different…could you perhaps be wrong?
I’ll mull over the notion of foregoing responding to people the same way they comment – treating people as they treat others. I should be more explicit about the tactic. Nonetheless:
Nobody has mentioned a key passage in the article Randal linked to:
I did a quick search of my hard drive but it didn’t come up, but I’ve got a paper someone did calculating the annual amount of metals deposited each year in the LA basin. By cars. It’s IIRC in the 6 figures in lbs. By cars, you say? Metaks in 6 figures, you say? Brakes.
Auto goop on impervious is the major constituent of gunk in runoff. And why LID, bioswales, etc are being installed, to intercept auto goop.
DS
On February 13th, 2007, pdxf said:
“I listed some of the personal attacks in the logical fallacies post…If you want I’ll go dig that up.”
Thanks for the offer, but I saw that list the day you posted it. I tell you, without sarcasm, it was a nice piece of writing, and I’ve added some of it to my debating kit. However, the accusation, thrice stated if I remember correctly, was name-calling, which I don’t recall being on your list. If JimKarlock has called Dan anything uglier than planner, then I have missed it. If he hasn’t, Dan, for no good reason, weakens his credibility by making a false accusation (or acknowledges being insulted at being called a planner).
“I must say that Dan generally brings logical and well-reasoned arguments to the table … ”
…aimed at justifying government coercion. They have so far failed to move me in the slightest.
If JimKarlock has called Dan anything uglier than planner, then I have missed it. If he hasn’t, Dan, for no good reason, weakens his credibility by making a false accusation (or acknowledges being insulted at being called a planner) [emphasis added]
Come now. When is name-calling strictly about personalization.
This didn’t take long and I expended little effort, as others could too if they chose.
This is all of a piece for those who need to believe, for whatever reason:
this is reliance upon obvious, simplistic marginalization rhetoric that relies upon application of emotion-inducing phrase in place of argument. Instead of marshaling all the facts in context. [hmmm…title disabled in preview?]
Most folk choose to count how many replies certain people have no answer for and consider context when judging credibility.
DS
davek wrote:
First high density is forced, then LID and green roofs and underground detention and and and. So much coercion, so little humility.
No.
Basic micro says that developers maximize their profit at the smallest parcelization tolerated at equilibrium. This is the most basic economics on the ground. Utterly basic. The problem is carrying the paper.
BTW, LID and green roofs are only rarely forced if at all (I know of zero examples of this), unless you call incentivizing forced.
Sure, there may be some zoning that requires LID, but you’ll likely find either density bonuses with that or streamlined plat approval.
I’d be interested in your examples where these are not the case, and your analysis of this prevalence.
Anyway, it’s humbling to see we get more and more developers joining voluntary USGBC, LEED programs, etc.
Not if force must be used to [cluster houses at higher densities and preserve open space ].
A recent joy was seeing a developer in AK get it – he saw that the clustering offered in my solution was less cost to him, hence less cost to the rent-seeking agent while maximizing his profit. IOW: the homebuyer looking for a lower-cost home could win while the builder could too.
This is, of course, typical as the parcel won’t get built if the project doesn’t pencil out.
That’s how things actually work on the ground.
The preference of the community is of no consequence. The natural rights of the individual do not evaporate even if the majority says they should.
This is your ideological stance. It is not the majority’s.
We find this evidenced by the extremely obvious observation of the increasing funding for open space, paying school taxes, rejection of Private Property Rights legislation, attendance at church, charitable giving to social organizations, the increasing participation in SRI, justification for hybrid vehicles as reducing footprint, and so on etc.
DS
On February 14th, 2007, Dan said:
“Come now. When is name-calling strictly about personalization.”
Nothing in your reply persuades me you have made a just accusation.
“This is your ideological stance. It is not the majority’s.”
I just recently started trying to convert the majority, one at a time, and it’s your turn. What is YOUR ideological stance? Do you defend your actions by saying that the majority approves? When the majority approved slavery, a property rights violation second only to murder, were they right? Was it okay because a majority said so? Since I have already laid out my position to you in another post, and you probably haven’t had time to read or ponder it, I’m gonna lay off until you get a chance to respond. I hope you find my arguments persuasive, so we might pursue this further.
Too many errands today and leaving town:
Nothing in your reply persuades me you have made a just accusation.
Ah. Got it. You don’t think calling groups or people in general names is name-calling. It must be specific.
To be clear, what would be your term for characterizing the rhetorical tactic that uses phrases like Toy trains, city planning is arguably one of the most screwed-up, mindless, illogical manias in the country, planners are just incompetent BS artists, just about everything that planners believe is simply wrong, mathematical models and computers…are ca-ca, cattle car transit , if not name-calling?
What is YOUR ideological stance? Do you defend your actions by saying that the majority approves?
I do what the majority asks me to do. They are not my actions per se. This is, after all, how things work here.
When the majority approved slavery, a property rights violation second only to murder, [are] they right? Was it okay because a majority said so?
The comparison isn’t apt. A more apt comparison is When the majority approves representative democracy were they right? Was it okay because a majority said so?
Or, in the property rights context, property rights change as does the majority opinion on lots of things. Democracy works that way, as social evolution, well, evolves. At the time the majortiy thought it was OK for slavery. The majority in most places in this country changed their opinion.
Just like the majority said it was OK to take away lunch-counter owners’ property rights to refuse to serve blacks. Just like having women as property – we no longer uphold those property rights. Property rights are granted and a product of societal discussion, not divine right.
I’m gonna lay off until you get a chance to respond. I hope you find my arguments persuasive, so we might pursue this further.
Thanks. Be glad to respond to that other one early next week, gotta go.
DS
On February 16th, 2007, Dan said:
“To be clear… if not name-calling?”
No question, some of that stuff was boorish and unnecessary, but I thought perhaps he had called you a dope or something and I had missed it.
“Or, in the property rights context… Property rights are granted and a product of societal discussion, not divine right.”
This is, without exaggeration, chilling. It suggests a profound misunderstanding of property rights. No amount of societal discussion rightfully makes one person the property of another.
“The comparison isn’t apt. A more apt comparison is When the majority approves representative democracy were they right? Was it okay because a majority said so?”
I worry that you have mistaken this for a debate, and are simply trying to win an argument. I have assumed from your previous comment that you are unfamiliar with the concept of self-ownership and the manner in which human rights derive from it, and I am struggling to convey it to you as simply and clearly as I am capable. If you have heard all of this before and rejected it, please tell me now so we don’t waste another moment with tedious back-and-forth.
I was attempting to demonstrate, through my ‘inapt’ comparison, how even a majority in a representative democracy may behave immorally. Since you appear not to be convinced, I will assume that you might be swayed by a more basic, less pithy explanation of my position. If you were deliberately being obtuse, you have only yourself to blame. Let’s begin…
In keeping with the principle of self-ownership and natural rights, you have the right to select a leader for yourself. A group may agree to elect leaders for itself, and all participants tacitly or overtly acknowledge they will abide by the results. Those elected may rightfully govern only over those who participated in their election, including those who voted against them, and their governance is restricted to those items enumerated by the group at the time of the election. They may not rightfully rule over those who have not elected to participate, and they may not compell anyone outside of their electorate to do anything, regardless of the size of the majority within their group.
How does this work on the ground? If I am an adult living under a local government, I have tacitly agreed to cooperate with the will of the majority on those matters enumerated by the electorate of that local government, and on no other matters. My agreement is implied because I am free to separate myself from the electorate by moving to another city whenever I care to. This is also true at the state level. Because I cannot move freely to another country, the federal government has no moral authority over me unless I voluntarily participate in federal elections. The federal government is also limited to its enumerated responsibilities.
“I do what the majority asks me to do. They are not my actions per se. This is, after all, how things work here.”
I can, to some degree, empathize with this position. City planners have no choice but to do as told or lose their job. As long as the majority approves planning, politicians will give them planning. It is, as you say, how things work. Planners may advocate high density, low density, light rail, bus, or whatever, and still be a moral so long as those are responsibilities enumerated by whatever regulates the local government. Once people step beyond that, they risk being or abetting thieves, slavers, or murderers. Planners should also avail themselves of opportunities to mitigate the illegal actions of those who employ them.
I hope everything went well while you were out of town. I look forward to your reply.
On February 16th, 2007, davek said:
“bus, or whatever, and still be a moral so long as those are…”
edit to read “bus, or whatever, and still be moral so long as those are…”
I was attempting to demonstrate, through my ‘inapt’ comparison, how even a majority in a representative democracy may behave immorally. Since you appear not to be convinced, I will assume that you might be swayed by a more basic, less pithy explanation of my position
I’m pointing out that societal mores change, and it’s easy for us to judge them in hindsight. It takes about 4 brain cells, today, to see it’s immoral, but we had to go to war over it to end it. Unless you are in some places in Dixie. I’m listening to some show, right now, about Thurgood Marshall (who didn’t want to take the ‘lunch counter’ case because of property rights of lunch counter owners), and I’m listening to these people and their hate who are still living.
Anyway I don’t care to discuss your ideology and its application to society, as I don’t have the outlook or the mindset to want to adopt it, so it’s pointless. My point, however, wrt land use, historicity, and private property rights is that the property bundles change over time.
For example: air rights. Your parcel no longer has air rights to space like it did in the 1800s. Mineral rights. The USC found in Mahon that your mineral rights on your parcel no longer extend to the center of the earth. Just compensation. The Founding Fathers never defined ‘just compensation’, so we must discuss it. For example: Suzette Kelo just so happened to be the perfect landowner for Howie; politicians get elected all the time by societies who like the fact that they create jobs. Why not Suzette’s land? What’s different now? Well, the USC said nothing, which got Howie mad. Most people, though, find the Prop. 90/I-933-type things offensive, and the M37s won’t be around too much more, because we are discussing property rights in the context of land use, and the vast majority likes things just how they are.
Now, it’s true WA is looking at what to do about the maxim that parcels 1 hr from the CBD have all had decisions made for them, and parcels 2 hr from the CBD have all had plans made for them (why it’s hard to plan at the watershed level); therefore, there are some few folk adversely affected by LU decisions, and we haven’t figured out what to do with them yet. WA’s bills likely won’t make it out of committee (well, 1 likely will, but won’t survive a vote), so they havent figured it out yet, because so many benefit but want to free ride…
DS
On February 20th, 2007, Dan said:
“Anyway I don’t care to discuss your ideology and its application to society, as I don’t have the outlook or the mindset to want to adopt it, so it’s pointless. ”
I suspected so from the outset. Time to move on.