Lock your barns and get your guns — North Dakota’s precious farmlands are being threatened by urban sprawl. Or so some urban planners would have Dakota residents believe.
In reality, North Dakota is losing population, having declined from 642,000 in the 2000 census to an estimated 639,000 in 2007. But a handful of North Dakota counties have managed to eke out some growth, notably Cass County (home of Fargo) and Burleigh County (home of Bismarck, the state capital). Both are growing at a rate of about 1.5 percent per year, which puts them among the 450 fastest growing counties (out of more than 3,000) in the country. Still, there are plenty of larger counties whose populations are growing much faster.
Despite all its wild growth, Burleigh County still has only 77,000 people (58,000 of whom live in Bismarck). So when the Burleigh County Commission decided to update its 20-year-old comprehensive plan, instead of asking its tiny planning staff to do it, it contracted it out.
The county selected SRF Consulting to draft the update. Apparently, SRF’s Minneapolis headquarters makes it see everything through the lens of urban sprawl, as the group’s draft plan, which was published a few days ago, is focused almost entirely on stopping such sprawl.
The plan’s number one “vision statement” is “orderly growth and avoidance of sprawl.” The plan’s leading goals and objectives are to “direct development toward existing growth centers,” “Minimize non-farm development that is not within existing growth centers or an extension of an existing growth center,” and “Preserve diverse agricultural resources.”
Small lots in the city. . .
Psychological erectile dysfunction involves impact viagra best buy of social bonds on erotic life. Erectile dysfunction is one of the levitra prescription most widespread epidemics which touch the majority of young men which suffer from it constantly or from time to time. The generic tadalafil 20mg nerves being filled with the gushing blood the penis becomes stiff. Especially, the male organ severely wholesale cialis price affected due to high blood sugar levels. Just for the record, the Census Bureau says that every city, town, suburb, and unincorporated concentration of people in North Dakota occupies less than 1 percent of the state’s land area. “Urban areas,” including all concentrations of 2,500 people or more, occupy just 0.2 percent of the state. (You can find a summary of 2000 Census urbanization by state in the Guide to the American Dream.)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture agrees: as it measures urban areas, they cover just 0.6 percent of the state, and as it measures development (which includes rural roads and railroads), it covers just 2.5 percent of the state. Moreover, USDA data from 1982 through 1997 show that urbanization is paving over North Dakota farmlands at the hardly frightening rate of less than 0.01 percent of the state’s land area per year.
. . . big lots in the suburbs.
Still, some of the recent growth in the Bismarck area is in the form of large (2-acre) lot developments outside of the city. With prices as low as $200,000, the resulting homes are quite affordable, but no doubt someone somewhere frets that they are “wasting land.”
So SRF has made the control of sprawl the centerpiece of its draft plan. It claims that sprawl imposes high costs on the county, but it admits that it has no local data to support that. UPS, FedEx, and local electricity and telephone companies all manage to serve rural, suburban, and exurban developments without losing money. But the only way SRF can think of for the county to do the same is to have the county restrict development in rural areas.
There are many other ways the county could approach this problem. How about local improvement districts, which charge homeowners in the district an annual fee for, say, 20 years, the proceeds of which are used to repay bonds that are sold to finance new infrastructure? How about simply letting developers figure out how they are going to cover infrastructure costs on a case-by-case basis?
Naturally, SRF did not consider, or even mention, any such alternatives in its plan. Although the Rational Planning Model (set goals, develop alternatives, evaluate impacts of alternatives, then write plan) is taught in every beginning planning class, SRF skipped directly from the goals to the plan without even evaluating the impacts of the plan, much less any of the alternatives it failed to consider. Of course, that’s how the big metro areas like Minneapolis and Portland write their plans, so why shouldn’t Burleigh County do the same?
If you ask the Antiplanner, this plan should be considered DOA. In fact, if I were a county commissioner, I would seriously consider trying to get some of the taxpayers’ money back or disciplining whatever employee recommended that the county hire SRF. If Burleigh County needs a comprehensive plan, it should write one appropriate to a moderately growing rural area, not a huge, fast-growing urban area. That means that sprawl should not only not be the top priority, it shouldn’t even be on the list.
Anyone want to bet on how much SRF Consulting donated to local politicians?
PS: Have I said that most planners are idiots lately?
Thanks
JK
A quick check of Bismarck, ND on Google Earth shows plenty of sprawl-like subdivisions on what appears to have been farmland, particularly to the northeast of the city.
Have I said that most planners are idiots lately?
“One symptom of junk science is that people who question the science are often subjected to ad hominem attacks rather than debates over the accuracy of the information” – The Antiplanner, http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=62
Sprawl is a low density neighborhood,which I prefer.
We need more choices how we can live. Let the customers decide not the planners.
We need more choices how we can live. Let the customers decide not the planners.
Excellent! You endorse the plan, then.
See, the plan increases housing choices over what went before. These new choices will be safer and less congested, as well as cleaner and nicer.
Good to see you’re on board with the Burleigh county draft agenda.
DS
Nice try DS
What are you implying, craig? That there are fewer choices instead of more?
DS
Following are some of the “threats” that endanger the good citizens of NoDak. One can not help but wonder at the reason for the ‘threat’ ululation, and the only conclusion is that Randal is counting on no one following the links and reading the document (right, craig?).
Threats imposed on th’ fraydum in the Plan:
o Burleigh County will protect its taxpayers by ensuring that adequate roadway infrastructure is constructed in commercial/industrial subdivisions.
o Burleigh County will amend its subdivision regulations to require paved roads of adequate design.
o Burleigh County will ensure that commercial/industrial development has adequate water volumes to support fire protection. [Wow – a real threat here. Pitchforks, everyone. -D]
o For the safety and convenience of Burleigh County citizens, all development plans must be designed to ensure at least one viable point of ingress and egress at all times [because it is a threat to the local’s freedom to choose to die waiting for the ambulance]
o Burleigh County will require the installation of water services that meet city standards
o Burleigh County recognizes the demand for an additional ATV riding facility
o Burleigh County will amend its subdivision regulations to include provisions for preserving a greenway along the Missouri River for the purpose of protecting the natural riverbanks and for the purpose of setting aside this land for the use and enjoyment of the citizens of Burleigh County.
o Burleigh County supports the land use and zoning designation of an adequate supply of commercial/industrial land as needed to attract quality business and industrial development within the County [ Because provisioning quality jobs is a threat to the area. -D]
o Burleigh County supports economic development efforts that result in a majority of living wage jobs rather than a majority of jobs that do not provide employees with adequate income levels. [presumably this is a threat to the freedom of holding three McJobs to afford a house, rather than one good job. -D]
o Burleigh County supports the creation of a second agricultural zoning district that will further restrict density to one dwelling unit per 160 acres. [now that’s a real high density there. Dangerous. Where’s the freedom of choice to have an entire quarter section to oneself?]
Mon Dieu, that’s scary!!! Everyone be afraid! Fear the plan!!!!!!!! Run awaaaaaay!
DS
What if they want 2 houses on 160 acers? Who will decide, the planners or the property owners that are affected by 2 houses?
craig, are you implying above that there are fewer choices or more choices in the plan?
DS
Dan uses the common (among planners at least) rhetorical device of claiming that, because a plan prescribes more choices, it creates freedom of choice. If (as in this case) a plan limits the amount of something that many people prefer while it imposes more of something that fewer people prefer, it may offer more numerical choices while still reducing freedom of choice.
When my children were young, we use to give them the choice of the blue shirt or the green shirt, to go to a event.
Now that they are grown, they choose any clothing they prefer.
I prefer to treat adult like adults.
If (as in this case) a plan limits the amount of something that many people prefer while it imposes more of something that fewer people prefer, it may offer more numerical choices while still reducing freedom of choice.
What are these limits on preferences, Randal? Don’t be vague.
Do many prefer to die waiting for the ambulance to totter down the dirt road? Do many prefer limited roadway choice? Do many prefer the existing road network and resent the limiting freedom to relieve oneself from congestion? Do many prefer the freedom to choose to work 3 McJobs?
But enough of the points you avoided.
What is the demand for land that you imply is being limited? What is the demand for houses on 64, 80, 100 acres as opposed to farms on same? What is the demand for farmers to avoid conflicts from all the yuppie demand next to them, complaining about the smell of ag ops on their dinner party?
Specifics, Randal. What is the demand on what is being limited.
And share with your readers whether this plan is reflective of the public input, specifically with respect to ag impacts on residential, and whether the public wants tighter regs on development (you know, the people who live there and what they want, and not outsiders telling them what they should want).
DS
So what amount of land needs to be developed for the antiplanner to consider growth management necessary? How come AP never takes into account the percentage of the most productive agricultural land that is being lost out of the total productive farm land available in an area. And he often doesnt take into account how much land can logically be deeveloped without being very expensive and unsafe (steep slope areas for example). This case isnt the most applicable to these points of mine, but on a previous post by the AP he quoted the land area of British Columbia and then used that to show how ‘silly’ the growth management of plan of metro vancouver and the city of vancouver was. Funny thing is, Randal must have forgot that there is a big ol’ mountain across much of BC and surrounding most of the area outside of the lower mainland. The only way to get the amount of sprawl that randal prefers for a long time into the future in BC would be Ebenezer Howard’s small garden cities, which would require more urban planning, not less. These would be distributed throughout the rockies in little pockets and would be completely inefficient for anything other than creating little pockets of the American Dream.
And Dan go back to communist China so you can support plans that give such awful choices like jobs and road safety, which nobody on this website wants. Planners are just using these to cover up their ambitions to destroy the American dream. If people do not support sprawl, they do not support what people want. We all know that people possess the sprawl gene, which makes them genetically inclined to like sprawl. Or are we following the market majoritarian argument “there is lots of it, so everyone must like.” If I am given the choice of living in sprawl or more sprawl, I have to choose sprawl. So how is my decision reflective of free market choice. Unless there are efforts to change zoning to allow more choices, it is a weak argument to say that everyone must want standardized low density development simply because its there.
Now that they are grown, they choose any clothing they prefer. I prefer to treat adult like adults.
Ah. So there are more choices in the plan. Thank you.
To the 2 houses question, can you share with us what the community wants with respect to this issue? Is it protection of their biggest industry or freedom for a non-existent issue? That is: is there a concern for young farmers wanting to farm? Please include quotes from the public to back your claim.
Please read the plan and get back to us wrt how you understand the issue and what people there really want.
DS
What people? The people that don’t own the property or the property owners that are neighbors of the affected property? Or the Planners and the people that don’t own or live next to the affected property? Or are we talking the collective people and planners that think we don’t know enough and you will save us from our selves!
I won’t read the plan I have you to explain it to me, since you know better how I should live and think.
The sheeple
Let’s not only eliminate land use zoning, but let’s see if we can’t remove minimum lot size requirements (which, strangely, they have in Houston), setbacks, etc, found in most subdivision ordinances as deterrents to perceived congestion and let’s really see what the market brings and can support. There will be no regulations protecting any density (and subsequently, in the eyes of most real estate investors and financial institutions, property values). There is a demand for high-density/urban housing. It’s estimated at roughly 23-30% of the market share, depending on who you listen to. Let’s see if all the antiplanners out there can put the whole of their money where their mouth is.
Antiplanners tend to forget that government planners are accountable to the people who their job is set up to serve. We are hired by their elected officials and held accountable through public discourse and open records. Unless, of course, the people planners serve are inactive in the process. I have not yet set any policy for the city I work for. It’s all decided by the ones with power. The only “power” we have is administrative.
Sound like the old story, what’s for lunch, between the 2 wolves and a sheep.
What about protection of individual rights?
craig, it is clear that you have no clue as to what the community wants; yet for some reason, because their actions do not line up with your beliefs, you must disdain them as ‘sheeple’.
Nor do you wish to find out what they want. It is clear you cannot speak to this particular issue wrt what the community wants.
There is no ‘threat’ to the people of NoDak in this Plan, unless greater safety and reflection of community values on the ground is a ‘threat’. Or folks getting what they ask for is a ‘threat’.
It may be a ‘threat’ to a certain small-minority ideology, but there is no ‘threat’ to the community here.
Randal’s claims cannot stand scrutiny.
DS
Who is the community? Or do you mean the collective!
Thanks for thinking for me again, your getting pretty good at it.
I don’t have to read what you tell me to read, to have comment on a subject on a blog.
That is unless your telling me thats how it works.
Wait, so how exactly does the wolves and sheep lunch story fit in here? Too much regulation and not enough regulation are wolves that are set on devouring private property rights from landowners, who are the sheep? Is that it? Does that mean you espouse regulation, sir? Regulation that benefits your property ideals may prevent someone from the housing product and lifestyle that they want. Or is it simply “majority rules”, with you being the majority? What happens if you’re ever not the majority? It could happen. Would that mean the new majority can push their density on you against your will, when you have been suppressing their density for years as the majority?
“A quick check of Bismarck, ND on Google Earth shows plenty of sprawl-like subdivisions on what appears to have been farmland, particularly to the northeast of the city.” ~D4P
That is one of the most idiotic things I’ve read in awhile. You may as well grab an old wind up stop watch, drop a feather off a the leaning tower and claim you’ve accurately measured gravity. Sorry to be rude but this isn’t a matter of political differences; that statement was flat out meaningless.
AP —> Did you hear anyone in North Dakota complaining about how some of the flood prevention / mitigation projects are reducing the amount of farmland? I know in some areas like Walsh County there are federal / state / county programs that have allowed farmers to sell their land along the river to the state. The advantage is you give the river more room to flood and you don’t have people every three years getting paid as a part of disaster declaration.
Sorry to be rude but this isn’t a matter of political differences; that statement was flat out meaningless.
So GIS analyses looking for adjacencies, pavement patterns, roof articulation, etc for indicators of urban growth are worthless? You’d better write to the photogrammetry and remote sensing folks and tell them to stop wasting their time, as you know more than they do.
That is: it is not that hard to determine patterns as D4P implies. Looking at the assessor’s office for parcels and year built can help determine this as well. All public information.
DS
Let me try to cut through just a little of the planner BS here.
Dan:
1. craig, it is clear that you have no clue as to what the community wants;
2. Nor do you wish to find out what they want.
3. It is clear you cannot speak to this particular issue wrt what the community wants.
4. Or folks getting what they ask for is a ‘threat’.
JK: So Dan thinks he knows what people want? And it is his job to give it to them by restricting the freedom of others.
First problem Planners lie when they say they know what people want. What is really going on is that consultants are assigned the job of providing cover for the pre-determined plan, to make it look like that is want people want. A classic example of this occurred in Portland:
Most of our neighborhood plans, Metro policy and Portland policy protect farmland (sound familiar?) , increase density (sound familiar?), increase walkability (sound familiar?), decrease VMT (sound familiar?) …..
Than a funny thing happened. Some malcontents placed an anti density measure on the ballot. Metro (our regional land use dictatorial layer of government) was so scared that they placed an identically sounding measure, that actually did nothing, on the same ballot. The do nothing measure got 65%, the real limit got 43%. It is impossible to tell how many people voted for both, but it is probably safe to say 70-80% total voted to limit density. See: DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/MetroDensityVote.htm
I think Dan also asked Craig for evidence:
Hey Dan why don’t you give us some evidence that any of the following planner claims are true:
Planners say high density costs less
Planners say high density reduces congestion
Planners say high density reduces commute times
Planners say transit saves money
Planners say transit saves energy
Planners say Europeans hardly drive at all
Planners say land use controls don’t increase housing costs.
Portland planners point to high housing costs in California and claim there is no UGB there – they forget to tell you that there is something just as restrictive.
Planners say light rail is safe
Planners say light rail costs less than bus
Planners say rail causes development
Planners say most people want high density in their neighborhood.
Thanks
JK
My experience is that almost everything in life presents a double-edged sword. Living
in New Orleans as a property owner as I do,
I have of necessity often been deeply involved in the “planning process” as most of my properties, including my residence, are in historical districts. There are obvious pluses and minuses to this “planning,” depending on the locale and where one sits on the planning totem pole. Philosophical(and REAL) disputes over the English concept of individual plots vs the French, or “European” communal vision of “the commons” are as old as the Republic. The fact that the English triumphed meant more that just the dominance of a language. Increasingly, however, the French “Code Civil” approach to law (As opposed to English case law approach of historical customary usage) has been expanding in the form of large volumes of explicit statutory language. Concepts of planning and zoning(historical or otherwise) reflect this
trend.
In light of the above #22 might reflect that those with the power to dictate are often not ANYONES “majority,” but rather modern- day “Committees on Public Safety” who’s personal view of the “the good” are often forced upon us for our “own good.”
Continuing the thought: A vignette. While at a planning session with HANO(Housing Authority of New Orleans) lawyers, architects, etc., concerning some HANO controlled property which was being re-habbed adjacent to some apts. I owned(it being a historical district we owners had a say in design, densities, etc.) a HANO attny(black, female) was poo-pooing concerns we had over property values. I than asked where she lived. Her answer? English Turn–a gated, exclusive, predominately white enclave with minimum lot sizes and stratospheric costs. Conclusion? Few “planners” ever willingly choose to actually live under the constraints of their own “plans,”–just ask Al Gore, John Edwards or a certain lady of Greek extraction named Huffington as they urge their “visions” for the social good upon the rest of us while they jet around the world in their Gulfstream Vs and call in to talk shows from luxury yachts in the South Pacific (as Arrainne did recently) to heartily complain about those who would dare suggest that they harbor even a whiff of elitist sentiments (monied OR intellectual).
The upshot of all this #22, is there often does not even have to be a “new majority” in order for the “old majority” to get “pushed around.”
Given our absurdly over-capacity agricultural sector, why should we expend effort “protecting agricultural resources” by preventing its development? Why should I care about “young farmers wanting to farm”? What makes them so special that their desire to buy farmland requires that we prevent current farm owners from selling to developers rather than them?
To have real freedom of choice, the only answer is no zoning or land use regulations … something that will make neither the planners nor the anti-planners happy …. an neither side will address property rights head on.
One rule is a constant … NIMBY’s rule.
“A quick check of Bismarck, ND on Google Earth shows plenty of sprawl-like subdivisions on what appears to have been farmland, particularly to the northeast of the city.†~D4P
”
So GIS analyses looking for adjacencies, pavement patterns, roof articulation, etc for indicators of urban growth are worthless?
”
DS —> That’s bull crap. He’s always yappin’ about wanting proof. He comes here most every day to bitch and moan that, oh my god, someone didn’t post a distertation for their blog post. Yet somehow he thinks it’s meaningful to make a statement of “shows plenty of sprawl-like subdivisions”. plenty? plenty? WTF is meant by plenty?
And for god sake, we’re talking about Bismark North Dakota. Has anyone here ever been there? The threat to farmland by sprawl is bullshit. There isn’t a ton of great farmland there. It’s dry & the soil’s mediocre. And it’s in the middle of nowhere…. literally! In this case “plenty” would be about a whoppin’ 3 new subdivisions every year. As of March 27, 2008, the US Census estimates the area has 103,242 people. Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota. From 1990 to 2000 the growth rate was less than 5%. It’s only that since then there’s been an oil boom …. only it’s brining about growth that’s 10-12% per decade instead of the 30+% of the 1970s. We’re talking about adding a hundred or so housing units per year to 500 per year. There aren’t enough people in North Dakota to create anything that resembles sprawl let alone enough people in Bismark.
Yet somehow he thinks it’s meaningful to make a statement of “shows plenty of sprawl-like subdivisionsâ€Â. plenty? plenty? WTF is meant by plenty?
Look for yourself. Type “Bismarck, ND” into Google Earth and then pan to the immediate northeast of the city. You will see “plenty” of sprawl-like subdivisions. If we can’t agree on something this obvious and uncontroversial, this blog is doomed.
DS â€â€> That’s bull crap. He’s always yappin’ about wanting proof. He comes here most every day to bitch and moan that, oh my god, someone didn’t post a distertation for their blog post.
No one is asking for a dissertation, like you want to mischaracterize.
Evidence is all I ever ask for, not length or volume or word count. Evidence.
A person can’t provide it? Then that person is full of sh*t. Them’s the rules. Been that way for millennia. Don’t like it? Too bad. The rules aren’t going to change just for you because you can’t keep up.
No, prk, I ask for proof for assertions. Usually, here, I commonly find they are ideological boilerplate without factual basis on the ground. Don’t like it? Too bad. Write something that can stand examination. Johngalt, for example, usually can back his claims. Take after him. Builder, too, often lately can back his claims as well. OTOH, a clue is if someone is complaining, they can’t back their claims – right, prk?
The point is, if a person can’t produce evidence for “their” assertion, it is bullsh*t. Period. And it should be treated as such. Don’t like it? Too bad.
—–
Nonetheless.
D4P can’t link to the search, because not everyone has Google Earth. I do. It is a simple matter to look at the land-use patterns in Burleigh Co. One sees the sprawl pattern. There are standard patterns that are found on the ground. Orthophoto searches using adjacencies, proximity, year built, etc are routine. It is accepted practice to identify sprawl patterns. Even the comments in the Bismarck paper mention the issue.
One can go to the assessor site and get parcel numbers and year built. Try it and get back to us as to whether your distractions and handwaving are correct.
Now. One more thing.
Your para that started That is one of the most idiotic things … . Did you say why it was so? No.
Did you offer counterclaims of your own? No.
Did you offer an alternate explanation? No. You just said something. SFW. Who cares. You still haven’t said anything. Just handwaving to distract.
You have nothing to show why it’s not sprawl, what the pattern actually is. And why people there care.
Why should one think people should take one seriously when they can’t produce support for what they say?
Are the rules different for some ideologies? Their statements are exempt from scrutiny? Pfffft. Joke.
—–
In fact, ag is the leading industry in the area, and the citizenry is concerned that:
1) it’s being lost
2) young people can’t get started.
So your disdain for loss of ag is bullsh*t. Why? Because the community is concerned about loss of ag. and wants to do something about it.
So your “idea” about what is “right” for the area is full of sh*t. Statements abound here about planners imposing themselves on the citizenry. Funny thing, this thread is full of people pretending to know what Burleigh Co folks should get. They are wrong.
Burleigh Co residents’ statements disagree with the comments here, threatening the ideology’s “solutions” for the issue.
Try reading the plan. What “you” think you want and what they want are two different things. So the boilerplate ideological solution isn’t being implemented there either. Pity. Too bad. Tooooo bad.
DS
Wow when do the fist fights start, the discussion is getting very hostile on this blog!
Wow when do the fist fights start, the discussion is getting very hostile on this blog!
When someone mentions Nazis, Hitler, Commies or Stalin in referring to their opponents.
Oops! I don’t want to start anything!!
The most interesting thing at the Burleigh County plan site is a copy of the Code of the West located here, Appendix 4.
The Code of the West was apparently written by cowboys, not commies, and provides many illustrations that Nature often acts in ways inconsistent with libertarian principles.
Dan said : Evidence is all I ever ask for, not length or volume or word count. Evidence. A person can’t provide it? Then that person is full of sh*t.
JK: Hey Dan why don’t you give us some evidence that any of the following planner claims are true (or are all of you full of sh*t?):
Planners say high density costs less
Planners say high density reduces congestion
Planners say high density reduces commute times
Planners say transit saves money
Planners say transit saves energy
Planners say Europeans hardly drive at all
Planners say land use controls don’t increase housing costs.
Portland planners point to high housing costs in California and claim there is no UGB there – they forget to tell you that there is something just as restrictive.
Planners say light rail is safe
Planners say light rail costs less than bus
Planners say rail causes development
Planners say most people want high density in their neighborhood.
Thanks
JK
Hey msetty, stop being such a darn Nazi, or I’ll have to sick Stalin on you (cough, Dan, cough) – that is if Hitler isnt too busy (cough, JimKarlock, cough).
Sh*t, I let the cat out of the bag on that comment!
virgil xenophon stated that America adopted the British system of land ownership. If that is correct then Dan and Craig are equally wrong.
In the British system, which dates from the Magna Carter, all land is vested in The Crown, hence it is known as Real Estate. Real is the old english form of royal. The Crown’s subjects may occupy land in exchange for a “fee simple”, a payment in cash or kind. This entitlement to occupy is known simply as “title”.
Freehold title requires a large fee simple payment before the land is occupied and allows the title to be sold to another party.
Leasehold title requires a small annual fee simple payment and and cannot be transfered without the consent of the Crown.
In the British Commonwealth the right to occupy the land is seperate from mineral rights, water rights and riparian rights.
In essence there is a tennant/landlord relationship between the Crown and it’s subjects. The tenancy “contract” between the Crown and it’s subjects takes the form of laws passed by Parliament and by-laws passed by local councils who act as the Crown’s “local agents”. This is a major reason why the right to vote was restricted to land “owners” untill about 150 years ago.
Private property rights don’t apply to Real Estate because it cannot be “owned” by individuals in the same way as ordinary estate. The “owner” of a lot has no more rights over that land than anybody else in the community. It is the role of state and local government to balance the rights of tenant, neighbour and Crown. Always remebering of course that in a democracy government’s job is to provide governance. That is not the same as having “control” or execising “power”. It also means that elected representatives must never be influenced by the need to be re-elected. They should, instead, employ the best technocrats to advise and instruct them on technical matters, and to pass this advice and instruction on to the voters ensure the “community” understands what is being done and why. Of course this is not what happens in reality but when it all turns to custard who do the politicians blame? The very same technocrats whose advice and instruction the politicians ignored in favour of the “advice and instruction” gleaned from focus groups.
Now that every adult can vote politics tends to resolve towards the lowest common denomitor rather than aspiring towards the highest ideals of civic duty.
Does anyone know how I could monitor if and when this new plan is approved? I could not find much on the county website .
Once Burleigh county residents ride the current housing bubble to the bottom, it may be time to move in and buy some houses there in the emerging, limited supply, inflationary environment.
Kevyn Miller made a good point:
We do not inherit the earth from our parents, so much as borrow it from our children.
Jim,
in 1940, France was defeated by Germany with a fraction of the effort expended by Germany in 1914-1918. There were many reasons for this – not the least of which was that the German army attacked through the impassable Ardennes region.
We know that the Ardennes was impassable, because the French general Foch said so in his book – “The Ardennes is impassable…”
“… provided that it is held in strength”.
Most of the strawmen that you hold up fall into the same catgeory. There’s a second part to the statement, which is very important.
“Planners say high density costs less…”
“… where the high land costs make building up financially sensible”
“Planners say high density reduces congestion…”
“… where the streetscape is designed to create modal shift away from cars”
“Planners say transit saves energy…”
“… provided that the LRT units are filled with travellers”
“Planners say light rail costs less than bus…”
“… provided that there are enough customers over which the costs are amortised”
As Francis notes, JK’s “planner claims” are so vague and universal as to constitute the most blatant of strawmen.
I’ve been reading the SRF report to see what investment opportunities it may present. The action plan seems to contain the words “add regulation†at least two dozen times.
Seems like near sighted NIMBY residents of Burleigh County are choosing slower economic growth, more expensive upward housing mobility for themselves and a significant additional cost of housing for their children (if they want something other than appartments).
In other words, they are choosing to work an additional significant portion of their lives for “the plan†which aims at improving their standard of living through a gradual increase in obstacles posed to newcomers. To the extent that they may not undestand the financial implications of the choices they are making, they may just default to being useful idiots to investors and developers.
The bottom line is that if Burleigh county residents are poised to shoot themselves in the wallet, why not go there, buy a couple of those two acre houses and pick up the booty. Booty will go to somebody anyway. Residents cannot react to these regulatory changes, or at least they cannot react fast enough. Investors can.
Smarth growth, dumb wallets.
Francis King said: Most of the strawmen that you hold up fall into the same catgeory. There’s a second part to the statement, which is very important.
JK: Gee, I don’t recall any planners telling us the second part. Maybe because if the public heard the 2nd part, they’d ride the planners out of town on one of their own rails.
Francis King said: “Planners say high density costs less…â€Â
“… where the high land costs make building up financially sensibleâ€Â
JK: So how many planners tell people that they are going to drive up the cost of land so that people will be forced to live in overpriced overdense condo farms? Planners do appear to be trying to drive up land costs to that point. In Portland they still have to shovel money to developers to get them to build that crap.
Francis King said: “Planners say high density reduces congestion…â€Â
“… where the streetscape is designed to create modal shift away from carsâ€Â
JK: Translation: design street to increase congestion in hopes that people will lower their standard of living by using transit.
Francis King said: “Planners say transit saves energy…â€Â
“… provided that the LRT units are filled with travellersâ€Â
JK: So who is going to fill a toy train that isn’t going where they need to go? Also you are ignoring the fact that toy rains cost many times that of driving a car. You planners are pushing the average city to financial ruin with LRT.
Francis King said: “Planners say light rail costs less than bus…â€Â
“… provided that there are enough customers over which the costs are amortisedâ€Â
JK: Not if both have the same customers. For instance the highest capacity line in the USA is a BUS lane that carries over 40,000 people per hour – far more than any LRT. In any case roads cost far less and are far more convenient. Or are you trying to make lives harder for people so that they will get into your cattle cars? This isn’t the 1930s any more.
BTW,do you really believe what you said above? Which rail vendor, consulting company or planning agency do you work for?
Thanks
JK
“Planners say light rail costs less than bus…â€Â
“… provided that there are enough customers over which the costs are amortisedâ€Â
Even that I question. Don’t you have to include all expenses in when calculating amortaziation? How is that going to end up be less when most any LRT project has 1/2 billion or more in upfront costs they’re paying interest on?
DS –> Where is your evidence about the sprawl then? Spit it ou? Come on, show us how Bismark is sprawling out and eating up bazillions of acres of farmland. I can see it now, once they discover how horrible sprawl is in Bismark we’ll see headlines proclaiming “North Dakota, the frozen Arizona”. And of course they’ll know this to be the case because…. why? Share with us how you know Bismark is sprawling.
“One can go to the assessor site and get parcel numbers and year built. Try it and get back to us as to whether your distractions and handwaving are correct.” —> Why would I? You’re the one claiming sprawl. The burden of proof is on you. In fact, you claim you’ve already done this correct? Otherwise how is it that you knew the rate of occurrence of those patterns in google earth you were looking for? How many acres of land has growth taken up each year in Bismark? How much of that was actual farmland? Was it used for ranching? Cash crop? Feed crop? Or was it already lieing empty as the quality of the soil wasn’t good enough to warrant using for anything?
On that note, that brings me to my “counter claim”. IThat is, how is adding a couple hundred housing units per year “sprawl”? I wouldn’t call so few house, townhouses and apartments sprawl let alone someplace that’s the middle of nowhere sprawl. I’m not surprised that you missed it though. You claim to be looking for just a little something to back things up… but there usually is a little something yet you ask for proof (that is, in previous blog posts).
As for the ag issue others have mentioned, the people of Bismark shouldn’t worry about the growth of their city. What’s happened is that ag is a commodity industry. Making money in it is all about scale. Like some other industries even when the wages of the remaining jobs have gone up, they type and number of them has changed and gone down. That is, worrying about the number of them is a lost cause. Having a few thousand more acres of land to run the cows around on isn’t going to change the situation. They should worry about finding ways to attract the workers for those new ag-tech jobs instead of losing them to Fargo or Billings, Sioux Falls or Lincoln.
Dan –> I can’t show why it’s not sprawl if you don’t tell me how you define sprawl. As implied in my argument, I don’t see how a couple hundred new households, a 1/2 of which are in the form of muli-family housing, in BISMARK NORTH DAKOTA (commonly known to people as that place that’s not only more remote than Timbuktu but also a hell of a lot colder). What is your definition of sprawl? How is it that a couple apartment buildings, a few dozen townhouses and 50 houses a year are “sprawl”?
As for my reasoning on the idiocy? What do you expect? It’s Bismarck, North Dakota. How is there any damage being done? You could sprawl all day long for decades and have barely made a dent in the landscape. We’re talking about the growth of a lil’ town in North Dakota, not Bejing, Tokyo or NYC. Instead of the city being 2 miles wide it’s…. oh my god, going to spread out for 5 miles! HOLY SHIT! SKY IS FALLING!
but the thing with that “sprawl” and the lack of sheer numbers for Bismarck means it’ll be decades before things come back and fill in completely. A farmer can sell a quarter and keep farming the rest of their land. That is… even if the land is being used. Having been to Bismarck a couple times I know it’s not all used, not even as ranchland. Once you get out past Valley City / Jamestown the quality of the soil deteriorates greatly.
prk, your handwaving isn’t making anything go away. And a reminder: argument from ignorance isn’t rebuttal or refutation.
The locals are the ones endorsing the plan, BTW. Quick – some commenters on a blog need to tell these good folk that strangers know better than they do.
DS
My post has vanished…?
Pingback: Piedmont Publius » Blog Archive » Midwest dispatch: Precious farmland threatened….
DS –> thank you fore avoiding the issue of defining sprawl.
The locals have not specifically endorsed this plan. The county planners have.
Locals will get what they’re asking for…