The Oregonian reports that residents of Orenco — a transit-oriented development built on prime farm land miles from Portland — mostly drive to work rather than use the light-rail line that is located close to their homes. In fact, according to a survey by Lewis & Clark University sociologist Bruce Podobnik, a higher percentage of commuters in a typical low-density suburb take transit to work than commuters from Orenco.
Podobnik did find that more Orencons walk to work and shopping than residents of other Portland-area neighborhoods. A higher percentage of Orencons also found that there was “more community” in Orenco than residents of other neighborhoods — though anyone living in a community that was widely touted as a national model would come to feel a sense of community.
Orenco is “a great neighborhood,” says Podobnik, but “it’s not an environmental utopia.” Maybe he hasn’t seen the Antiplanner’s study showing that transit is not environmentally better than driving.
For instance- older males are always keen having tasteful and easy-to-swallow, so Kamagra jellies make ideal choice for them. generic tadalafil uk But let’s be honest many customers just proceed to buy acquisition de viagra the normal ones as they don’t understand exactly how to access these offers. I went to the doctor sildenafil 100mg tablets look at more info again and he said, that I have to deal with it and that I don t need to worry about it. order cialis no prescription What results can be expected from a trauma hospital? The success of the treatment largely depends on the person who takes them.
Speaking of which, the Federal Transit Administration has published a flyer claiming that public transit “can be one part of the solution” to climate change. The paper compares carbon emissions from transit vehicles on a per-passenger mile basis with carbon emissions from cars on a per-vehicle mile basis. In other words, it falsely assumes that the average car has only one occupant.
Moreover, like so many other transit-advocacy reports, the paper assumes that auto technologies are fixed. In fact, if the auto industry meets Obama’s fuel-economy standards, the average car on the road will by 2025 be more energy efficient and emit less greenhouses gases, per passenger mile, than any transit system in the country.
Riding a transit vehicle that is already going somewhere is a good way to save energy, because the incremental energy used by adding one passenger is tiny. But expanding transit service is a lousy way to save energy because most transit is not very energy efficient. Even the most efficient rail transit lines are supported by feeder buses than are extremely inefficient.
prk166:
Being close to Intel and being close to daily amenities is what attracts walkers and bikers @ Orenco, so both things. Remember, it has a 15% transit work commute, so clearly people are working outside of Intel too. Viewing work commute is but one of many areas where people travel. It is shown in the survey that beyond work commute people are traveling via foot and bike at quite high rates. They have the option to take their car to the store, but they don’t in high numbers. Only 7% of people surveyed never walk to the store. That means at least 93% of people actually take another mode to the store.
I can’t say why people live there or not, but according to the numbers if you build a walkable neighborhood with decent transit access, people will use those amenities — in addition to their cars. It’s not supposed to be some “car free” utopia.
I’m not sure about the neighborhood they sampled in Beaverton, which is just a stone’s throw from Hillsboro/Orenco. The point I was raising was that the Beaverton neighborhood sampled is right near the same light rail line as Orenco — and that Beaverton neighborhood has a 20% transit ridership for its work commute. That just proves that people use transit if it’s near them.
20% transit ridership is about two times the transit ridership of all of Beaverton. I’d like to see a Beaverton neighborhood sampled that’s not even close to a LR line and see their numbers. That will really show the difference.
JK:“
Hey ws, Dan!
We are stillwaiting for you to show that mass transit has some social value in view of the fact that it
DOES NOT save energy
DOES NOT save money
DOES waste people’s time.
Thanks
JK”
ws:What’s the energy savings from reduced VMT, higher walking and biking rates? I hate to burst your bubble, but someone who simply bikes and walks for 35% modal split of transportation is going to have a far lower energy use than someone who rides their car for 90% modal split for all trips (about the US average).
Based on your methodology for determining energy use for Portland’s LR; a car needs to get a solid 44 mpg to match Portland’s MAX system (updated 2007 numbers). Most people’s cars don’t get that high of a mpg standard, not to mention if someone went out and bought a new Prius, that is using about 100 million Btus to build the car or the energy-equivalent of driving 40,000 miles for an above average mpg car.
Suppose 10 new people were to either go to transit or car to reduce energy. If the goal were to reduce energy for these 10 people, it would make more sense for those 10 people to go on transit than buy a new car that had a high mpg standard.
Your equation is fundamentally flawed to the core and overly, overly, overly, simplistic. You base it car vs. transit for all trips and disregard the simple fact that if people continue to increase their vehicle miles traveled – any mpg increase of a car is going to be a moot point. We need to promote a reduction of VMT. How does one reduce VMT, JK? Got any grand ideas?
The highest mpg of any car out on the market that meets the 44 mpg mark set by MAX light rail is the Prius (combined city/highway):
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/bestworst.shtml
PS: In my hypothetical situation, those 10 people buying a new car (let’s just assume a 1.3 occupancy rate, so 7.69 cars being purchased — which is kind of a silly stat — but you get the idea) would use 769 million Btus. Instead, if they went onto an existing transit system, there would actually be a reduction in transit’s energy use per passenger mile. That is the nature of transit, the more people onto the system results in a reduction in energy use.
Automobiles are not going to drastically increase passengers as there is a limit to every car.
ws: What’s the energy savings from reduced VMT, higher walking and biking rates? I hate to burst your bubble, but someone who simply bikes and walks for 35% modal split of transportation is going to have a far lower energy use than someone who rides their car for 90% modal split for all trips (about the US average).
JK: Off topic – the topic is the lack of social value of of transit.
ws: Based on your methodology for determining energy use for Portland’s LR; a car needs to get a solid 44 mpg to match Portland’s MAX system (updated 2007 numbers).
JK: Updated where? But actually that is irrelevant! What is important is the whole system, not one tiny piece that causes other pieces (bus) to be more wasteful. Overall Trimet delivers 26 MPG (or 31 if use 1.3 people/car). See bottom table at http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html
ws: Most people’s cars don’t get that high of a mpg standard,
JK: But most people will get a higher mpg car when faced with a choice of enduring transit or changing cars. Further, society will save money and they will not have to waste time on transit.
ws: not to mention if someone went out and bought a new Prius, that is using about 100 million Btus to build the car or the energy-equivalent of driving 40,000 miles for an above average mpg car.
JK: You forgot to mention that building buses & toy trains take energy too.
ws: Suppose 10 new people were to either go to transit or car to reduce energy. If the goal were to reduce energy for these 10 people, it would make more sense for those 10 people to go on transit than buy a new car that had a high mpg standard.
JK: try this for 10,000 new people. Not you need to buy a bunch of buses, build maintenance facilities, hire drivers AND GET A BIG TAX INCREASE to subsidize it all. And your energy usage will be higher than car’s, just like it is in the average big, dense, city. AND you have just caused the cost of transportation to double or triple for those 10,000 people. Transit is not financially sustainable – if everyone quit driving and used only transit, our country could not afford the price tag. It would be like gas went to $50/gal
ws: You base it car vs. transit for all trips and disregard the simple fact that if people continue to increase their vehicle miles traveled – any mpg increase of a car is going to be a moot point.
JK: Your lack of logic is showing. Your statement is ONLY true if the miles traveled increases faster then the miles/gallon increases.
ws: We need to promote a reduction of VMT. How does one reduce VMT, JK? Got any grand ideas?
JK: Why do we need to reduce VMT? Why do you want people to live like they did 50 years ago? Why do you keep wanting to tell others how to live? How is that different from George Bush telling YOU how to live? Have you considered moving a place low VMT? I hear there are people’s paradises in Cuba and N. Korea. N. Korea even meets our CO2 reduction goals. Should be a perfect place for progressives.
Thanks
JK
ws said: Instead, if they went onto an existing transit system, there would actually be a reduction in transit’s energy use per passenger mile. That is the nature of transit, the more people onto the system results in a reduction in energy use.
JK: No. You have to learn to look at numbers. Big city transit does not save energy either. See http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html
But all transit wastes people’s time. Big time. See http://www.portlandfacts.com/commutetime.html
Thanks
JK
ws said: In my hypothetical situation, those 10 people buying a new car (let’s just assume a 1.3 occupancy rate, so 7.69 cars being purchased — which is kind of a silly stat — but you get the idea) would use 769 million Btus. Instead, if they went onto an existing transit system, there would actually be a reduction in transit’s energy use per passenger mile. That is the nature of transit, the more people onto the system results in a reduction in energy use.
Automobiles are not going to drastically increase passengers as there is a limit to every car.
THWM: The auto industry uses an occupancy rate of 1.2 people per vehicle.
JK: Try this for 10,000 new people. Not you need to buy a bunch of buses, build maintenance facilities, hire drivers AND GET A BIG TAX INCREASE to subsidize it all. And your energy usage will be higher than car’s, just like it is in the average big, dense, city. AND you have just caused the cost of transportation to double or triple for those 10,000 people. Transit is not financially sustainable – if everyone quit driving and used only transit, our country could not afford the price tag. It would be like gas went to $50/gal
THWM: That make no sense, by that point you’re turning a profit.
JK:“Updated where? But actually that is irrelevant! What is important is the whole system, not one tiny piece that causes other pieces (bus) to be more wasteful. Overall Trimet delivers 26 MPG (or 31 if use 1.3 people/car).”
JK:“But most people will get a higher mpg car when faced with a choice of enduring transit or changing cars. Further, society will save money and they will not have to waste time on transit.”
ws:Will cars get that much better mpg rapidly? I think they will but that’s presumptive at this point. I think people are going to move closer to jobs and services, but you’d probably disagree with that piece of info. You’re assuming things and making false statements about mass transit — particularly in Portland. You say cars use less energy but buses and MAX already use less energy than the average fleet of cars. 26 and 40 mpg equivalent respectively.
The average fleet of passenger cars gets about 22.4 mpg:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
Ya got that Jim? 22.4 mpg for all US fleet of just passenger cars. It is unconscionable to state that Portland’s mass transit is not more energy/fuel efficient compared to cars because your equation does not reflect the reality of car’s current mpg fleet.
JK:“You forgot to mention that building buses & toy trains take energy too.”
ws: Heh, okay, you got me Jim (not really). Do you know how many millions of cars are on the roads? About 500,000,000 registered vehicles! That’s 1.5 times the US’ population. Do you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of energy use for automobiles? Of course you don’t because after land-use and all things considered, autos are consuming so much more than transit. But hey, you and ROT have done a grand job of calculating every last degree of energy use for transit while avoiding all energy outputs for automobiles including road constriction / maintenance as well as vehicle construction. Not to mention the big land-use equation.
JK:“Your lack of logic is showing. Your statement is ONLY true if the miles traveled increases faster then the miles/gallon increases.”
ws:VMT has increased every year up until gas cost too much and the economy tanked. Give me reasons, based off of your policy beliefs that VMT will decrease? It’s only going to raise higher if we sprawl like you want us to. Even if higher MPG closes the gap a bit, is it really that much of a difference regarding energy use? Nope!
JK: “Why do we need to reduce VMT?”
ws:I only say we need to promote VMT decrease in the context of MPG increases forthcoming. Like I said, any MPG increase will be offset if we travel more miles. If you don’t believe in promoting VMT decrease, then why are you pimping out how vehicles are going to be more fuel efficient in the future? That’s only because of government mandates and standards.
ws said: Will cars get that much better mpg rapidly? I think they will but that’s presumptive at this point.
JK: Care are already good enough. What is missing is a rational reason to spend the money to save energy. You make the typical planner’s mistake of assuming money doesn’t matter.
ws said: I think people are going to move closer to jobs and services,
JK: They already live close to jobs and services. Haven’t you noticed that most jobs are no longer in downtown?
ws said: You’re assuming things and making false statements about mass transit — particularly in Portland. You say cars use less energy but buses and MAX already use less energy than the average fleet of cars. 26 and 40 mpg equivalent respectively.
JK: We are on a natiopnal forum, so it is approperiate to use national numbers.
But if you insist, Trimet gets the equivalent of a 26-31mpg car. That is nothing to brag about as saving energy. And it is appropriate to use system wide energy as it is a system – you cannot have light rail without feeder buses (or park & ride) in any but the most dense areas. I have seen claims that overall system energy pre passenger-mile goes UP with rail, because it hutse the bus so much.
ws said: The average fleet of passenger cars gets about 22.4 mpg:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
JK: You forgot to mention that that same page shows new cars at 31.2 mpg, nicely beating Timet. That just the average new car too! Thanks for helping to prove even one of the best systems is easily beat by cars.
ws said: Ya got that Jim? 22.4 mpg for all US fleet of just passenger cars.
JK: Ya got that ws? The average new car beats Trimet
ws said: It is unconscionable to state that Portland’s mass transit is not more energy/fuel efficient compared to cars because your equation does not reflect the reality of car’s current mpg fleet.
JK: I made no statement about Portland here and you know it. It is unconscionable to claim otherwise.
ws said: That’s 1.5 times the US’ population.
JK: So what?
ws said: Of course you don’t because after land-use and all things considered, autos are consuming so much more than transit.
JK: Typical move: change the subject when losing the original argument. I made a statement about transit, not land use.
ws said: But hey, you and ROT have done a grand job of calculating every last degree of energy use for transit while avoiding all energy outputs for automobiles including road constriction / maintenance as well as vehicle construction.
JK: Got some credible numbers? Nothing from the Sierra Club Weekly reader please.
BTY, why aren’t you commenting about transit’s tremendous money saving. Oh, that’s right it costs several times what driving costs.
ws said: Not to mention the big land-use equation.
JK: Off topic. But, I need a good laugh: what land use question?
ws said: VMT has increased every year up until gas cost too much and the economy tanked.
JK: Wrong again. VMT has mostly leveled out for most people (which is different than saying there is ZERO increase.) The major increase if among people climbing out of poverty as a car is a very good way to increase their income. See Alan Pisaraki’s commuting in America or his videos on http://www.PortlandFacts.com
ws said: Give me reasons, based off of your policy beliefs that VMT will decrease?
JK: Why should it? Mobility is a good thing and one of the necessary conditions for prosperity. (Another subject ignored by planners.)
ws said: It’s only going to raise higher if we sprawl like you want us to. Even if higher MPG closes the gap a bit, is it really that much of a difference regarding energy use? Nope!
JK: Of course cars reduce people’s commute time which is more important than energy.
ws said: If you don’t believe in promoting VMT decrease, then why are you pimping out how vehicles are going to be more fuel efficient in the future?
JK: To shut up the people who think saving energy is more important than saving people’s time and money.
BTW, why are you silent on the subject of telling other people how to live?
Thanks
JK
JK: Got some credible numbers? Nothing from the Sierra Club Weekly reader please.
JK: See Alan Pisaraki’s commuting in America
THWM: Cherry picking numbers vs. cherry picking numbers?
JK: Why are you silent on the subject of telling other people how to live?
THWM: Good point Mr.Karlock, you’re not silent on telling other people how to live.
the highwayman said:
JK: Why are you silent on the subject of telling other people how to live?
THWM: Good point Mr.Karlock, you’re not silent on telling other people how to live.
JK: Please quit the lies. I do not tell others how to live.
I merely oppose fascists who want to tell others how to live.
Dan, prk166:
Well, this thread sort of trainwrecked, so I won’t reprise this to any great extent (I’m sure the subjects will come up again). Dan, I think I responded to you on a line originally from ws. My aim was to show that not every NU community was standing-room-only at this point, and I provided one counterexample. That’s all. Note that in all my argument against NU, it has always been because of subsidization and central planning. NU that has been built entirely by the private market, I have no problem with (including the granddaddy of all NU, Seaside FL.) Proponents of NU say examples like Seaside and Verrado are poor because they’re greenfield projects. I say that’s as may be; whether a housing development is built greenfield or brownfield is of absolutely no concern to me, as long as the builder is the one paying for it, and not the rest of us. Seems like NU would be best as downtown brownfield rebuilds on failed parcels of land, but that’s an issue for the builder to deal with, not a planner.
prk166, take a look at Wikipedia. Buckeye really does have all that land already. Seriously. It seems counterintuitive at first, but I guess that’s what happens when you’re one of the last suburbs that isn’t landlocked in a fast-growing metro area. (On the east side, most suburbs of Phoenix are bracketed by Indian reservation land and can’t grow out any further.) You won’t catch me living on the West Side because freeway access is woefully inadequate, but the homes are cheap for their size and not everyone has to commute.
JK:“You forgot to mention that that same page shows new cars at 31.2 mpg, nicely beating Timet. That just the average new car too! Thanks for helping to prove even one of the best systems is easily beat by cars.”
ws:New cars being built, not the entire fleet of cars actually on the roads. There’s a difference. Let’s also keep in mind that a car’s rated MPG is not what you get in real life — in fact it’s much lower.
JK:“BTW, why are you silent on the subject of telling other people how to live?”
ws: I’m not, you’re the one who’s on the crusade to stop density in Portland, even if a private developer wants to develop denser on private land. Why do you like to tell people how to live?
Mike:“Well, this thread sort of trainwrecked, so I won’t reprise this to any great extent (I’m sure the subjects will come up again). Dan, I think I responded to you on a line originally from ws. My aim was to show that not every NU community was standing-room-only at this point, and I provided one counterexample. That’s all. Note that in all my argument against NU, it has always been because of subsidization and central planning. NU that has been built entirely by the private market, I have no problem with (including the granddaddy of all NU, Seaside FL.) Proponents of NU say examples like Seaside and Verrado are poor because they’re greenfield projects. I say that’s as may be; whether a housing development is built greenfield or brownfield is of absolutely no concern to me, as long as the builder is the one paying for it, and not the rest of us. Seems like NU would be best as downtown brownfield rebuilds on failed parcels of land, but that’s an issue for the builder to deal with, not a planner.”
ws: Defining subsidy would be nice, Mike. Is it a subsidy if a new subdivision goes in on the fringe of the city and it costs extra for water/sewer hookups to the city, but the city only charges a flat rate? Is it a subsidy if new growth from sprawl spreads urban services thin to the point that new fire, police, and schools need to be built to accommodate the growth to be within federal standards? Is it a subsidy if new growth creates traffic snarls to the point that it congests local roads to where they need to be rebuilt and maximized — and everyone pays for it w/o the new development paying traffic impact fees?
There probably aren’t too many places where there are development impact fees for schools, fire, and police; that’s generally borne by all residents not just for the new growth.
I pointed this out before, but look at the entire water situation and subsequent booming of growth in the Southwest. You had huge federally funded water projects that brought water to communities that would not naturally have water before…and you live in the thick of it. It seems contradictory that anyone could claim to be “subsidy” free.
A note about brownfields, it is unfair to make developments pay for the cleanup of other people’s mess. The city and its subsequent brownfields created our industrious nation and ultimately gave people the wealth to move outside of the city — it would be unfair if only the city denizens had to pay for the mess only. It should be paid for by all if there is no direct responsible party.
WS —> Thanks.
Mike –> Just so you know, I don’t think it’s a big deal. For me bringing up the finer points of Buckeye is more out of curiosity and getting things just right for the hell of it. Currently Buckeye is @ 150 sq miles. It has plans to annex a huge amount of land but, for the time being, they’re not that large. And I do agree that it has a lot of potential for growth. I’m just splitting hairs in the important difference between what could be and what will be. So far it’s nothing like that. And things can change in ways people didn’t anticipate. After all, look at RTD in Denver. A few years after Fastracks was passed they were saying “ooops, we didn’t think things on the east side of town would grow that quickly”. In this case, there’s always the chance, a big one once you start getting 30+ years out, that future job growth will shift elsewhere whether it’s Casa Grande and Eloy for some unforeseen reason, or some other state where economics shifted in it’s favor whether it’s Boise or Cleveland.
ws,
Police indeed should be paid by general taxation, as police protection (retaliatory force exclusively vested in government by objective law) is a benefit used by all citizens that protects life, liberty, and property. I’ve named police before as one of the few legitimate operations of government, which is supposed to exist only to protect individual rights. The others are military, court system, and a handful of much smaller functions that by definition must either cross political boundaries or define those boundaries, such as epidemiology and land title recording.
The rest of what you’ve noted, from roads to fire protection to schools, needs to all be privatized. The city needs to not be in the roads, schools, and firefighting business to begin with. There is then no “impact fee” or other cost to reckon to the rest of the taxpayer base from a new development going in. This is not as unprecedented as it may sound: private roads are usually only found in upscale HOAs at this point, but they are indeed out there, and fire protection for-a-fee is available in many rural areas already (and half the time even urban/municipal fire protection is contracted out to a private company, not “run” by the city, and is thus quasi-public at best). Private schools are, of course, very common, though outnumbered at this juncture in our history by public schools, more’s the pity. The stark quality difference between private and public schools should settle that argument even for the pragmatists in the audience, but as they say, “denial”/”The Nile” ain’t just a river in Egypt.
As for the public water projects… it’s sunk money now, but I wouldn’t have supported it when it happened. Private industry would have found a way to do it and make it profitable, or else it wouldn’t (and, in that case, shouldn’t) have been done. Arizona had a chance to really be one of the last frontiers of independent (truly independent) living under a rights-respecting government, and I think it’s safe to point to your CAP example as one of the watershed (heh) events that led away from that.
Per your note about brownfields, I’m not sure there’s a fairness issue at all. When a person buys a brownfield parcel, they know whether the land is messed up from prior uses. The amount they will have to spend to make it usable again would typically be subtracted from the amount they’d offer to buy the parcel, all other market effects being normal. I can either buy a used Accord that runs for $5k, or I can buy a used Accord that needs $1k in repairs for $4k, and then make the repairs, and I’m back to even. If I’m dumb enough to offer the full $5k for the broken car, that’s my fault, and I am responsible, not “nobody” and thus entitled to have the damage paid for by everybody.
prk166: Fair enough.
Simply stating that schools and fire should be privatized does not address the issue that I presented. They’re not going to be privatized anytime soon without serious political tug of war, so at this time it’s a moot point. The issue is growth can burden these urban services, and traditionally sprawl has created heavy costs onto everyone which is a subsidy for every sense of the word. I see a lot of throwing around of that word, but I would really like to a good, hard clarification of its use.
Brownfield sites are so expensive to clean up, the “market” can only go so low to correct that situation or even be feasible. Brownfields are sites that pose serious threat to people from contamination, it is our responsibility as humans and stewards of the land to clean them up, much like you make the case that police is an appropriate armature of the government because it protects life, liberty, and property (doesn’t a clean environment protect these same things?) Hanford nuclear waste site (a superfund site) in the desert of Washington State is a responsibility of every citizen of the US — it essentially ended WWII and it is our duty to clean it up.
I think it’s a bit of a reach to think that a private industry would invest in heavy-duty water infrastructure projects in the Southwest. Private interest would not be able to even construct the project due to the many states involved, anyways. It only came to being with specific lawsuits that pitted state vs. state in courts. The project spanned miles and miles — no private industry would even want to touch that mess without the involvement of the government.
We can further discuss Native Americans water rights that have been trumped from so many Federal involvements into water infrastructure projects if you want (speaking of private property).
ws:
Actually, that’s exactly the point. “They’re not going to be privatized anytime soon,” you say, and that’s probably true. However, as privatization is the only ultimate solution that will work, objective and rational people like me will oppose everything else. Stubbornly, the statists will continue to try to run their hustle until (1) they run out of other peoples’ money, or (2) they try enough things in a row that fail that the people wake up and throw their arses out of office.
A good, hard definition of “subsidy” would be “a form of financial assistance paid by a public entity to a private entity.” A subsidy to a farmer is probably the simplest example. One can think of “public transit” as subsidized because, at ground level, private companies are generally contracted to do the actual driving with actual vehicles, and do not turn a profit at the farebox rate on a rider-by-rider basis like a private transit option like a taxicab would. One would not use “subsidy” to refer to the court system, for example, which is wholly a government organ. Notice that under this definition, a subsidy is ALWAYS a violation of individual rights, as is any expropriation of wealth from any individual to pay for goods or services for any other individual. The functions of government that are legitimate in protection of individual rights would all be wholly government organs: military, police, court system, minor added functions (epidemiology, vital records, land title recording, etc). Payment for their operation would not be considered a subsidy but a simple outlay.
You wrote: “it is our responsibility as humans and stewards of the land to clean them up.” No, it is not. Nature has no intrinsic value. Show me an objective basis for it to have intrinsic value: you won’t find any. Nature only has value to the extent that it can be exploited by humans, and the owner of the land has first dibs on exploiting its resources. Any land that is private property is the responsibility of the property owner, period. Any land that is public property should either be sold as private property or will remain public only if it is part of those governmental functions I detailed above: i.e. a police station or military base. In those instances it is the responsibility of the overseeing agency (covering your military example) to clean up. An objective understanding of the principles underlying private property solves your entire problem here. There is no point further examining the pragmatic angle because the principled angle is dispositive, as it always is. It’s just that the pragmatic angle is the easiest one for people to see, concrete-bound as modern epistemology is. Separate out the abstracts and the underlying principles become clear.
If private industry wouldn’t have run canals across the desert, then it shouldn’t have been done. That’s what I’m getting at. It’s sunk money now, so there’s no point in uprooting the thing, but let’s not throw good money after bad by building more of the same kind of thing that shouldn’t be built… i.e. high-speed rail at a gajillion dollars a meter, all out of the pockets of citizens. Eventually, I suggest the demand for open land would have been high enough that someone would have taken the risk on such a water project, and if not, then it shouldn’t have been built.
As for what may or may not have been done to the tribes, I have never suggested that it is justifiable for the U.S. government to fail to adhere to the conditions of any treaty made with a sovereign tribe. However, if fulfilling that treaty violates individual rights (i.e. we’re bound by treaty to pay the tribe $X in subsidy), then that provision of the treaty itself is void ab initio, because our government, as originally constituted, did not have the authority to commit to such terms. If you sign a contract with a hobo that he’s going to pay you a million dollars every month in exchange for a hamburger, don’t be shocked if you discover he doesn’t ever make a payment, even after taking possession of his first hamburger.
ws: I’m not, you’re the one who’s on the crusade to stop density in Portland, even if a private developer wants to develop denser on private land.
JK: I am NOT AGAINST PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT that is within the character of a neighborhood. I do favor removing the mandates and subsidies and see how many really want to develop high density where it makes no economic sense (like in most of Portland.)
ws: Why do you like to tell people how to live?
JK: Please quit lying about me.
Thanks
JK
JK: Please quit the lies. I do not tell others how to live.
I merely oppose fascists who want to tell others how to live.
THWM: Bullshit! http://www.electkarlock.com/
Mike said: You wrote: “it is our responsibility as humans and stewards of the land to clean them up.†No, it is not. Nature has no intrinsic value.
THWM: Then how the hell do you breathe?
There was a lot of intelligent debate and interesting views today. Thanks to all of you who posted professional quality comments!
JK: “I am NOT AGAINST PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT that is within the character of a neighborhood. I do favor removing the mandates and subsidies and see how many really want to develop high density where it makes no economic sense (like in most of Portland.)”
ws:Character is a very subjective term. Our planning code is not bureaucratic in the sense that someone (an official) looks at something and deems it to be with or against a neighborhood’s character — usually this is broadly taken care of with specific codes and zoning written down in boring text.
Is an old house next to a reasonably busy street that’s converted to a coffee shop against the character of a neighborhood? Is a 4-story apartment building amongst single-family homes and duplexes against the “character” of a predominately single-family neighborhood? I can walk along NW Portland and see Victorian homes next to a brick 1920s 3-5 story apartment buildings.
I think if we could peel away by what you mean about “character”; you are trying to maintain the status-quo of single-family only developments and anything that is dense or multi-unit anywhere near you is deemed as negative. This is just my guess at what you mean.
Maybe you could shed some light on your opinions and clarify for us all what is a neighborhood’s “character” and what you mean by that?
Mike: “Actually, that’s exactly the point. “They’re not going to be privatized anytime soon,†you say, and that’s probably true. However, as privatization is the only ultimate solution that will work, objective and rational people like me will oppose everything else. Stubbornly, the statists will continue to try to run their hustle until (1) they run out of other peoples’ money, or (2) they try enough things in a row that fail that the people wake up and throw their arses out of office.”
ws:I agree that would get rid of some problems, but people are not going to give their fire and schools away. The issue is that yes, you can at the public level assess fair impact fees for new growth that makes its future residents pay in proportion to what they take. But these are rare at best, and are an indirect subsidy to the typical sprawl patterns of the US.
You’re avoiding my assertion that sprawl is subsidized too. Please, would you care to acknowledge this fact?
I think Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you about private only schools. He worked a good portion of his career to give education to all through public institutions.
I personally do not want a private fire company. What’s keeping these people from setting fires around the city and turning a profit from individuals? What’s funny (or not funny) is that in Pennsylvania, two judges helped condemn a public juvenile detention center for a private institution (for their buddies) and then they gave severe punishments (most of them made up charges) and charges county’s youth so that the private jail centers where they got bribes from in the tune of millions could turn a profit. A private jail center can only turn a profit with people in the beds. If kids aren’t committing crimes, somebody has to make sure they are and what better way than for a judge to sentence kids to outlandish crimes for longer than average sentences?
That right there is a complete perversion of justice.
All should read this before they want to privatize everything:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html
Mike:“If private industry wouldn’t have run canals across the desert, then it shouldn’t have been done. That’s what I’m getting at. It’s sunk money now, so there’s no point in uprooting the thing, but let’s not throw good money after bad by building more of the same kind of thing that shouldn’t be built… i.e. high-speed rail at a gajillion dollars a meter, all out of the pockets of citizens. Eventually, I suggest the demand for open land would have been high enough that someone would have taken the risk on such a water project, and if not, then it shouldn’t have been built.”
ws:You’re avoiding the fact that as the Southwest grows, it is going to need more water. Where are they going to get that water? The actions of huge water infrastructure projects (where water is not plentiful) is still subsidizing growth in these areas which will ultimately lead to future problems down the road from this future demand.
Mike:“No, it is not. Nature has no intrinsic value. Show me an objective basis for it to have intrinsic value: you won’t find any.
ws: I see, so the forest with its mature trees, plants, and microbial-rich soil that naturally cleanses and filters water (that humans drink) has no value? Municipal water sources are a non-profit utility, btw, and they often utilize natural areas instead of expensive plant/chemical centers.
Mike, this might be painful, but your privatization of everything is too extreme and moot point. You might be better suited to a conversation with a blank wall, because that’s about as far as you’re going to convince someone.
And I agree completely with a degree of privatization of roads and public transit (not local streets, however).
ws:I agree that would get rid of some problems, but people are not going to give their fire and schools away. The issue is that yes, you can at the public level assess fair impact fees for new growth that makes its future residents pay in proportion to what they take. But these are rare at best, and are an indirect subsidy to the typical sprawl patterns of the US.
================————–
Many high density projects in Portland do not have to pay any impact fees because they are waved and or they also receive low interest loans from urban renewal, that takes money from police fire, social services and schools!
Impact fees only seem to open up a new pot of money for our politicians to divide up and exempt their friends from paying.
ws,
“People aren’t going to give their fire and schools away”
That’s just the point. It is NOT “their” fire and schools; the money to pay for these things is stolen from everyone. It is not for them to decide they get to keep the fruits of my labor. That said, even taken in the spirit of your statement, the fact that private schools flourish in every jurisdiction and consistently outperform public schools puts the lie to your assertion. The fact that fire service is outright private in many rural areas and is one short step away from privatization in many urban areas (as I explained, contracted and quasi-public) also puts the lie to your assertion. What prevents a private fire utility from setting fires to clean up? Because that would be both fraud and a violation of property rights of individuals. They would be liable both civilly and criminally. I am not advocating anarchy, and never have. A private fire service that tried to do that would inevitably get caught — such a scheme is too elaborate not to eventually spring a leak — and then the perps would hang by their balls, and rightfully so. Our police would have all kinds of time to investigate that since they wouldn’t be wasting taxpayer dollars arresting teenagers for possession of a dime bag of oregano or pulling over drivers whose skin is the wrong shade of brown.
The prison example you gave also involves fraud. Fraud should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I’ll take clean-cut fraud as a hazard any day over the gray miasma of subtle, hidden corruption we have today. Or has the dollar in your world risen relative to gold? (This may come off as snarky. I actually don’t mean it that way. This is a sincere reply.)
“The southwest is going to need more water.” Need is irrelevant morally, and is not a claim on life. If someone needs water, let that someone go find and acquire it, either by improving untamed wilds to seize it as a fugitive resource, or buying it from someone who owns it. The fact that there is “need” does not obligate the rest of us to self-sacrifice to fill that need. The responsibility for filling a need rests with the individual claiming the need.
Nature has no intrinsic value. When humans exploit fugitive natural resources, humans CREATE value in so doing. When humans use natural resources already privately owned, value is owed in exchange. But just sitting out there, the land and water and trees, etc, are worthless. This is because animals are not rational beings, and neither are plants, and a rational living organism is the only entity capable of imbuing anything with value, and therefore only the extent to which nature is being made to serve a human being gives it any value. A municipal water source (which should be a privately-held water source) is not a fugitive resource, but property owned by an entity and the responsibility of that entity.
ws, This is far from “painful” for me — but it’s going to be very, very painful for the rest of the world to learn how wrong most of them have been (as, indeed, they are learning right now, thanks to the two biggest statists in recent memory: Bush and Obama). I have inevitability on my side. I ask for nothing and want nothing. (Obviously I do live in a city, pay taxes, etc… what I am saying is that when push comes to shove, I am prepared to walk away, while most people could never conceive of doing so.) The system in place now requires that the individual be morally subordinate to the group, and that can only entropize toward death.
You say I am an extremist. I accept the compliment. I am the most extreme individual you might ever encounter. Mine is not the extremism of hate or spite, but of rational evaluation and conclusion. I call it as I see it and I am always willing to collect more facts along the way. Meanwhile, I say all moderates are either ignorant or cowards. Thomas Jefferson would agree with me. 🙂 And rather than just letting things sit that way, I seek to teach, that others will understand. That won’t help as much with the cowards, I’m afraid.
Oh, and in response to your assertion that sprawl is subsidized… I’m not sure I can agree with that in the abstract because sprawl is the default. Left with no government services at all, the pioneers on the frontier homesteaded, rather than packing their way into condominiums.
Now, in reference to modern concretes, I do not doubt that there are crooked pols paying for developers to open lots full of McMansions in the ‘burbs. To the extent that that is occurring, I am in accord with you that it’s wrong. But that does not justify subsidizing NU development! Two wrongs do not make a right.
However, that concrete example is NOT representative of the abstract that sprawl is the default. It is a complete subversion of the principle. And pointless aside from the racket, because where subsidized sprawl has occurred, unsubsidized sprawl was likely to occur eventually anyway in most cases. What has happened is fraud through corruption. Mostly undetected, and ignored where recognized… but it still stole from me and you and everyone else to put money into the pocket of a crooked developer, and is therefore every bit as morally wrong as socialized medicine or WIC or SSI or any other wealth-redistributive expropriation scheme.
Mike: Nature has no intrinsic value. When humans exploit fugitive natural resources, humans CREATE value in so doing. When humans use natural resources already privately owned, value is owed in exchange. But just sitting out there, the land and water and trees, etc, are worthless. This is because animals are not rational beings, and neither are plants, and a rational living organism is the only entity capable of imbuing anything with value, and therefore only the extent to which nature is being made to serve a human being gives it any value. A municipal water source (which should be a privately-held water source) is not a fugitive resource, but property owned by an entity and the responsibility of that entity.
THWM: That’s just authoriarian-corporatocracy.
Authoritarian-Corpocracy, would be an other way of saying it too.
Mike you put your self down as well, since humans then have no intrinsic value.
Us humans just like to pretend that we are rational, in reality it’s more about rationale.
Mike:“Nature has no intrinsic value. When humans exploit fugitive natural resources, humans CREATE value in so doing. When humans use natural resources already privately owned, value is owed in exchange. But just sitting out there, the land and water and trees, etc, are worthless. This is because animals are not rational beings, and neither are plants, and a rational living organism is the only entity capable of imbuing anything with value, and therefore only the extent to which nature is being made to serve a human being gives it any value. A municipal water source (which should be a privately-held water source) is not a fugitive resource, but property owned by an entity and the responsibility of that entity.”
ws: So a human’s life (which is apart of nature) has no value? You can’t just make up definitions for words that fit your viewpoint. Value is a very subjective word meaning many things to many people. Without a criteria for the word you’re using, it’s difficult to see what you mean. I would argue that a human life has value, but it would be morally apprehensive to put a monetary value on it, however.
Mike:“That said, even taken in the spirit of your statement, the fact that private schools flourish in every jurisdiction and consistently outperform public schools puts the lie to your assertion.”
ws:It does not contradict my point. Private schools is an expensive service, that right there precludes certain types of people and maintains a high standard level. What happens if someone can’t afford school if it becomes a private-only entity again? Thomas Jefferson spent a good portion of his life fighting for the right to have education for all because of this very scenario. School was only for the elites, and it left a lot of people without an education.
Thomas Jefferson, being the smart man he was, stated that America and the Constitution could not be upheld if people were not educated. And he’s absolutely right. How can the US continue if people aren’t even educated about it in the first place? How are they going to pass that down to their children?
Mike:“The prison example you gave also involves fraud. Fraud should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I’ll take clean-cut fraud as a hazard any day over the gray miasma of subtle, hidden corruption we have today. Or has the dollar in your world risen relative to gold? (This may come off as snarky. I actually don’t mean it that way. This is a sincere reply.)”
ws: Of course it’s considered fraud. The issue I bring up is absolute privatization of every aspect of life can induce fraud in the first place. Yeah, sure they’ll be prosecuted, but you’re forgetting the same judges and prosecutors are corrupt too!? Haven’t you seen Robocop? I enjoy the public/private partnership in America. You need to have voices from both sides of the aisle which keeps a balance. Some things absolutely should not be privatized. Jails, prisons and fire stations is one of them to me.
Mike:“Oh, and in response to your assertion that sprawl is subsidized… I’m not sure I can agree with that in the abstract because sprawl is the default. Left with no government services at all, the pioneers on the frontier homesteaded, rather than packing their way into condominiums.”
ws:Homesteading is homesteading. A completely different typology than sprawl. Sprawl (as a synonym for suburbia) is “default” in your opinion? That statement right there contradicts historical precedent.
Mike: You say I am an extremist. I accept the compliment. I am the most extreme individual you might ever encounter. Mine is not the extremism of hate or spite, but of rational evaluation and conclusion. I call it as I see it and I am always willing to collect more facts along the way. Meanwhile, I say all moderates are either ignorant or cowards. Thomas Jefferson would agree with me. 🙂 And rather than just letting things sit that way, I seek to teach, that others will understand. That won’t help as much with the cowards, I’m afraid.
ws: Thomas Jefferson would think you’re silly, actually, considering he laid the foundations for the first public University and was the founder of the University of Virginia (public school).
Craig:“Many high density projects in Portland do not have to pay any impact fees because they are waved and or they also receive low interest loans from urban renewal, that takes money from police fire, social services and schools!”
ws: Sure, you’re right in many ways. I’m not against TIF for fighting blight and maximizing space, though. And even the Pearl District brings in more tax dollars total than actually was used for rebuilding some infrastructure.
Spread______the____costs_____________everybody pays.
No matter your choice.
Yeah Engels & Marx.
Individual choice & education & occupation don’t matter.
ws: “So a human’s life (which is a part of nature) has no value?”
Me: Your words, not mine. Why build straw men like this? Have you even been hearing me this entire time? One’s own human life is the highest, most important value possible to that individual! One’s own human life is NOT a part of nature! This does not mean it is not NATURAL (originating in nature) — just that it is rational and therefore not subject to a feral, instinct-governed life cycle. Nature is not rational and has no capacity for reason. That’s why it’s called “nature” and not “civilization.” Humans have reason and therefore can rationally understand nature’s properties, and in so doing, can command and exploit it. A foetus in a womb is feral and of nature; a born human being, however uneducated, is something more: an individual.
More over, an individual has value to another individual under a moral system, such as capitalism, because the success of each individual creates value for other individuals. That’s why capitalism works so well even in its constrained forms, bursting at the seams to be allowed to work freely. Under a collectivist system, with individuals morally subordinate to the group, each individual represents a threat to each other. After all, John’s need might take money from the public pot that you were hoping to get. Under collectivism, when John and Jane have a baby, that baby’s needs represent a further tax on your resources, since your needs are subordinate to everyone else’s in the group. Under pure capitalism, this is not a problem. But that’s a large discussion for another day.
“Value” is an objective word meaning “that which an individual seeks to create, obtain, keep, and/or exchange for the purpose of sustaining or enhancing that individual’s life.” Notice that this differs from the definition of “value” as hijacked by the religious right: I mean nothing of the sort like “Christian values” or “Family values.” The word is completely misappropriated there. When they say “value” what they mean is “edict,” and it’s an edict coming from a mystical fantasy entity.
“Some things absolutely should not be privatized. Jails, prisons and fire stations is one of them to me.”
Notice you’re the one who brought up jails and prisons. I already explained that police and courts are both legitimate governmental purposes. Jails and prisons are adjuncts of those. As for fire stations, I’ve covered them already.
Finally, your acceptance of fraud as an unavoidable thing is troubling. Just because it is happening does not mean it is right or acceptable.
Mike:“Your words, not mine. Why build straw men like this? Have you even been hearing me this entire time? One’s own human life is the highest, most important value possible to that individual! One’s own human life is NOT a part of nature! This does not mean it is not NATURAL (originating in nature) — just that it is rational and therefore not subject to a feral, instinct-governed life cycle. Nature is not rational and has no capacity for reason. That’s why it’s called “nature†and not “civilization.†Humans have reason and therefore can rationally understand nature’s properties, and in so doing, can command and exploit it. A foetus in a womb is feral and of nature; a born human being, however uneducated, is something more: an individual.”
ws:Just picking apart your logic. So human’s are not apart of nature all of a sudden!?
Chimpanzees can reason and are self-aware. They exploit resources, make tools, and have hierarchical communities. Are they “nature”? I think you’re jumping head first into a pile of crap with your philosophy. You’re trying to put absolute definitions on things in order to view the world. It’s not that simple.
ws: To straighten out all your errors would take book length answers that you aren’t going to read anyway, so never mind. Instead of arguing against anything I wrote, you just made stuff up and argued against that. There is a fallacy that does that. You should look it up. Hint: you’re crossing your wires on definitions of words that are different when used in a different context.
ws said:Just picking apart your logic. So human’s are not apart of nature all of a sudden!?
Chimpanzees can reason and are self-aware. They exploit resources, make tools, and have hierarchical communities. Are they “nature� I think you’re jumping head first into a pile of crap with your philosophy. You’re trying to put absolute definitions on things in order to view the world. It’s not that simple.
THWM: That reminds me of a project where a gorilla was taught sign language.
http://www.koko.org/index.php
Mike: “To straighten out all your errors would take book length answers that you aren’t going to read anyway, so never mind. Instead of arguing against anything I wrote, you just made stuff up and argued against that. There is a fallacy that does that. You should look it up. Hint: you’re crossing your wires on definitions of words that are different when used in a different context.”
ws: There’s something to be said about plain English and writing that relates to all. If I could take quick a critique at your presentation of your beliefs, I’d have to say then that I have no idea what you’re talking about. Why make your thoughts so esoteric to where it only appeals to an “elite” class? Usually people write like this because they think if it sounds academic and wordy it will inherently have value or substance. I think the opposite of that, really.
Clearly, if I am misrepresenting your ideas maybe the issue is you’re not presenting them very well at “my level”. Sorry for the misrepresentations of your ideas. And if you’re an author, take this as advice than anything else.
ws, this is a comment on a blog. I’m doing this as recreational writing and not being paid for it. So no, I am not going to establish all my premises in exhausting detail, develop my thesis, and present it against counterarguments, all cross-referenced, then revise and edit, and finally publish. You’re stuck enough in your mindset that nothing short of such a presentation is likely to shake you. I expect that. But that’s not “my” failure as a “writer.” You want me to teach you how the world works, I’m going to be requiring tuition up front. 🙂
Surely one can be cogent and readable even in comments, however. That was the point: lack of cogency, coherence, and readability.
DS
Dan,
The fact that you do not understand the concepts underlying my arguments does not mean that the arguments are unreadable or incoherent. To make your argument would be to say that a surgeon is incoherent because a lay person observing the surgery cannot understand the clipped, rapid-fire, jargon-heavy instructions that the surgeon is giving his anesthesiologist and/or nurse. Your ignorance of my premises does not refute them.
Mike, thanks for trying real hard with the same ol’ tactic (or wish), but I had the Intro Phil., rhetoric and composition classes well over two decades ago. I’m long familiar with the constructs you don’t fully understand and have seen the ham-handed tactics hundreds of times. It doesn’t work to blame the reader for one’s prolixity and lack of concision and cogency. Buh-byeeee now.
DS
Dan,
Your reply did not successfully refute anything. It consisted mainly of a logical fallacy called “appeal to authority,” and a poor one at best — “Intro [to] Phil[osophy]?” Really? As well brag that you’re a master businessman because you passed manager training at Burger King. I suggest you go ask for your tuition money back.
Non-snarky dismissal here,
-Mike