A couple of weeks ago, the Cato Institute held a forum for the ultimate antiplanning book. The forum featured the Antiplanner along with two faithful allies, Robert Nelson (of the University of Maryland) and Ronald Utt (of the the Heritage Foundation).
The travel buy viagra for women expenses and stays of employees as well as trainers were liabilities that had to be taken care of in order to purchase medications online. The signs are cipla viagra runny nasal area moist. However, if you have become addicted to opioids then now is levitra vardenafil the right time for you to do so. Evidence report: Behavior and physical treatments for Tension-type and Cervicogenic Headache.”5 The report took a comprehensive look at all of the previous studies on buying tadalafil headaches.
Cato recorded the forum and has a link to the video (in Real Player format) on its web site. But the link was broken when Cato revamped its web site last weekend. Although they may have fixed it by now, I am including the link here for those who cannot attend the San Jose conference this weekend. In addition to a moderately high-speed connection, you will need Real Player, which can be downloaded for free, to make it work.
Hello Antiplanner,
I was wondering if you view the use of planners by private companies as useless/waste of resources or if you only view government planners as harmful, damagining to society, etc. Surely someone planning a large scale development could benefit from a planner – not just for dealing with governmnet planning regulations, but for enhancing the quality of a development. Essentially what this question poses is: is planning itself wrong, with no methodologies to apply, or is it just government planning, with the attendent regulation of private land by outside forces (municipal planners, etc) bad/wrong.
Hello Antiplanner,
Have you written or do you know of any good articles that adress the argument of sprawl vs. urban containment? I will try to get your book through an interlibrary loan at my university and I’ve seen (but not yet read) your Unlivable strategies document for Vancouver. Any other material more specific to the topic of urban boundaries, etc?
theplanner,
Private planning is not objectionable because the people doing (or employing) the planning are risking their own resources and so have an incentive to get it right. And if they get it wrong, they pay most of the costs, not others.
I’ve written several articles about sprawl vs. compact cities. One is Dense Thinkers. The best are probably in The Vanishing Automobile. My recent Cato studies — Debunking Portland and Do You Know the Way to L.A. — also address the issue.
Antiplanner,
Maybe I’ll consider private planning,
I’ll check out those articles as well,
Thanks,
theplanner