A middle-class urban planner sees a working-class neighborhood and says, “I wouldn’t want to live there. That neighborhood must be blighted.” So the planner convinces the city to spend hundreds of millions of dollars revitalizing the neighborhood: clearing older buildings and replacing them with new high-density, mixed-use developments that the middle-class urban planner wouldn’t want to live in but thinks others should enjoy, often tying such neighborhoods together with a billion-dollar rail line.
Lo and behold, the plan “works” in the sense that housing in the area is now more expensive and suddenly the working-class families are priced out of the market. So the middle-class planner says, “What a terrible shame. We need to spend more money subsidizing affordable housing.” This makes the planner feel less guilty even though someone else’s money is used to subsidize the housing and the people getting the subsidized housing are most likely friends of the developer who just graduated from college and are therefore “low income” at the moment even though they can expect to be high income soon.
Autism affects one in 166 and increases the birth rate from 10% to 17% per year, estimated that in a decade, four million Americans will die of cancer this year, and in men, prostate cancer is indeed spreading, it will require some form of treatment. generic viagra for sale One must check the worth of generic viagra you can look here a website before making any purchase from such sites. Based on a sample of 332 shot attempts http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/2017FW-2.pdf levitra samples from 2014-15, Irving was roughly 8.4 percent more likely to fall when he missed a layup than when he made one. Kamagra is order levitra online one among them.
Then comes along a middle-class journalist who doesn’t understand the problem. The problem is not, as this article suggests, that rail transit has boosted property values (which it hasn’t, really–see this post to understand what is going on). The problem is that government should have kept out of the development business in the first place.
“A middle-class urban planner sees a working-class neighborhood and says, ‘I wouldn’t want to live there. That neighborhood must be blighted.'”
Strawman much?
FYI, your middle class professional planner is mostly an administrator and doesn’t get to be judge jury and executioner of poor neighborhoods. Where did all of your skill, tact and deft argumentation go? Why are you resorting to tactics you used to deplore?
“The problem is that government should have kept out of the development business in the first place. ”
And if they are going to get into the development business, then all they need do is set up a committee, like an “Innovation Committee.” Then, everything will work out okay. Because, they’ll be innovative.
.
In Portland, the city planners disguise their goals in jargon, so in practice they do end up making decisions for working class neighborhoods. And, many of our smug growth officials do live in nice neighborhoods with driveways where they don’t have to look at ugly apartment buildings. Maybe you have better planners where you live. But here in Portlandia the city planners are constantly telling the working class how to live their lives- to give up their cars, to buy more expensive local produce. To pour salt in the wounds, Portland
development consists of tearing down a blue-collar business, putting in tiny studios, and then crying because we lose jobs to the suburbs.
Planners absolutely set the agenda. To pretend that politicians set all this up and planners have no say in it, is the ultimate cop-out, one that cowardly planners love using. Politicians don’t know, and don’t care about any of these things, even some of the agendas they promote. They do it because some planner tells them it’s a good thing.
Years ago I was sent into the North End in Boston on a planning/mapping mission. I had been rebuffed by my boss when I suggested the historic neighborhood needed more amenities that represent modern life-styles. He said something like: “Just ask the people on the street, they don’t want a big Safeway, they like little shopping at little stores.” I couldn’t let his challenge go. As we worked on our mapping/historical survey we talked with the locals. What did they want? You guessed it, a big Safeway! And a place to park their CAR!!!
When the Supreme Court in Euclid v. Ambler ruled in 1926 that zoning and planning laws were constitutional they acquiesced in the greatest theft of property rights in the history of the human race.
Those were the days when people believed in the goodness of government. We’re pretty much at the end of that, are we not?
Which is why I have long argued that we need term limit laws for public employees much more than for politicos.
metrosucks wrote:
Planners absolutely set the agenda. To pretend that politicians set all this up and planners have no say in it, is the ultimate cop-out, one that cowardly planners love using. Politicians don’t know, and don’t care about any of these things, even some of the agendas they promote. They do it because some planner tells them it’s a good thing.
If the politicians are not setting an agenda for the planners to follow, then the politicians are not doing their jobs.
First off, I’m totally with OFP.
2nd. Mr. O’Toole and Mycommentssuck, let me explain how this process works, because much like the reporter, you don’t understand it. You are correct that planners have guiding principals and are not objective robots, which is not what I’m suggesting. Often neighborhood planning begins at the neighborhood level (“We want a Safeway and parking. We need civic improvements. We don’t like all these vacant lots. How come civic investment goes to the other neighborhood? etc, etc, etc.). These issues,/complaints/desires are brought up at the political level. Then planners are dispatched, with all of their preconceived solutions. Public meeting are held. Public hearings are held. Coordination with developers occurs. Plans are drafted. Plans are approved by the political body. Plans are implemented or sit on the shelf.
People in the affected neighborhood may not get exactly what they wanted (who does?) but they get some sort of “improvement.” And yes, (unlike some planners around here) I admit that this inevitably increases property values, increases property taxes, drives up rent and can lead to/start gentrification, which creates a new set of issues/complaints/desires. The process starts again, often resulting in affordable housing plans/legislation (in places where it’s legal, i.e. not TX).
Now I understand that y’all think this process is ridiculous, unjust and wasteful and that’s a great debate to have, but to state that planners are just driving around lamenting blighted areas and taking it upon themselves to wast public money to stroke their ego is not only a vast oversimplification, it makes you come off as an jerk.
It’s so easy to sling mud on the poverty issue. Believe me, us planners have plenty of ammo on the “let ’em die” tea party/libertarians. But if the point is to improve/change the process and keep government out of the development game, y’all need to change your premise. We can’t really have a conversation when planners are seen as evil government vampires that feed of the blood of poor children.
Fred Z Said: “When the Supreme Court in Euclid v. Ambler ruled in 1926 that zoning and planning laws were constitutional they acquiesced in the greatest theft of property rights in the history of the human race.”
Naw, Kelo is the nasty ruling. Even though most of us have lost faith in the “goodness” of government most people still find comfort in Euclidean zoning, in particular wealthy conservatives in well to do neighborhoods.
“Which is why I have long argued that we need term limit laws for public employees much more than for politicos.”
Now that’s an interesting idea worthy of further debate!
It is all about pensions. Get them off defined benefits and onto 401Ks and nobody will hesitate to fire them when the screw the pooch.
the greatest theft of property rights in the history of the human race.
Overwrought hyperbole aside, when Rich tried to take away private property rights with his Private Property Rights (PPR) movement (nee “takings initiatives“) several years ago, his ballot initiatives were roundly defeated at the polls. Why? Because voters understood that taking away zoning would threaten their private property rights. Only in AZ was it passed, because it didn’t stand alone, it was bundled with a Kelo question.
DS
Bennett,
You may have set out how planning is supposed to happen. Here in Portland, the bureau of city planning (BPS) essentially fabricates data re; what the neighborhoods want. They use every dumb trick (push polls, brainstorming sessions with results that read like they were written on LSD). Bad data is mined to make it look like we want whatever BPS wants us to want.
It’s so easy to sling mud on the poverty issue. Believe me, us planners have plenty of ammo on the “let ‘em die” tea party/libertarians
Really? Because I think you’re distorting. I haven’t read any libertarian propaganda about letting the poor die. What I have read, by Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, and others is that voluntary transactions are preferable to coercion and force and that government programs designed to help the poor often have unintended consequences, some of which perpetuate the cycle of poverty. I’ve also read studies about how government aid to the poor crowds out private charity, which distributes aid more efficiently than government.
Additionally, other governmental policies disproportionately hurt the poor, including monetary policy and the war on drugs.
So please tell me about this ammo against libertarians. (Leave the Tea Party out of it–that movement was hijacked by neocons years ago.)
English,
You make the same comment every time I make a point. Just so you know, the blog is not called the AntiPortlandPlanner. Mr. O’Toole’s strawman stretches across the profession. The post title is “They’ll do it every time,” not “They’ll do it every time in Portland” (though maybe it’s true there). There is no direct cite to Portland in the post (though I’m not a WSJ subscriber so maybe the article is about Portland).
I get it. Portland has a specific stigma and tradition when it comes to planning. Guess what? It’s not the same everywhere else. In fact, Portland is the outlier. Basing a conversation about professional planners by using Portland as “the” example it tantamount to discussing the virtues of transit using NYC as “the” example.
Again, Mr. O’Toole’s strawman is about all planners not just the ones in your most hated city.
Frank,
Most of the self proclaimed libertarians I come in contact with are not as true to the philosophy as you and Mr. O’Toole. So you caught me lumping you all into one cohort. My “let ’em die” reference was from the Tea Party debate where Ron Paul was asked about people with out health coverage “Should we just let them die?” to which the jeers of “Yes!” in the crowd were disturbing. Funny, Sen. Paul’s answer was that communities, and specifically churches, would take COLLECTIVE action to take care of the poor.
But you’re right, and honestly that was my point in my comment. Both sides of the argument have plenty of mud to sling, but slinging mud won’t get us anywhere because then we’re just assholes yelling at each other. What we should be doing is having a thoughtful discussion about the virtues and vices of collectivist or individualist approached to our problems.
But if the conversation is “The government (aka planners) just want to wast money to hurt poor people and then wast more money because they feel guilty about it,” or “Libertarians are selfish people that would rather let a poor sick person die than lend a helping hand,” then why not just title the blog Free Republic or Huffington Post?
I’m not sure I buy the stereotype of planners not living in dense mixed-use areas, or the idea that low-income people are shoved out to make space for higher densities. It seems to me that most city planning goes out of its way to try to avoid impacting low-income people, to the point where it takes a condescending, paternalistic view of them: we must “preserve” low-income housing and not “displace” low-income residents. As if they have no aspirations to increase their income or improve their buildings.
The root of all evil in planning is not any dedication to mixed-uses, density, or whatever. It is the idea that any one person or organization can possibly know how much housing a region needs, how it should be distributed, etc. It is tantamount to the idea that the Politboro knew how many televisions the Soviet Union should produce. It is the same faulty logic that let 1950s planners be convinced they knew that low-income people belonged in towers-in-a-park projects instead of slums – slums that 60 years hence are some of the most expensive real estate around while the projects continue to fail.
Now, having lived in the North End for quite a while, I can say, yea, people wanted a supermarket. (Although really, Safeway?) They want more parking, but they want someone else to pay for it. The main issue is keeping other people from parking in the neighborhood so that residents can park on the street for free for weeks, if not months, at a time. Off street parking is available in the North End, it’ll just set you back a few hundred bucks a month – something that is entirely fair in an area that dense. Or you could park at Government Center for less money but be further away. What people want there is the opposite of a free market.
“… the politicians are not doing their jobs.”
Hoot, hoot, best joke evah!
Anyway, you’re wrong, the politicians always labour hard, 8 days a week, at their real jobs of graft, corruption, power grabbing, yapping, argling and bargling, drinking, driving, influence peddling and texting photos of their Weiners.
Before planning and zoning the wealthy protected themselves easily and effectively with Restrictive Covenants registered against land, setting out privately agreed lot sizes, architectural and building standards, land use and the like.
A major point of the Zoning and Planning laws was to over ride and smash these contracts, freely entered into and binding until the socialists enlisted the state to assist with their thefts. As usual. Those laws were a planned and successful attack on the wealthy.
Bennett,
I love Portland wholeheartedly. Thus my constant ragging on the
dogmatic freaks that plan our city. Glad to know that Portland is not
considered a great role model- we are more of a Ptomekin village.
A major point of the Zoning and Planning laws was to over ride and smash these contracts, freely entered into and binding until the socialists enlisted the state to assist with their thefts. As usual. Those laws were a planned and successful attack on the wealthy.
No.
And no.
DS
Never will understand why being employed by a government makes folks so smart.
My town owns a surplus four acre parcel. Instead of simply saying it is zoned X and selling it to the highest bidder, there is a committee of officials that are going to evaluate proposals and decree a best use winner.
Bennett, a +1 for each of your comments. I enjoy your contributions here.
Question for the Antiplanner:
Do the recent NSA and IRS scandals pretty much doom the idea of GPS mileage tax, because nobody anymore is going to trust the government to maintain privacy?
Sandy,
I don’t think that is the issue. Both scandals are simple confirmations of what has been known for… well forever. People have been audited for political reasons for my entire lifetime and I’m sure well before, and anybody with half a brain knew exactly what the Patriot Act was going to do to privacy.
bennet ,
I get your point. But long ago everybody knew guns could kill people (didn’t they?), but after the Newtown massacre 99% of political pundits were absolutely certain that that one event had so changed the political world that massive gun control was inevitable.
I am not sure that taxation by GPS is impossible, but I have always thought the Antiplanner has seriously underestimated the privacy concerns. I will say that the idea that the government would get hold of every car’s GPS records but somehow keep it private is deader than a door nail now. If taxation by GPS ever occurs, the government will only get very limited data.