Or at least some of it has. Environmentalists are now paying timber companies to stay in business. What?
Apparently, environmental groups have decided that, though they hate clearcutting, they hate urban sprawl even more. So they are willing to subsidize timber companies to keep cutting timber so they don’t want to subdivide their property.
In the 1970s and 1980s, when the Antiplanner was working as a forestry consultant to the Sierra Club and other major environmental groups, environmentalists hated timber companies because they replaced natural, diverse forests with monocultures.
“Timber companies practice selective logging,” the always-quotable Andy Kerr liked to say: “they select a watershed, and then they log it.” Industry forests were not true monocultures like corn fields, but the were a lot less diverse — in both ages of trees and numbers of species — than natural forests.
Now, at least some environmentalists say they would rather have monocultures than subdivisions, so they are buying conservation easements — development rights — from timber land owners. There are so many things wrong with this picture.
First, urban sprawl is entirely a phony problem. The 2000 census revealed that the urban areas — concentrations of 2,500 people or more in population — that house 79 percent of Americans cover just 2.6 percent of the nation. The density of urban areas in states with relatively little land-use regulation seems to converge around 2,000 people per square mile. If regulated states like Oregon and California were to allow their urban resident to live at 2,000 people per square mile, urbanization would cover a total of 3.1 percent of the nation. That’s hardly anything to get excited about.
It is nice to know that now buy viagra online in a person can buy all the medication that they need without having to go online and without all the fuss.Often the session seriously isn’t necessary, considering that the affected person gets taken care of pertaining to one thing they may have got for quite a while. And you have heard it very brand viagra 100mg right. Each sachet of kamagra oral viagra in the usa appalachianmagazine.com jelly is not harmful if you will take it accordingly in appropriate quantity.Kamagra jelly has helped many people to get rid of this problem. This is not a set mechanism but a pfizer viagra australia dynamic one. (You can review a spreadsheet with my summary of 2000 census data, or go to the Census Bureau web site and dig it out for yourself.)
Second, environmental groups are frantic about buying conservation easements from timber companies in places like Oregon, which has so much land-use regulation they shouldn’t even be worried about the non-problem called sprawl. All but about 1.33 percent of Oregon is off limits to urban development (and another couple of percent is “rural residential,” meaning 5 to 10 acre lot sizes). About 97 percent of the state is zoned “rural” meaning 80-acre minimum lot sizes.
Third, which really would be worse for forest diversity? Forests clearcut every forty years and replaced with rows of genetically identical Douglas-fir (or whatever the local species is)? Or forests in 80-acre patches each managed by different people using different strategies? People who owned and lived on their own little patches of wilderness would be more likely to grow trees longer and to focus on wildlife habitat than faceless timber companies.
Ironically, the biggest threat to timber company holdings is not urban sprawl but tax law. In 1986, Congress revised tax law increasing the tax rates timber companies had to pay on the long-term capital gains from growing trees. As a result, most of the largest landowning timber companies, such as Georgia-Pacific and International Paper, have divested themselves of their land.
Today, most of the large timberland owners are “timber investment management organizations” (TIMOs). TIMOs by definition have short-term (20-year) time horizons. Other companies (like Sierra Pacific) are either family owned or, like Plum Creek, have converted themselves to real estate investment trusts (REITs).
The limited resources available for buying easements should be focused on lands that truly need protection, such as endangered species habitat. If environmentalists really want timber companies to keep their land, they would do a lot better to persuade Congress to revise tax laws. This will influence a lot more acres than a few pitiful conservation easements.
So why are groups like the Nature Conservancy and Conservation Fund focusing on easements instead? It would be nice to think that there is something in it for them — that they are skimming off some of the money spent on easements for themselves. Then at least we could ascribe these policies to greed and not mere stupidity.
First, urban sprawl is entirely a phony problem. The 2000 census revealed that the urban areas  concentrations of 2,500 people or more in population  that house 79 percent of Americans cover just 2.6 percent of the nation
I guess murder is entirely a phony problem as well because only a tiny fraction of Americans get murdered, while there are still 300,000,000 or so Americans who haven’t been murdered. Same goes for rape: since only a small fraction of Americans have been raped, rape is entirely a phony problem.
Oh: and why did people make such a big deal about the World Trade Center being destroyed? That was only TWO buildings out of MILLIONS, a mere fraction of one percent! We still have millions of buildings left! Can you say…PHONY PROBLEM?
Second, environmental groups are frantic about buying conservation easements from timber companies in places like Oregon, which has so much land-use regulation they shouldn’t even be worried about the non-problem called sprawl
So: the Antiplanner admits that land-use regulation in Oregon helps to prevent sprawl.
Not to mention the fact that the World Trade Center buildings were ugly. The limited resources available for protecting buildings should be focused on buildings that truly need protecting, such as hospitals and schools.
“I guess murder is entirely a phony problem as well because only a tiny fraction of Americans get murdered, while there are still 300,000,000 or so Americans who haven’t been murdered. Same goes for rape: since only a small fraction of Americans have been raped, rape is entirely a phony problem.”
So D4P equates building on abundantly available land to murder and rape. If there was ever an illogical thought process . . . . Even if I did think that was a heinous crime, I would be embarrassed by that argument.
D4p believes it arguments that have nothing to do with the subject because he has no good argument to defend that over 96% of our country is open space.
Then D4P will tell us it is the wrong kind of Open space and he needs to control the rest of our lives the way he sees it.
D4P loves the appeal to ridicule logical fallacy:
D4P is full of hot air.
The Antiplanner claims that sprawl is a “phony problem” because “urban areas  concentrations of 2,500 people or more in population  that house 79 percent of Americans cover just 2.6 percent of the nation”.
Among the many potential problems with this claim is the fact that it completely ignores the impacts of urban development on the areas that ARE urbanized. In other words, the Antiplanner assigns NO VALUE to lost farmland, filled wetlands, cut trees, animals killed (either directly or from the loss of habitat), etc. etc. etc. that result from urban development. He concludes that if there are still farms, wetlands, trees, and animals left, then it doesn’t matter that we lost any.
According to the Antiplanner’s logic, we shouldn’t care if 1 person gets murdered if there are still 6 billion people left. But our concern for murder/rape victims (and lost farmland/wetlands/trees/animals/etc.) should not depend solely upon how much is left unharmed, should it? Shouldn’t we assign value to what was lost?
D4P still does not get it
Sprawl does not = murder except in his mind
Sprawl does not = murder except in his mind
Embarrassing, but (unfortunately) what I’ve come to expect around here.
Imagine a “Damage” spectrum that starts at zero on the left, and goes all the way out on the right to really damaging activities such as murder and rape. Anything to the right of zero can be labeled a “problem”, in the sense that it causes damage. Now: in some cases, one might argue that the damage was “worth it” in terms of what we gained in the process, but the damage still exists: it is still a “cost”.
I would argue that lost farms/wetlands/trees/animals are on the spectrum to the right of zero. (How far to the right is irrelevant for this discussion).
By labeling lost farms/wetlands/trees/animals a non-problem, the Antiplanner is implicitly arguing that lost farms/wetlands/trees/animals are on the spectrum at zero, where no damage is caused, no costs incurred.
Perhaps he would like to temper his argument by acknowledging that these costs exist, and thus that they constitute a “problem”. If he wants, he can try to convince us that the problem is small, or that it is better than the alternative. But at the very least, he should drop the “phony problem” or “non-problem” terminology.
First of all, I share Randal’s confusion about certain enviro groups’ strategies.
Next, I enjoy the wild swings of argumentation on this site. Surely the swings are because there is a need to stick to the ideological worldview, and not to the situation on the ground.
We often have folks praising Glaeser because he decries certain zoning laws. Why? Because they drive up prices. Next, we have a post that pretends to be horrified at an Oregon town that wishes to eliminate the zoning that Glaeser decries.
Now, we have a post that seeks to ridicule a strategy that seeks to preserve forest land (the preservation likely may effectively lower water rates, as surface water will be cleaner when it gets to the pipe, and lower sewer rates as the peak flows will be spread across a longer time, etc.). Why? Because the apologists here only look at one metric and fail to understand total urban footprint. Folks should read Kahn’s Green Cities or other basic references so they can speak to the issue without looking silly.
DS
Kathleen Calongne Says:
“I guess murder is entirely a phony problem as well because only a tiny fraction of Americans get murdered, while there are still 300,000,000 or so Americans who haven’t been murdered. Same goes for rape: since only a small fraction of Americans have been raped, rape is entirely a phony problem.â€Â
So D4P equates building on abundantly available land to murder and rape. If there was ever an illogical thought process . . . . Even if I did think that was a heinous crime, I would be embarrassed by that argument.
THWM: Kathleen you politicized this, not D4P.
I guess some folks can’t see faulty logic if it clarifies faulty underpinnings in ideological worldviews.
DS
This is a question of relavtive proximity, that is why the word “spawl” is being brought up.
“Each town should have a park, or rather a primitive forest, of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel, a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation. All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst.” Henry David Thoreau
Dan wrote: I guess some folks can’t see faulty logic if it clarifies faulty underpinnings in ideological worldviews.
THWM: Well ROT is guilty of a lot of fear mongering as well though mostly relating to civic investment of rail lines.
# 9 On December 26th, 2008, D4P said:
Sprawl does not = murder except in his mind
Embarrassing, but (unfortunately) what I’ve come to expect around here.
——-
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you compare sprawl to Murder
Yes, there are environmental costs if one cuts down a forest, but if one is cutting down a forest for other productive human use then are also benefits – which may well include environmental benefits.
For example managing the environment requires investments of wealth and other human resources which includes low cost food and clothing. So cutting down a forest to grow food and clothing generates benefits which may well exceed the environmental costs.
The same applies to the care of human beings.
If we clear some forest and build a hydro dam which irrigates surrounding land and generates large amounts of renewable electricity is it not possible that the benefits will exceed the costs – no matter what items one includes in the balance sheet?
craig Says: D4P still does not get it
Sprawl does not = murder except in his mind
Embarrassing, but (unfortunately) what I’ve come to expect around here.
â€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€-
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you compare sprawl to Murder
THWM: For that matter why should any one take any thing serious on this blog?
The Antiplanner = Running gag!
D4P Says: First, urban sprawl is entirely a phony problem. The 2000 census revealed that the urban areas  concentrations of 2,500 people or more in population  that house 79 percent of Americans cover just 2.6 percent of the nation
I guess murder is entirely a phony problem as well because only a tiny fraction of Americans get murdered, while there are still 300,000,000 or so Americans who haven’t been murdered. Same goes for rape: since only a small fraction of Americans have been raped, rape is entirely a phony problem.
Oh: and why did people make such a big deal about the World Trade Center being destroyed? That was only TWO buildings out of MILLIONS, a mere fraction of one percent! We still have millions of buildings left! Can you say…PHONY PROBLEM?
THWM: D4P, trying to respond to some thing absurd, with some thing else absurd, just ends up with a battle of semantics.
Most of what Mr.O’Toole writes is failure by design.
fur realz? This on a blog that preaches free market theory (just to reiterate – theory – that is: the promotion of free markets is moral philosophy and not a rational description of reality; that is, the only Karlockian evidence for a free market in this country is among the bartering unwashed of the neo-hippies and/or appalachian poor [among the latter my father is included, so I have seen the limits of this so called free market]). This on a blog that celebrates the accomplishments of the crafty entrepeneur?
Am I incorrect in having read that capitalism works best when it is motivated by personal interest? That the profit of the producer impels him to create that thing which the consumer will crave most? That it is not the market’s place to judge, but only to serve this interest. And yet, to Randal, the manner in which an environmentalist spends his money is “mere stupidity.”
fur realz?
srsly. I can’t get my head around this. What branch-davidian school of libertarianism are you guys ordering your books from?
So cutting down a forest to grow food and clothing generates benefits which may well exceed the environmental costs.
Only to humans. Not to the ecosystem. Simplifying ecosystems almost never increases resilience.
DS
Dan Says: So cutting down a forest to grow food and clothing generates benefits which may well exceed the environmental costs.
Only to humans. Not to the ecosystem. Simplifying ecosystems almost never increases resilience.
THWM: Though we are part of the system too just as how beavers build dams or how termites build mounds.
I’m not against logging or hunting, but since most of us humans claim to sentient, we should act like it instead of mindless automatons.
I’m pro human rights, but I’m also pro human responsibilites too.
Humans need their spaces just as the rest of nature needs its spaces.
t g Says: fur realz? This on a blog that preaches free market theory (just to reiterate – theory – that is: the promotion of free markets is moral philosophy and not a rational description of reality; that is, the only Karlockian evidence for a free market in this country is among the bartering unwashed of the neo-hippies and/or appalachian poor [among the latter my father is included, so I have seen the limits of this so called free market]). This on a blog that celebrates the accomplishments of the crafty entrepeneur?
Am I incorrect in having read that capitalism works best when it is motivated by personal interest? That the profit of the producer impels him to create that thing which the consumer will crave most? That it is not the market’s place to judge, but only to serve this interest. And yet, to Randal, the manner in which an environmentalist spends his money is “mere stupidity.â€Â
fur realz?
srsly. I can’t get my head around this. What branch-davidian school of libertarianism are you guys ordering your books from?
THWM: Maybe Mr.O’Toole should then call him self “The Antiplanner Planner”?
Am I incorrect in having read that capitalism works best when it is motivated by personal interest?
What a particular ideology believes is that the tenet of patriotic heroic individuals acting in their own self-interest is the best way for society to run. It is a spinoff of an Adam Smith idea for a limited segment of society, writ large to all of society. We see how well that works, and that is upsetting to a small minority.
DS
Humans need their spaces just as the rest of nature needs its spaces.
Right.
History is replete with stories of humans outgrowing their spaces, and their societies collapsing. Mesopotamia. Ur. Maya.
DS
Dan wrote:
Humans need their spaces just as the rest of nature needs its spaces.
Right.
History is replete with stories of humans outgrowing their spaces, and their societies collapsing. Mesopotamia. Ur. Maya.
THWM: Well for that matter just look at the Titanic.
With 2000+ people on a ship with a life boat capacity of 1000 people.
History is replete with stories of humans outgrowing their spaces, and their societies collapsing. Mesopotamia. Ur. Maya.
DS
————
Didn’t many of these failed societies, live a high density lifestyle? And the Mayas may have had a little Spaniard problem.
These societies had lifestyles that required resources. They exploited the resources to such an extent their resilience was low when something happened. Mesopotamia – soil salinization and deforestation. Ur – soil salinization and deforestation. Maya – soil exhaustion and deforestation.
The Maya had no Spanish problem – that was the Aztecs. The Maya had little resilience for drought stressors.
DS
“By labeling lost farms/wetlands/trees/animals a non-problem, the Antiplanner is implicitly arguing that lost farms/wetlands/trees/animals are on the spectrum at zero, where no damage is caused, no costs incurred.” – D4P
You know that is completely untrue. The lack of acknowledgment of the costs does not imply that the claim is zero. It does not, never has and never will.
Or, would you like me to use the same incorrect non-rational “logic”, and claim that you are claiming that farms cause no environmental damage? That same sort of logic would pull that sort of silly claim from your above statement.
“The limited resources available for buying easements should be focused on lands that truly need protection, such as endangered species habitat.” — The Antiplanner
It’s really too bad that some folks get too caught up in pissing matches here. Whatever you feel about all sorts of claims here, this is the sort of statement that deserves some serious discourse. Whatever one believes the exact problems are, doesn’t it make the most sense to address the most pressing ones? After all, what is one more strip mall if it means 10 less acres of corn production compared to losing animal or plant species?
After all, what is one more strip mall if it means 10 less acres of corn production compared to losing animal or plant species?
——
I prefer a strip malls near my neighborhood so don’t have to drive so far. I find them to be very green
craig Says:
After all, what is one more strip mall if it means 10 less acres of corn production compared to losing animal or plant species?
â€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€
I prefer a strip malls near my neighborhood so don’t have to drive so far.
THWM: How ironic, that this relates to proximity.
Craig: I find them to be very green
THWM: Now eliminate the government forced subsidized parking requirements, then allow residental/office space on top of the commercial space & then things will be even “greener”!
I’m with prk in 28. Grab the dial and turn it back counterclockwise a bit.
DS
On December 29th, 2008, Dan said:
I’m with prk in 28. Grab the dial and turn it back counterclockwise a bit.
DS
Portland tried it and empty store fronts sat at The Round (living spaces above) until parking was allowed for shoppers as well as light rail users. Sauntering no doubt has its merits. Its whether sauntering can be force-fed to the masses in numbers that make it profitable to business.
Dan the important thing is to be inclusive not exclusive. Automobiles have their place, just as do trams & suburban trains in the over all transport make up of a city.
No one is saying have tram tracks on every single street, though on arterial roads they are a natural fit.
Portland once had close to 200 miles a tram lines, so even Portland has a lot of repair work to do.