Meat67

One of the most dangerous things you can do is do what people ?gwant?h. The problem is how you frame the question. If you ask people, ?gDo you want the government to give your hard earned tax dollars to lazy, good for nothing bums??h most people will say no. If you ask those same people, ?gDo you want the government to help the less fortunate??h many of those same people will say, Of course. This same thing can be seen in how the questions about development and zoning are framed. ?gDo you want to live in a large, inexpensive house with lots of privacy and a big yard??h Vs. ?gDo you want to live some place you can?ft really afford because of a super hot housing market brought on by ridiculously low interest rates, even when it means traveling by everywhere by car, thereby contributing massively to global warming as well as to the trade deficit that could, if oil starts to be traded in Euros instead of US dollars, cause the whole economy to collapse??h Aside from taking a long time to figure out the massive run-on-sentence question, most people will say yes to the first and no to the second even if, most of the time you can be talking about the same place. I don?ft have tons of time to fully go into it right now, but like anything else, zoning can be good and bad. A good city council that listens to the needs of all the citizens of the city will make good zoning decisions that will lead to a nice urban environment. A bad city council, in the pocket of developers will make decisions good for the developers and bad for citizens . That being said, I would rather take my chances with a bad city council that I can vote or not vote for than I would with developers not having any restriction what ever. I could go on about an informed electorate and city council meeting attendance (I?fve been to a few) but I?fve gotta go pretty soon. I like to think I?fm pretty informed and I ask myself the right questions, which is why two and a half years ago when I got a new job I moved. I now live a 5 minute bike ride from work (there is nothing like setting your alarm clock wrong, waking up at 7:54, not 6:54, and still getting to work before the 8:05 morning meeting. Phew.) and 30-50 minutes by train from various parts of downtown <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Tokyo, the biggest city in the world. I?fd write more, but I have to go.

One of the main things missing from GFB?fs original post was the discussion of zoning. If you want higher densities you must zone for higher densities. If you don?ft zone any low density areas there aren?ft going to be any low density areas. As many N. American cities are learning, lower densities mean higher prices for services. i.e. police, water, road maintenance, etc. If there are fewer low density areas in a city they will become more expensive because of the zoning and this will create the demand for higher density living. Why would this be a good thing if everyone wants to live in lower density areas? Well, there is only so much money in a municipal budget. If the same amount of money is spent serving the 20,000 people in a high density area as is spent serving 3,500 people in the low density then obviously the low density area people are getting a better deal which is totally unfair. Those extra dollars could be used for other things, like free health clinics, more parks, better mass transit, more teachers and after school programs to name a few. There are also many hidden costs (i.e. non-monetary) associated with low density development. These include, but are not limited to increased pollution, lack of community, habitat destruction, etc. I would totally have to disagree with SilentRob about ?gThe Market?h being the proper arbiter for zoning. ?gThe Market?h means money and therefore those with more of it get a bigger say then those with less, which is no way to run a democracy.