Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since when are Republicans/conservatives concerned about environmental sustainability? It is in their platform to oppose public transit, mixed-use development, environmental protection, and dense infill. That's not to say that the Democratic Party is much better on these issues, but they're far more inclined to pursue "smart growth" than Republicans.
I have concern over these issues. Some of it was a time and place issue. Living in Arizona during the 2000s housing boom and seeing that environment being destroyed was heartbreaking for me. As a result of seeing what I saw in AZ, I have believed in smarter growth issues.
It's not entirely true that conservatives are unconcerned with environmental sustainability. There are conservatives who are into hunting and fishing wish to see land conservation so that future generations can enjoy hunting and fishing.
i did not know conservatives like dirty air to breath and dirty air for their kids, or polluted water to drink or have their kids play and bath in it. i did know that conservatives want their parents eating dog food either. i was mistaken i thought conservatives lived and work in portable bubbles.
this myth and lie that conservatives want dirty air and water is crap and if you had just a little bit of grey matter between your ears you would know that.
It puzzles me to read people's comments that California is only exporting liberals to places like Texas. On sites like CD, I read many comments from conservatives who have moved from CA to TX, especially far north Dallas. Some even say that they want to live in a community in which everyone thinks just like them (e.g., Hillary-haters and so forth).
I have plenty of friends and family who are conservative, even though I am not. I would find it creepy to live in a place in which everyone had to think exactly alike.
On a related tangent ... does anyone think that conservative Californians tend to move to suburban Dallas and the liberal ones move to Austin? It seems like a big overgeneralization, but I'm curious as to what people here think.
Why do sone people think that pouring more and more people into an area and uncontrolled growth somehow means improvement? These are often the same people that think that moving into an area and making it over in their own image is somehow a good thing and that they are making it "better" and "improving" regardless of what those who were there before them think, or people who move to the country and then complain because there are animals there that make noise and smell and farmers who go to work way too early and disturb their sleep and the "lawns" (pastures) aren't mowed like they are in the country and some of the roads and driveways aren't paved, yada yada yada. All pretty much the same kind of "thinking".
this myth and lie that conservatives want dirty air and water is crap and if you had just a little bit of grey matter between your ears you would know that.
They've simply off-shored that to other countries filled with mostly poor and brown people, although there's definitely many in the Republican Party that would like to have more of that here. This current administration is one of the least environmentally friendly admins we've had in some time. The TX GOP at the state level is incredibly hostile and authoritarian when it comes to local municipalities deciding for themselves that they don't want fracking in their communities. So much for local control . The Republican Party doesn't embrace solutions, even market-based ones, that would improve environmental sustainability and conservation. Their voting record is crystal clear. Younger conservatives are exceptional in that they're far more likely to support environmental protection than older conservatives. I'm assuming you're the latter.
That's not to say that Dems are much better. They're more vocal than Repubs and tend to push more for environmental protection, but they don't always "practice what they preach." I know countless "pro-environment" Dems that love their cheap oil, convenient parking spots, and McMansions.
Why do sone people think that pouring more and more people into an area and uncontrolled growth somehow means improvement? These are often the same people that think that moving into an area and making it over in their own image is somehow a good thing and that they are making it "better" and "improving" regardless of what those who were there before them think, or people who move to the country and then complain because there are animals there that make noise and smell and farmers who go to work way too early and disturb their sleep and the "lawns" (pastures) aren't mowed like they are in the country and some of the roads and driveways aren't paved, yada yada yada. All pretty much the same kind of "thinking".
It depends how that growth is managed. I'm not an advocate of the type of growth found in mega suburban areas of DFW such as Plano & Frisco. But places like Uptown Dallas or the growth you're seeing in DT Austin is much more sustainable and tends to follow the principles of "smart growth."
As far as improving, I'm only speaking for the city of Dallas. Who wants to go back to a completely DEAD Downtown? Or a dead Deep Ellum? How about a time when there was no park connecting Uptown to Downtown, but instead only bridges overlooking a busy highway? The 70s, 80s, & 90s were a period of decline for the city, especially Downtown. It was the natives of that era that hollowed out Downtown Dallas and disinvested in the city. Pre-1960 and post-2010 were far better in Dallas than the 50 years in-between. So yes, transplants can in fact improve a place. They would certainly improve Detroit, wouldn't you agree?
It depends how that growth is managed. I'm not an advocate of the type of growth found in mega suburban areas of DFW such as Plano & Frisco.
Frisco should have never been built. Going from a town of 6,000 in 1990 to 180,000 today is irresponsible growth. Responsible growth would have put Frisco around maybe 40-50,000 today.
Part of Frisco's growth would not have happened if other states did a better job retaining their residents.
Why do sone people think that pouring more and more people into an area and uncontrolled growth somehow means improvement? These are often the same people that think that moving into an area and making it over in their own image is somehow a good thing and that they are making it "better" and "improving" regardless of what those who were there before them think, or people who move to the country and then complain because there are animals there that make noise and smell and farmers who go to work way too early and disturb their sleep and the "lawns" (pastures) aren't mowed like they are in the country and some of the roads and driveways aren't paved, yada yada yada. All pretty much the same kind of "thinking".
Ah yes, the you must hate agriculture argument, I know that well from my days growing up. Anyway.
1) The growth is far from uncontrolled. Various suburbs have year by year build-out plans. DFW, Austin and Houston's suburbs (though of course not Houston itself) have linear zoning and lots of it. In fact, its the subdivision, strip mall, subdivision, office park, stip mall pattern that people dislike. Suburbs are usually very planned out and very deliberate. They don't just throw down a shopping center in a field as it may seem like they do when it's the building phase, it's all quite deliberate.
If you hate suburbs you don't hate "Unrestricted growth" they are very, very restricted and very planned.
2) Physically you can grow or you don't. If you refuse to physically grow and you have a growing economy you get some version of San Francisco. Housing shoots to the moon and the locals get shafted. If you don't really grow and you have a stagnate economy you get a Buffalo- A fantastic place to live if you are a professional in one of the limited number of high paying professional jobs you can and can take advantage of the low COL thats great, but alot of people get left behind.
With a few limited examples like SF where they have blocked all new development, in most cases the issue with gentrification isn't that some neighborhoods cost more money, it's that some residents don't have the skills to get better paying jobs, the increase in rent just highlights what is already and issue, it isn't in most cases creating a new issue.
Or you can be like one of the places that is growing, and that will involve greenfield development and gentrification. Dallas to use and example hasn't just grown out. Uptown and downtown have added tens of thousands of residents. I don't love Frisco or the other generic burbs, but i'll take that over being San Francisco or Cleveland. The actual city of Dallas has been massively improved by all the growth: It's safer, more walk-able, more livable in general. Parking lots are finally being filled with buildings.
3) I know of isolated examples of people moving in next to a dairy or something and complaining about the smell, but by and large, that isn't the case with the growth up here.
Plenty of Farmers have benefited from selling their land for housing. My mom's side of the family I'm sure would sell the family farm that we have had for generations if it were anywhere near a growing city because
a) the money would be life changing
b) it's almost impossible for a family farm to make any money these days.
Of course they would be sad, I mean I would be too, but things have changed as has Ag in general.
Also, I've literally never heard anyone complain that someone else's driveway isn't paved. I feel like your point is just a bunch of random stereotypes about "City People"
I've been on both side of this, I don't really have urban roots or anything.
Transplants have massively improved the Texas cities they have moved to. If some locals are being left behind, that is an issue, but certainly not our fault, most of us came from places with less opportunity and wealth to tap into the Texas opportunity.
It depends how that growth is managed. I'm not an advocate of the type of growth found in mega suburban areas of DFW such as Plano & Frisco. But places like Uptown Dallas or the growth you're seeing in DT Austin is much more sustainable and tends to follow the principles of "smart growth."
As far as improving, I'm only speaking for the city of Dallas. Who wants to go back to a completely DEAD Downtown? Or a dead Deep Ellum? How about a time when there was no park connecting Uptown to Downtown, but instead only bridges overlooking a busy highway? The 70s, 80s, & 90s were a period of decline for the city, especially Downtown. It was the natives of that era that hollowed out Downtown Dallas and disinvested in the city. Pre-1960 and post-2010 were far better in Dallas than the 50 years in-between. So yes, transplants can in fact improve a place. They would certainly improve Detroit, wouldn't you agree?
Managing growth is always dangerous. What most people would call "Managing growth" in their neighborhood is really just NIMBYism. Wealthy neighborhoods force growth into lower income neighborhoods because they have the political power to stop growth in their neighborhood.
Rather than put a cap on how many people Frisco or Plano add, it would have been much wiser to not subsidize sprawl. Our entire system is set up to subsidize and encourage subdivisions of McMansions and our zoning codes mandate it.
I honestly doubt if on a local level you could even fix that, so many of the issues are national.
It would go along way if cities allowed more traditional "middle housing" to be built and didn't mandate shopping centers and subdivisions. Not asking for subsidies for silly "Urban Lifestyle" developments, just allowing things to develop naturally.
People would fight back though. Most people would find out that they can't afford a house as big as they have if they didn't get all the subsidies. They would rather ignore the infrastructure ponzi scheme of growth for infrastructure than admit that probably, their taxes don't actually cover the roads they drive on. Most people won't swallow the red pill and admit that you can't both want housing to be a great investment where the values go up and be affordable at the same time.
Anyway, I don't think the solution is to "Cap" Frisco or any of the other burbs. Luckly with all the Growth, the City of Dallas itself (and the inner ring suburbs of Richardson, Addison, Irving) have all benefited from the massive growth.
Whoopy doo. We don't give a rat's honey what CA thinks. The opposite is true too, so in the end, it all balances out.
Life is too short to be bothered with others think. Grow up and get a life. Think for yourself and live your own life. Ignore what others are doing and thinking.
No approaches regionally need to be spit on - or defended - here. Be thankful for variety.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The Republican Party doesn't embrace solutions, even market-based ones, that would improve environmental sustainability and conservation. Their voting record is crystal clear. Younger conservatives are exceptional in that they're far more likely to support environmental protection than older conservatives. I'm assuming you're the latter. 
