U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon > Eugene area
 [Register]
Eugene area Eugene - Springfield metro area
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2009, 03:17 AM
 
Location: Southwest Washington
2,317 posts, read 7,191,453 times
Reputation: 1727

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve97415 View Post
No. Nobody who truly understands Oregon's land-use policies would believe that that would be a likely result. There's no plausible cause and effect relationship between the two. Some of the more right-wing Libertarian types try to make that argument, but it's based on a string of unfounded assumptions.

Remember, government deregulation of private enterprise to answer cries for a "freer market" is what brought this recession on in the first place. The "lost construction" is simply the result of the real estate bubble bursting. The bubble was created in the first place by deregulation of the lending industry. There are now far more homes than there are people who are looking for homes to buy. Since current supply far outweighs demand, there is little motivation for new construction. That's entirely a consequence of free-market dynamics.

And if I may also add on my own that even "smarter" growth could have helped prevent this too. Bend grew too fast and not "smartly" enough and its economy became based around that growth. Then the bubble burst and since it was growing so fast it became the hardest hit when all the construction jobs vanished. You can't just grow and grow and depend on that growth. A much more stable economy is needed like what they have in the Plains and New England.

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." And look what happened to Bend... Its economy died from cancerous growth.

Luckily Eugene wasn't growing as quickly and haphazardly as Bend was and wasn't as dependent on the construction industry and thus wasn't quite as badly affected by the housing bust.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2009, 03:31 AM
 
857 posts, read 1,512,836 times
Reputation: 186
Default Paul Krugman, Wendell Cox, and Other Liberals Are Against Smart Growth

[quote=Steve97415;9984236]No. Nobody who truly understands Oregon's land-use policies would believe that that would be a likely result. There's no plausible cause and effect relationship between the two. Some of the more right-wing Libertarian types try to make that argument, but it's based on a string of unfounded assumptions.

Hi Steve thanks for your response.
There is a cause and effect relationship between:
1) the amount of Foreclosures in a given area,
and: 2) Smart Growth.

Read articles by Liberal Economists such as Wendell Cox and Paul Krugman:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1906.cfm

Do an internet search for "smart growth" and the economists' names and you'll find plenty of Liberals who are opposed to smart growth.

Wendell Cox even says that he's a liberal:

Institut HAYEK - An interview of Wendell Cox: "smart growth policies are the main cause of subprime crisis !" (http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1738&Ite mid=54 - broken link)


I'm not sure why my fellow Liberals in liberal places such as Flagstaff, Boulder, and Eugene, are for smart growth and impact fees, since they INCREASE home prices, rents, and food costs on the working people.

You also wrote:


"Remember, government deregulation of private enterprise to answer cries for a "freer market" is what brought this recession on in the first place. The "lost construction" is simply the result of the real estate bubble bursting. The bubble was created in the first place by deregulation of the lending industry. There are now far more homes than there are people who are looking for homes to buy. Since current supply far outweighs demand, there is little motivation for new construction. That's entirely a consequence of free-market dynamics."

That's only PART of the cause of the foreclosures. It can't be the entire cause, because there was no housing bubble in places w/o smart growth such as Texas and Oklahoma, where you can still buy a home on acreage for under $200,000!

In fact, the Texas Governor just VETOED Office of the Governor Rick Perry - Veto Statements Gov. Perry Vetoes SB 2169 the legislature's plans to establish smart growth.
That's a LIBERAL move, since economic liberalism involves personal freedom to do whatever you want to with your own property, just as social liberalism involves no restrictions on individual choices.

There will be no recovery of the current recession until Construction comes back. This will require cancelling Smart Growth and Impact Fees, and having cities fund sidewalks and bike trails with other forms of taxes, that don't force the local mom and pop construction companies out of business. I would be more than happy to Pay an Entrance Fee to the bike trail network in this city, since only perhaps 10% of the population even uses it in the first place.

Down in Flagstaff, Arizona (Eugene's twin city in Arizona), there are MANY small contractors that have to pay huge impact fees. Many contractors and/or their family members are out of work because of Arizona's Smart Growth and Impact Fees. There have been 100,000 lost construction jobs in Arizona.

It CAN be done differently. Look at Chicago, where you can walk 60 miles north to south on old sidewalks. Decades ago, this was NOT created by Impact Fees or Smart Growth policies dictated by some sort of national or state Growth Management Act -- all of which are recent phenomenon.

Unfortunately, GENUINE liberals that are pro-middle class, pro-manufacturing, and pro-construction are VERY hard to find, such as Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.


In fact, in Arizona, I would vote Republican, since the sales tax, impact fees, and utility bills are going up in many areas, as are the home values and rents due to smart growth. I have no idea why the Democrats don't seem to care abou the blue-collar working people in Arizona.

Last edited by CCCVDUR; 07-29-2009 at 03:41 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 03:39 AM
 
857 posts, read 1,512,836 times
Reputation: 186
Default Pay 50 Cent Entrance Fee to Bike Trail Network

Quote:
Originally Posted by backdrifter View Post
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." And look what happened to Bend... Its economy died from cancerous growth.

If Bend grew too fast and died, then why didn't this happen in Dallas, Texas?

Why is there
not a high rate of foreclosures in Dallas, Texas, which has been sprawling for decades, with no smart growth controls?

I think the simple answer to ALL of this is if you don't like big cities (like me) then don't live in them - go to smaller places like Bend, Bozemann, Bellingham, Boulder, Boulder City (NV), Corvallis, Durango, Eugene, Flagstaff, Prescott, Santa Fe (NM), Sedona, South Lake Tahoe, to name just a few exceptionally nice places. Or, even medium sized markets such as Albuquerque, Reno, Palm Springs/Cochella Valley, etc. I like all of these places.

So that the Construction Workers can keep their jobs, I would be more than happy to pay a 50 cent entrance fee every time I enter the bike trail network of my city. And, I think that if most bicyclists were presented with the same undisputable evidence from Paul Krugmann and Wendell Cox, that they would do likewise
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 11:56 AM
 
1,313 posts, read 6,024,379 times
Reputation: 1993
Should homes be built merely to keep construction workers busy even if there are no prospective buyers for such homes? Many people seem to think so, but that is precisely what causes things to fall apart. Housing markets NEED to be fairly tight. When you get a lot of extra inventory on the market, values plummet and foreclosures increase. It is simply a reality of our current population trajectory that fewer homes are going to be needed in the 21st century. We've been in a house-building bubble for the past 20 years, but it's not sustainable, and we shouldn't attempt to artificially sustain it.

High impact fees and system development costs have nothing to do with smart growth policies. They are a consequence of tax resistance from the political right. If people will not support public infrastructure with taxes or bond measures, then the only way to fund them is as an exaction on developers. Of course, whatever capital outlay developers put down is a pass-through to the end home buyer. So it is actually the banks who are doing the long-term financing of new roads and sidewalks and amortizing their costs into the mortgages of new homes.

By state law, Oregon requires every city to maintain a 20-year supply of buildable land in their local inventory. Few cities in states without land-use planning policies have anywhere near that much. Far from squeezing the market, it guarantees space for future expansion. Many jurisdictions in Oregon have more buildable land than they have water to supply it.

Charging fees for bicyclists makes no sense because cycling serves the broad public interest. Motor vehicle use does not. Every cyclist on a bike lane that you pass in your car represents one less car ahead of you at the next stop light. So EVERYBODY -- even lazy people in their cars -- benefits from having bicycle and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure because it reduces the total traffic pressure on the roadway. Reducing dependency on motor vehicle use is a primary goal of any well-considered transportation planning system.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2009, 06:29 PM
 
2,573 posts, read 5,003,198 times
Reputation: 6426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lane View Post
If Bend grew too fast and died, then why didn't this happen in Dallas, Texas?

Why is there not a high rate of foreclosures in Dallas, Texas, which has been sprawling for decades, with no smart growth controls?
I don't think Bend to Dallas is a fair comparison. Dallas is a large city with a diversified economy, so dips in one sector can be compensated for growth in another. Bend is a small city with an economy that has been based lately on tourism, retirees relocating there, and the associated construction. Its only manufacturing base, Cessna, is no longer building planes there because the economic downturn has lessened the demand for private aircraft. People are working longer due to the economic downturn, so the flood of retirees has slowed. There is a years-long inventory of unsold homes in some price ranges, so building more would do nothing except drive the prices down even further.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 01:08 AM
 
6,061 posts, read 13,801,588 times
Reputation: 7097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lane View Post

So that the Construction Workers can keep their jobs, I would be more than happy to pay a 50 cent entrance fee every time I enter the bike trail network of my city. And, I think that if most bicyclists were presented with the same undisputable evidence from Paul Krugmann and Wendell Cox, that they would do likewise
I think that's a cool idea, and I'd do it, too, but wouldn't it be hard to enforce? Seems like it would discourage people from using those paths... they would just find alternate paths.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 02:22 AM
 
857 posts, read 1,512,836 times
Reputation: 186
Default Smart Growth, Foreclosures, Traffic Congestion, And Bikes

[quote=Steve97415;10002645] " Should homes be built merely to keep construction workers busy even if there are no prospective buyers for such homes? Many people seem to think so, but that is precisely what causes things to fall apart. Housing markets NEED to be fairly tight. When you get a lot of extra inventory on the market, values plummet and foreclosures increase. It is simply a reality of our current population trajectory that fewer homes are going to be needed in the 21st century. We've been in a house-building bubble for the past 20 years, but it's not sustainable, and we shouldn't attempt to artificially sustain it."

What happened is that smart growth decreased supply, while demand remained the same, or increased in some areas. As a result, prices went way up in smart growth areas, resulting in the housing crisis. In contrast, prices remained the same in places like Dallas -- that never had smart growth in the first place.


Steve wrote: " High impact fees and system development costs have nothing to do with smart growth policies. They are a consequence of tax resistance from the political right. If people will not support public infrastructure with taxes or bond measures, then the only way to fund them is as an exaction on developers. "

High impact fees are frequently associated with smart growth, such as in Arizona.

As for tax resistance, I'm a liberal, and am anti-tax on construction...since I'm also pro-blue collar construction and pro-US manufacturing jobs ... unlike most liberals who are for outsourcing (such as Clinton / Obama).


" By state law, Oregon requires every city to maintain a 20-year supply of buildable land in their local inventory. "

As a liberal, I think it's inappropriate and somewhat socialistic for a state (such as Arizona or Oregon) to dictate policies for each and every city. The Texas governor just vetoed the Texas legislature's smart growth bill for this reason. I think individual cities spread dozens of miles apart should have the right to decide how to manage their own growth.


" Charging fees for bicyclists makes no sense because cycling serves the broad public interest. Motor vehicle use does not. "

You are making a subjective judgment about human behavior; many will disagree. Therefore, this statement alone won't convince the skeptics that we need more sidewalks and bike trails. However, we can still convince the skeptics (see below):

" Every cyclist on a bike lane that you pass in your car represents one less car ahead of you at the next stop light. "

You seem to be implying that bikes are better than cars, again that is a subjective judgment, and people who challenge us won't be convinced. However, you also continue:


" So EVERYBODY -- even lazy people in their cars -- benefits from having bicycle and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure because it reduces the total traffic pressure on the roadway. Reducing dependency on motor vehicle use is a primary goal of any well-considered transportation planning system. "

Absolutely! Reducing dependency on automobiles is an honorable goal, but one must provide *specific* reasons why, or else, the status quo will not see reasons for providing sidewalks and bike lanes. To complete your thesis, which I COMPLETELY agree with, you and I would of course both agree that many of the negative factors associated with automobile use include:

1. increased air pollution;
2. release of greenhouse gases that MIGHT be contributing to climate change;
3. importing oil from countries that don't like us;
4. increased rates of heart disease and other conditions from a lack of cardiovascular activity
;
5. car repair costs;
6. emotional instability associated with driving cars in traffic congestion, such as migraines, seizures, anger, road rage, all of which may culminate in arriving home late from work, auto accidents, and fatalities


Finally, talking to my pro-smart growth friend in Seattle today, we actually agreed on something:
Smart Growth and Infilling in places ONLY works (and creates a pleasant downtown environment WITHOUT NOISE AND POLLUTION) ONLY if NOBODY owns a car!

Last edited by CCCVDUR; 07-31-2009 at 02:31 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 02:29 AM
 
857 posts, read 1,512,836 times
Reputation: 186
Default Alternate Funding For Bike Trails

Quote:
Originally Posted by haggardhouseelf View Post
I think that's a cool idea, and I'd do it, too, but wouldn't it be hard to enforce? Seems like it would discourage people from using those paths... they would just find alternate paths.

That's a good point. I'm 1000% for more bike lanes, bike trails, and sidewalks, and trying to figure out a better way to fund them besides Impact Fees and other taxes that tax the working class.

As an economic liberal, it is a violation of my principles to watch anyone in the construction or nursery business become unemployed ... because of smart growth and impact fees ...

Another idea is to have City sponsored work parties to build bike trails.

Or, lease the bike trail corridors to developers for maintenance, with a requirement to expand the system within a given period of time, or lose the lease.


Any thoughts? Other ideas? Let's solve this problem, maybe we need a CCC type program of building bike trails to get us off foreign oil, and back to work!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 02:45 AM
 
Location: Eugene, OR
231 posts, read 731,985 times
Reputation: 223
Would be great if you guys would setup an ongoing "smart growth debate" thread instead of repeating these arguments in every thread. We got the point now. Tom Lane is anti smart growth, and everyone else is for it.

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting topic, but it needs its own thread.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2009, 12:19 PM
 
6,061 posts, read 13,801,588 times
Reputation: 7097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Eugenified View Post
Would be great if you guys would setup an ongoing "smart growth debate" thread instead of repeating these arguments in every thread. We got the point now. Tom Lane is anti smart growth, and everyone else is for it.

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting topic, but it needs its own thread.
Good idea!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon > Eugene area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top