« New Urbanism: Do Cul-De-Sacs Kill or Create Communities? | Main | Did Pitt and CMU "Save" Pittsburgh? »


sean mcdaniel

so government interference is okay if it's stopping suburban sprawl? what about the free market method of shaking things out? or am i missing a point here...that is if you're making one at all.

seriously, if suburban sprawl is what the people want (it's not for me, trust me), why should government stop it?

Sam M


This is one of those, "I link, you decide" sort of posts. That is, it's not endorsement. Rather, it's simply a heads up for anyone interested in such things. And there appear to be a few of them around here.

By the way, land use is one of those issues that very often divides libertarians. (As you can see from the link, it very often divides conservatives and liberals as well.) Complicated stuff, pitting local government versus state government, rural versus urban, conservation versus development. Oy.

sean mcdaniel

point taken. my brother has lived in at least two of those subdivisions, which used to be acres of heavily wooded land. i think it's a shame that the woods are gone. unless DC is willing to go extremely vertical (as some of its suburbs have), the alternatives are few.

John Morris

"Kaine said his administration will be looking for more opportunities to gauge the effects of local land-use decisions, such as the study he ordered on the traffic impact of building about 30,000 homes west of Dulles International Airport in Loudoun County."

"What we're trying to say is that there ought to be some sort of idea of what the impact is going to be," Howell said. "People like to talk about unfunded mandates. But the biggest unfunded mandate that's going on in Virginia right now is the unfunded mandate that localities are imposing on the state."

"Kaine wants local elected officials to face up to the effects of development on state roads -- for which the state is responsible for paying. He said he wants developers held accountable for the infrastructure the new homes demand. And he wants the public to know more about the local decisions that sometimes create traffic and sprawl."

Well, I think that he's hit the nail on the head here. Localities are in effect placing an unfunded mandate on the state taxpayer, who is likely going to have to pay for the roads. These decisions are made incrementally by localities and then when the traffic strain hits everone acts shocked and demands a big state highway expansion.

If the developers had to pay any decent chunk of these costs, different business plans would emerge.

sean mcdaniel

as for the taxpayers footing the bill for the new roads, someone picked up the check for the superhighway that led to their cul de sacs.

maybe someone should check on the prices of those homes. could it be that the wrong type of people could be moving in?

it's always okay for the first wave of sprawlers. but when the next tsunami hits, the people who first helped turned cornfields into subdivisions acts as they their daddies owned plantations on that land since 1820 (sans slaves, of course)

The comments to this entry are closed.