Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Edward Wesolowski <ids AT idisplay.com>]

>Only recently have local governments become concerned with the effects of 
such developments on existing  infrastructure and >the accompanying costs 
to the community. The burden  of improving roads, building schools and such 
generally falls upon the >taxpayers, not the developer.
I've got to agree on this one. I remember a conversation with a 
friend/contractor who worked in the SE Pennsylvania area with a national 
development company. He said how, even when there were infrastructure or 
zoning and legal concerns, how local, small, governments were outgunned by 
the national organization arriving in area, buying open spaces, securing 
permits, building and selling houses.
Ed Wesolowski



At 01:58 PM 1/8/03 -0500, you wrote:
> > Hasn't anyone noticed that sprawl was a direct result of the
> > zoning ordinances and top-down control?  I hear people blaming the
> > developers and calling them money-grabbers.  While that may be somewhat
> > true, don't forget it was the local politicians who restricted the kinds
> > of  development that could take place to begin with.
>
> I have to disagree with you there.  The sprawl we see in the Triangle
> occurs precisely because of the absence of any regional land-use
> planning and free rein given to developers.  The developers just find
> the cheapest land they can and put in as many houses per acre as they
> can get away with.  Only recently have local governments become
> concerned with the effects of such developments on existing
> infrastructure and the accompanying costs to the community.  The burden
> of improving roads, building schools and such generally falls upon the
> taxpayers, not the developer.
>
> [snipping a number of other inflammatory and ill-informed comments
> that i'll just have to let go for now]
>
> > As far as "light rail" the other anointed savior of all things utopian,
> > one  need only watch the old Simpson's "Monorail" episode to see what a
> > crock  that idea is.  Very few light rail systems ever turn a profit,
> > they are a  perpetual drag on nearly every community that commandeered
> > all that private  property in order to install them.
>
> Tell me, exactly how much of a profit did the recently-expanded I-40
> provide to the state?  At least with public transportation the users
> are offsetting part of the cost in proportion to the extent they use it.
> Don't bother mentioning the gasoline tax.  That only covers a fraction
> of the cost we taxpayers bear to lay down ever more concrete and asphalt
> across the state.
>
> I do have to agree that Meadowmont is an elitist imitation of New
> Urbanism.  That development doesn't even pretend to provide housing
> affordable to any but the wealthy.  I am glad, however, that the Town
> of Chapel Hill delayed that project for years until the developers
> agreed to bear part of the expense of the transportation, road and
> infrastructure costs, and give land for the school.  I shudder to
> think of what it would look like without those minimal concessions.
> The development will expand the population of Chapel Hill by nearly
> one third.  That is why land use regulation and oversight is an
> important function of local government.
>
> TaB
>
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web 
> site!  http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers