Comments on: What He Said

By: Yes Virginia, Density Causes Sprawl—Lorax Edition | hugeasscity

Yes Virginia, Density Causes Sprawl—Lorax Edition | hugeasscity — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:33 +0000

[...] all the wonderous myths of the density NIMBYs, surely “density causes sprawl” is king. Long ago Yogi Berra, of all people, nailed the [...]

By: A Criminally Unfair, One-Sided, Amateur Blog-Style Q&A With (Or Without) David Miller | hugeasscity

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:15:12 +0000

[...] council candidate David Miller left lengthy comments in response to my supposition that he is a density NIMBY. His responses left me jonesin’ for further clarification, and so I am posting my questions [...]

By: Front Page News | hugeasscity

Front Page News | hugeasscity — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:41:29 +0000

[...] of his nearby $875,000 single-family home. These sentiments perfectly capture the key drivers of anti-density NIMBYism: bigotry against people who don’t own a single-family house; the obsessive [...]

By: jkpete

jkpete — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:20:38 +0000

Regarding “upzoning”… all efforts should be made to redevelop underused urban land (stripmalls, parkinglots, brownfields, etc…) before increasing density on already dense enough urban neighborhoods. It seems to me that there is plenty of underused land upon which new super dense development will have much less impact on existing residential areas. “Upzoning” an existing and already functional residential neighborhood will always be controversial. So why not avoid the conflict and work in areas where redevelopment can be truly appreciated and showcased?

It’s kind of like the whole argument around increasing logging on public lands….If the loggers and land managers would just stay out of old growth and roadless areas (where they will always meet intense opposition) they could increase logging in already cut over forests….and at the same time demonstrate their ability to manage a forest for more than just short term cash.

By: wes

wes — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:06:03 +0000

There are superior planners of society? Who are they? I want to meet them! I wonder how they stack up against the superior single family dwellers, or the superior 30-minute drive commuters flying through my cubicle laden inner Dense City streets because they need to get back to their superior single family dwelling family in their superior single family zone.

By: Dan Staley

Dan Staley — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:45:19 +0000

John of TemplatedSimplisticRhetoric:

The BigBro patriot planners want to eliminate single-use zoning. This will help you to behold then that The Almighty Market will allow the John Galts of the world to build cubicles of infinite creative size and height for heroic Americans to create works of lasting importance to display the brilliant light of freedom.

By: John of Humdinger

John of Humdinger — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:24:54 +0000

Why must this issue be reduced to another class war… the single family dwellers versus the superior planners of society?
If Big Brother must save mankind by stacking the sheeple in cubicles, can’t the land for Dense City be found in any other zone besides single family?

By: wes

wes — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:08:01 +0000

I was hoping the Honda dealership on Boren and Olive would’ve gotten a pink slip with the recent dealership booting in the center city (BMW, mercedes). That one annoys the heck out of me, always parking its cars on the sidewalks, as if that red acura needs to be 10 feet closer to the roadway so that people flying down Boren can see it…they aren’t going to see it either way, no sense in robbing Capital Hillites’ of our walking space.

By: Hassan

Hassan — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:02:59 +0000

Matt, I agree they’re placeholders, and the city should pass laws to prevent speculation of this kind, you shouldn’t be able to have eyesores of this type in the city.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:06:03 +0000

I hadn’t really followed Oregon’s measure37 (link for others like me), or Gregoire’s policy. But I don’t quite get the connection between a tax on new structures on greenfields and taking away land. I say just incrementally increase tax on new greenfield structures – especially since we don’t have M37 in WA. At first it’s more a bueracratic hoop than a tax (having to report exactly where and what you’re building), but after a generation or so it could be a real disincentive.

And for Oregon, just loophole M37. Increase all real estate taxes, and provide a refund for those that don’t build on greenfield sites. :-P