Comments on: Urban[ism] Legend: Density is Bad for the Environment

By: Dealing With NIMBYs | Market Urbanism

Dealing With NIMBYs | Market Urbanism — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:48:45 +0000

[...] NIMBYism is the biggest obstacle to the evolution of vibrant urban communities, but the incentives for some to use public forums to impose restrictions on neighboring properties are great. Local politicians often bow to the most vocal residents, often with minority opinions, to avoid making waves, but their impositions are at the expense of the overall community (and the environment). [...]

By: Market Urbanism

Market Urbanism — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:56:31 +0000

Unfortuntately the limousine liberal NIMBYs of Boston fight-to-the-death any attempts at allowing higher densities. I found many Bostonians to be such hypocrites in that regard…

By: MarketUrbanism

MarketUrbanism — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:56:00 +0000

Unfortuntately the limousine liberal NIMBYs of Boston fight-to-the-death any attempts at allowing higher densities. I found many Bostonians to be such hypocrites in that regard…

By: Adam Pieniazek

Adam Pieniazek — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:22:53 +0000

Yeah, if we took the City of Boston and moved everyone into one massive building we could use the rest of the land for farming and public parks so I definitely see how density is a good thing, when done right.

By: Adam Pieniazek

Adam Pieniazek — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:22:00 +0000

By: Conservatives and Urbanism | Market Urbanism

Conservatives and Urbanism | Market Urbanism — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:04:59 +0000

[...] Talk on Gasoline on drilling and how conservative deviation from free-market principles has hurt the environment: Meanwhile, take something like the accessory dwellings issue. Here you have a bunch of regulations [...]

By: Bill Nelson

Bill Nelson — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:00:29 +0000

Here’s an analogous issue that might clarify things: Smoking in restaurants.

It’s banned in NY, but still allowed in other states (to say nothing of other countries) — and it is something that I detest. So, should I hope for a system (capitalism) that would permit restaurant owners to ban smoking? Yes. In fact, that is exactly what is done in many states. Has capitalism “worked” to eliminate smoking in restaurants — or at least to provide a choice smoking or no-smoking? Somewhat in the USA. And not at all in many other countries.

Personally, I accept this, and exercise my option to avoid restaurants where people smoke — or at least make my visits very brief.

Actually, I tend to avoid restaurants altogether because the food quality is usually pretty lousy. Now, I could be “progressive” and “advocate” for food preparation to meet my personal standards (at govt-enforced prices), or I could eat at home when I can. I accept the latter.

Very often, mass tastes don’t coincide with what an influential (“progressive”) minority wants — and that’s why this minority makes others pay for their public television/radio, their museums, their “free” public parks, etc. For them, capitalism has failed because it hasn’t delivered exactly what they want. They do not tolerate the free choices of others.

So, I would also hope for an outcome of varying densities in cities — but if it didn’t happen, then I too would (reluctantly) accept it. But I would still probably fish for a way to blame govt regulations. Just my bias, there…

By: Bill Nelson

Bill Nelson — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:00:00 +0000

Here’s an analogous issue that might clarify things: Smoking in restaurants.

Personally, I accept this, and exercise my option to avoid restaurants where people smoke — or at least make my visits very brief.