3/31/04
3/30/04
3/29/04
3/28/04
3/25/04
3/22/04
3/20/04
the great canadian song contest: "A few years ago, the late, great Peter Gzowski of the CBC asked his listeners to nominate the best Canadian songs of all time. He played many of the nominations on his show, and had a sm"
Given the latest round of viruses targetting microsoft products it was time to make the transition to another email client. I happy to report that it was seamless and surprisingly easy. I moved from the latest version of outlook to the Mozilla Thunderbird mail application. Open source, actively developed and of course free.
Nidelven IT - Introduction to Thunderbird, part 1 (installation and configuration) Leave Outlook Express or Outlook 2000 as your default email client until **after** you have imported your email address book and email. Otherwise it won't work.
But you think, what about virus protection, i'd have to pay for that. Nope. I run Norton antivirus due to some nice rebates they provide as a hook in with Quick Tax. However, save yourself that money and get
AVG Free edition.
Moving away from Microsoft products and installing antivirus software cuts your risk substantially from the majority of viruses and trojan horses. If you are on a cable hookup you should have a firewall. Built into Windows XP or there are numerous free ones out there. Email me for suggestions if needed.
Nidelven IT - Introduction to Thunderbird, part 1 (installation and configuration) Leave Outlook Express or Outlook 2000 as your default email client until **after** you have imported your email address book and email. Otherwise it won't work.
But you think, what about virus protection, i'd have to pay for that. Nope. I run Norton antivirus due to some nice rebates they provide as a hook in with Quick Tax. However, save yourself that money and get
AVG Free edition.
Moving away from Microsoft products and installing antivirus software cuts your risk substantially from the majority of viruses and trojan horses. If you are on a cable hookup you should have a firewall. Built into Windows XP or there are numerous free ones out there. Email me for suggestions if needed.
Lisa - this is for you :-)
Awareness and Action: Focus on Urban Sustainability
UBC - JUNE 2004 - ASTU 400P
An Interdisciplinary Field Course on sustainability open to all students in
any faculty in any year!
WHO: Open to all students in all Faculties and Community Members
WHAT: A summer field course focused on urban sustainability, active
transportation and community engagement.
WHEN: Weekdays 9am Noon June 2-25th, 2004
WHERE: Urban classroom at Science WorldŠDaily excursions in Greater
Vancouver.
WHY: Earn 3 Credits and Field Experience. Learn and contribute to a
sustainable future.
How do I sign up? Register at UBC online for ASTU 400: Section P
Come to the Information Meeting in IHPR Library Processing Centre 4th
Floor Thursday March 25 12-1:00pm.
Application Forms will be available at this meeting...ignore other
deadlines. If you are having trouble registering - let us know at the
meeting and we can help you out....
Check out our Website http://www.basinfutures.net/urbancourse
If you have any other specific questions that can't wait until the
information meeting...please email the
Course Instructors:
Rob VanWynsberghe (Institute of Health Promotion Research -IHPR)
rvanwyns@interchange.ubc.ca
Janet Moore (Department of Curriculum Studies) janetmoo@interchange.ubc.ca
Awareness and Action: Focus on Urban Sustainability
UBC - JUNE 2004 - ASTU 400P
An Interdisciplinary Field Course on sustainability open to all students in
any faculty in any year!
WHO: Open to all students in all Faculties and Community Members
WHAT: A summer field course focused on urban sustainability, active
transportation and community engagement.
WHEN: Weekdays 9am Noon June 2-25th, 2004
WHERE: Urban classroom at Science WorldŠDaily excursions in Greater
Vancouver.
WHY: Earn 3 Credits and Field Experience. Learn and contribute to a
sustainable future.
How do I sign up? Register at UBC online for ASTU 400: Section P
Come to the Information Meeting in IHPR Library Processing Centre 4th
Floor Thursday March 25 12-1:00pm.
Application Forms will be available at this meeting...ignore other
deadlines. If you are having trouble registering - let us know at the
meeting and we can help you out....
Check out our Website http://www.basinfutures.net/urbancourse
If you have any other specific questions that can't wait until the
information meeting...please email the
Course Instructors:
Rob VanWynsberghe (Institute of Health Promotion Research -IHPR)
rvanwyns@interchange.ubc.ca
Janet Moore (Department of Curriculum Studies) janetmoo@interchange.ubc.ca
3/16/04
From: Patrick Condon [SMTP:patrick.condon@ubc.ca]
To: Smart Growth BC Livable Communities Listserv
Cc:
Subject: [SGBC]Small is Beautiful at SEFC; A Modest Proposal for Modest Lots
Sent: 16/03/04 8:45 AM
Importance: Normal
Below is a commentary piece for submission to local media. Please
distribute if you so choose.
_______________________________________________
>Small is Beautiful at SEFC ; A Modest Proposal for Modest Lots
>
>Patrick M. Condon. UBC James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable
>Environments
>
>
>
>I just don't get it. The City of Vancouver feels lucky to get one million
>dollars an acre for SEFC waterfront land, but most other land in the city
>is worth many times that.
>
>If my duplex here at 7th and Collingwood were to burn down tomorrow, the
>charred 3,300 sq. foot parcel would sell for about a half million. That is
>about 150 dollars per square foot, or over six million dollars per acre!
>Moreover, that's without a view of anything but the schoolyard across the
>street and the nearest water a ten minute walk away.
>
>OK, sure, the surrounding streets are not counted in that amount, and you
>need roads and such; but even if you include my share of the roads on my
>600 foot by 300 foot block (with city lane) and subtract the value of the
>pavement, pipes, and utility infrastructure necessary to service it, my
>lot still has a value in excess of 4 million per acre.
>
>Now again, call me naive, but I think the land at SEFC is at least as
>valuable as mine. So why doesn't the city simply do it the old-fashioned
>way, just like in the rest of our beautiful city: subdivide the land into
>urban blocks and sell off lots at 150 bucks a square foot?
>
>Using simple math it looks to me like the 50 acres might return, after
>deducting servicing costs, a cool 200 million. Take 30 million off the top
>for soil remediation, set aside 50 million to produce 500 units of
>affordable housing, 20 million for community facilities and sustainable
>infrastructure and, well, you get the idea. There is still 100 million
>left in the pot.
>
>In short, what SEFC needs is a sustainable development strategy based on
>traditional blocks and small lots. I may be in the minority, but my
>favourite part of our redeveloped downtown is the part of Yaletown that
>occupies traditional 300 by 600 foot urban blocks. There high rise towers
>press party walls against low-rise buildings, all on relatively small lots
>ranging from 3,000 to 35,000 sq. feet.
>
>This might seem crazy, but small lot low-rise development can provide just
>as many housing units as large lot high rises can. Under existing
>guidelines, densities in the developed parts of SEFC are not to exceed a
>floor surface ratio (FSR) of 3. That's "planner speak" for a prohibition
>on floor space area such that it cannot exceed site area by more than a
>factor of three. An FSR of three can be met in many ways. It could be met
>by three story buildings covering the whole site, or 5 story buildings
>covering 60% of the site, 20 story buildings covering 15% of the site and
>so forth. High-rise districts are not as dense as you might think. Towers
>must be widely spaced to prevent shading the streets below and the
>buildings beyond. Lower buildings don't have this problem and can thus
>cover more land. That's how low rise buildings can get you as many units
>per acre as high rise.
>
>A small lot, low rise strategy would also allow hundreds of local,
>national, and international architects to participate in the project.
>Hundreds of different examples of sustainable architecture would emerge -
>a showplace for the world and a lasting legacy.
>
>Not just architectural practice would benefit. A small lot strategy would
>allow scores of small developers a chance to participate, rather than the
>two or three out of town developers with access to billions. It would
>allow all of our local financial and credit unions to participate in the
>construction of this once in a lifetime opportunity, rather than the few
>global financial consortiums that finance mega projects. It would even
>allow individuals or groups of citizens a chance to buy their own lot,
>hire their own architect, and work with their own developer in bringing to
>life their dream home or co-housing project. In short, it would keep the
>money local, and draw on the talent pool and resources of British
>Columbians. This is sustainable economics for a sustainable South East
>False Creek.
>
>The city could take some of the apparently ample financial resources
>generated by the project and apply them to installing sustainable
>infrastructure systems on the site: community gardens, green sanitary and
>storm water systems, renewable and shared energy utilities, car sharing
>co-ops, streetcars, and neighbourhood recycling centers. Would this not
>give substance to our claim that SEFC will be North Americas most advanced
>sustainable community? And if we don't do those things (and they are very
>much at risk) how can we make such a claim.
>
>And what better way is there to develop an Olympic village than for it to
>truly BE a village, comprised of the built expressions of hundreds of
>individual aspirations. One suspects that the alternative approach, where
>one developer builds a single project on a large parcel will be as much
>real village as Disney's Frontier Land is a real western town.
>
>The city could market test this idea at almost no risk. The Olympic
>Village area will most certainly be low-rise buildings and will be built
>first. Certainly, the City could subdivide two or three 5 acre blocks now
>to test this idea. What has the city to lose? It has sustainability and
>150 million dollars to gain!
>
>But the experts say otherwise. They say that 1 million is the most you can
>get and that the only building you can profitably sell in Vancouver is a
>high rise. They say that only tall buildings and big projects are
>marketable: "This is the market in Vancouver! That is what people want!"
>
>They say that, even though here I sit, on a demonstrably less attractive
>parcel of land, worth four times more than they are offering. I just do
>not get it.
Patrick M. Condon
UBC James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments
2357 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC Canada
V6T 1Z4
www.sustainable-communities.agsci.ubc.ca
3/13/04
FBI adds to wiretap wish list | CNET News.com
WorkEmail writes "A far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy wiretapping by police. The FBI's request to the Federal Communications Commission aims to give police ready access to any form of Internet-based communications. If approved as drafted, the proposal could dramatically expand the scope of the agency's wiretap powers, raise costs for cable broadband companies and complicate Internet product development."
WorkEmail writes "A far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy wiretapping by police. The FBI's request to the Federal Communications Commission aims to give police ready access to any form of Internet-based communications. If approved as drafted, the proposal could dramatically expand the scope of the agency's wiretap powers, raise costs for cable broadband companies and complicate Internet product development."
3/12/04
ESPN.com - NHL - McSorley empathizes with Bertuzzi's plight: "What I believe Todd is thinking is 'what has happened here?'," McSorley told the Province. "He's confused. He's a tough guy who stands up for his teammates and he's now in disbelief as to what's actually happened. Everything goes so fast. And then everything piles on. I couldn't believe how everything blew up, how it grew and had a life of it's own.
"I'm 100 percent sure Todd had zero intention of doing what has actually happened. He wanted to fight the guy, have him turn and face him so he could beat him up like every other hockey fight. When I was going through this, I was amazed how much people refused to listen to hockey people. There were people like [Bobby] Orr and [Gordie] Howe and [Barry] Melrose saying it was an accident but people didn't listen. They didn't want to. There was so much sensationalism. It's a media frenzy."
Anybody see a problem here?
"I'm 100 percent sure Todd had zero intention of doing what has actually happened. He wanted to fight the guy, have him turn and face him so he could beat him up like every other hockey fight. When I was going through this, I was amazed how much people refused to listen to hockey people. There were people like [Bobby] Orr and [Gordie] Howe and [Barry] Melrose saying it was an accident but people didn't listen. They didn't want to. There was so much sensationalism. It's a media frenzy."
Anybody see a problem here?
3/11/04
You know you're living in 2004 when...
1. You accidentally enter your password on the microwave.
2. You haven't played solitaire with real cards in years.
3. You have a list of 15 phone numbers to reach your family of 3.
4. You e-mail the person who works at the desk next to you.
5. Your reason for not staying in touch with friends is that they don't have e-mail addresses.
6. When you go home after a long day at work you still answer the phone in a business manner.
7. When you make phone calls from home, you accidentally dial "9" to get an outside line.
8. You've sat at the same desk for four years and worked for three different companies.
10. You learn about your redundancy on the 11 o'clock news.
11. Your boss doesn't have the ability to do your job.
12. Contractors outnumber permanent staff and are more likely to get long-service awards.
AND..............
13. You read this entire list, and kept nodding and smiling.
14. As you read this list, you think about forwarding it to your "friends."
15. You got this email from a friend that never talks to you anymore, except to send you jokes from the net.
16. You are too busy to notice there was no #9
17. You actually scrolled back up to check that there wasn't a #9
AND NOW U R LAUGHING at yourself.
1. You accidentally enter your password on the microwave.
2. You haven't played solitaire with real cards in years.
3. You have a list of 15 phone numbers to reach your family of 3.
4. You e-mail the person who works at the desk next to you.
5. Your reason for not staying in touch with friends is that they don't have e-mail addresses.
6. When you go home after a long day at work you still answer the phone in a business manner.
7. When you make phone calls from home, you accidentally dial "9" to get an outside line.
8. You've sat at the same desk for four years and worked for three different companies.
10. You learn about your redundancy on the 11 o'clock news.
11. Your boss doesn't have the ability to do your job.
12. Contractors outnumber permanent staff and are more likely to get long-service awards.
AND..............
13. You read this entire list, and kept nodding and smiling.
14. As you read this list, you think about forwarding it to your "friends."
15. You got this email from a friend that never talks to you anymore, except to send you jokes from the net.
16. You are too busy to notice there was no #9
17. You actually scrolled back up to check that there wasn't a #9
AND NOW U R LAUGHING at yourself.
3/9/04
3/7/04
3/3/04
Time Savers For Bloggers
Good tips for writing generally. I'd absorb them is I wasn't busy drinking from the firehose of information that comes over my internet connection. :-)
Good tips for writing generally. I'd absorb them is I wasn't busy drinking from the firehose of information that comes over my internet connection. :-)
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,62396,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
For my Ipod toting friends
Bull, a lecturer in media and culture at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom, is the author of Sounding out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of Everyday Life, a book Bull calls the "definitive treatment" of the impact of the Sony Walkman and its descendants. Now Bull has turned his attention to Apple's iPod.
For my Ipod toting friends
Bull, a lecturer in media and culture at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom, is the author of Sounding out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of Everyday Life, a book Bull calls the "definitive treatment" of the impact of the Sony Walkman and its descendants. Now Bull has turned his attention to Apple's iPod.
Everybody wants protection from unbridled growth,but so few are willing to adopt the necessary principles
Seeds to grow
Everybody wants protection from unbridled growth,but so few are willing to
adopt the necessary principles
By Tim Davis
for Headwaters News (www.headwaters.org)
I spend a lot of time asking people in Montana – Republicans and Democrats,
businesswomen and builders, waiters and environmentalists – what they want
their slice of the West to look like in 20 years.
They almost always talk about open space and clean water, vibrant towns and
lack of traffic, and the like. People never say they want more strip malls.
They don't say they hope Montana in 2020 will look like California or
Colorado today. They don't ask for subdivisions to carpet our valleys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
We haven't learned how to mesh the legitimately competing desires (and
fears) of enough Montanans to make smart growth happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
And yet that is just what we are getting. Why, if so few of us want this,
are we building it anyway? Why aren't we embracing smart growth?
Partly, this is because smart growth is hard for people to grasp, even if
they know it when they see it: It's those older, walkable, and marketable
neighborhoods with tree-lined streets, front porches, and affordable homes
that are a short hop from thriving downtowns with hardware stores, coffee
shops, offices, and lots of people mingling and interacting.
The other side of smart growth is the open spaces and working farms and
ranches just outside town, and those undisturbed floodplains, ridge lines,
and streamsides. In other words, smart growth is exactly what most people
say they want and come to the West for.
But the wasteful sprawling development that we have seen so much of in the
past 15 years isn't due only to a lack of understanding of smart growth and
the tools necessary to make it a reality. Another problem is that we have
skewed our state and local infrastructure investments and development permit
systems in a way that actively promotes and subsidizes sprawling
development.
One reason is that we haven't learned how to mesh the legitimately competing
desires (and fears) of enough Montanans to make smart growth happen.
To create the future most Montanans and Westerners want, we need to know how
different people in what remains of the undeveloped West see growth. The
following are admittedly gross generalizations, but they're also broadly
true.
The rancher: He's concerned the regulations needed to implement smart growth
will limit his ability to sell his land for development in the future. But
he also resents the encroachment of subdivisions that threaten his operation
and the rural life he loves.
The city dweller: She enjoys being close to her kids' schools, to the store,
and to work, so she doesn't have to spend all her precious free time as a
taxi driver. But she also worries about how the new apartment building
proposed down the street will impact her property values.
The home builder: He works on a thin profit margin from house to house. The
more expensive the house, the higher the profit. So he's glad to build
McMansions outside town. He recognizes sprawl makes the town less
attractive, traffic has gotten worse, and his hunting grounds have been
fragmented by ranchettes. But he figures that is the price of progress.
The new rural resident: She loves the quiet of her few acres. But she
worries about new subdivisions proposed nearby, and about growing traffic,
worsening roads, and the threat of new septic systems to her drinking
water -- as well as the added taxes needed to fix such problems.
The conservationist: He supports smart growth because it will protect
wildlife habitat, river corridors, water quality, and open space. But he
often forgets we need to ensure that all Montanans can find an attractive
and affordable home in town.
The low-income mom: Single mothers or low-income families worry most about
paying the bills. Their need for affordable rent forces them to live in a
poorly built and unattractive home, often on the edge of town, which means
they drive a lot. The cost of maintaining the car isn't cheap, and the
constant driving is a hassle.
The Realtor: He appreciates the open lands and small-town life that make
living and buying a home in Montana so attractive. But he doesn't want to
support the measures that protect those amenities and property values over
the long term because he fears they'll limit his short-term income.
There is some validity in all of these hopes and fears. The trick is how to
address enough of them so that a majority of us see smart growth as in our
best interest. Let me address the concerns of each of these people one at a
time.
The rancher:
Most farmers and ranchers already know that one of the only ways to ensure
an adequate land base of working lands is zoning. But many don't know that
you can zone working lands to protect them and either allow small parts of
those lands to be developed or to sell their development rights.
What if counties helped farmers and ranchers by halting development from
eating up most of the best lands while also helping them develop small
portions of farm and ranch (mostly the less productive lands) to be used for
cluster development?
Put another way, if you've got 200 acres of farmland, you could put 20
houses on 10-acre lots and be forced to quit farming while ensuring that the
land will never be used for farming again, or you could put 20 or more
houses on 10 acres and still farm most of the remaining 190 acres.
When designed correctly, these types of developments will make the farmers
and ranchers more money than simply selling or developing all their land
because people are willing to pay a premium for the open space that is the
remaining farmland. It's win-win.
The city dweller:
For smart growth to work, most people need to live in town. But people in
cities sometimes get nervous when, say, apartments go up down the street.
There are two ways to address such fears.
One is to explain how bringing more people to town protects city dwellers.
This is because when people move out of town, in-town schools shut down,
in-town traffic gets worse, open space is lost, and vibrant downtowns
deteriorate as strip malls rise.
Second, we need to show that new development can protect urbanites' property
values. Cities can do this by working with neighborhoods to pass design
standards that ensure that new development looks like the older parts of
town that people cherish.
The home builder:
Cities can do a hundred things to make building in town attractive but most
cities in Montana haven't done everything they can.
We need to make our zoning and building codes simple and predictable, and we
need to level the playing field by making sure that everyone builds to the
same standards, whether you are inside the city boundary or just outside.
Cities and counties need to work together to help with the cost of providing
city services including streets, sewer and water for affordable homes inside
and immediately adjacent to our cities.
We also need to streamline the permit process for building smart growth so
that it takes less time and costs less to build. And cities must convince
the Legislature to direct funding away from building bigger roads that are a
gigantic subsidy to sprawl and instead address the existing transportation
needs of our towns.
The new rural resident:
Most people in the country want to keep their area lightly developed --
that's why they moved there. Some people call this a "pull up the
drawbridge" or "I've got mine" mentality. Perhaps it is.
But it's also an important source of support for smart growth. We need to
show rural residents how they can protect the lifestyle that they moved
there for, either by working with their county commission to adopt zoning or
by creating their own, citizen-initiated zoning district. Without zoning,
rural residents have no say in how their areas will grow.
The conservationist:
Conservationists need to continue to work with fishermen, hunters and
average Montanans to explain the threat that out-of-control sprawl poses to
fish, wildlife, family farming and ranching, and the quality of our drinking
water, while actively helping cities and counties implement plans to
accommodate growth as efficiently, attractively and affordably as possible
into our existing cities and towns.
The low-income family:
We urgently need to convince cities and counties to identify areas inside
and immediately adjacent to existing cities where small lots will be
encouraged.
Small lots do not mean "low-income ghettos." Rather, mixing small-lot
developments with a variety of housing types creates areas just like the
historic neighborhoods in and around our downtowns.
These neighborhoods have big and small houses, apartments and townhouses,
all mixed together -- and all on modest, town-sized lots. When we build this
way, attractive homes that sell for $70,000 can sit next to attractive homes
that sell for $170,000, and taxes can be less because streets, sewers and
water lines are all shorter.
To achieve this, cities need to give all the incentives and streamlining
that I mentioned for the builders, above.
The Realtor:
The arguments for Realtors are mostly the same as for the builders. We need
to show them smart growth is not no-growth, that there's a lot of money to
be made, and that in the long term, we'll protect the things that make
Montana real estate so desirable (and profitable).
These marketable amenities will become ever more important as more and more
places in the West refuse to make smart growth a reality and we take the
steps necessary to make it a reality here.
Obviously, this will take a lot of education and organizing. A farsighted
governor and Legislature will have to redirect growth subsidies. Wise county
commissioners and city councilors will have to reform local zoning and
building regulations.
It's a tall order, but by not doing it we guarantee the Californication of
our part of the West. Do we have any other choice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Tim Davis is the executive director of the Montana Smart Growth Coalition.
Seeds to grow
Everybody wants protection from unbridled growth,but so few are willing to
adopt the necessary principles
By Tim Davis
for Headwaters News (www.headwaters.org)
I spend a lot of time asking people in Montana – Republicans and Democrats,
businesswomen and builders, waiters and environmentalists – what they want
their slice of the West to look like in 20 years.
They almost always talk about open space and clean water, vibrant towns and
lack of traffic, and the like. People never say they want more strip malls.
They don't say they hope Montana in 2020 will look like California or
Colorado today. They don't ask for subdivisions to carpet our valleys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
We haven't learned how to mesh the legitimately competing desires (and
fears) of enough Montanans to make smart growth happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
And yet that is just what we are getting. Why, if so few of us want this,
are we building it anyway? Why aren't we embracing smart growth?
Partly, this is because smart growth is hard for people to grasp, even if
they know it when they see it: It's those older, walkable, and marketable
neighborhoods with tree-lined streets, front porches, and affordable homes
that are a short hop from thriving downtowns with hardware stores, coffee
shops, offices, and lots of people mingling and interacting.
The other side of smart growth is the open spaces and working farms and
ranches just outside town, and those undisturbed floodplains, ridge lines,
and streamsides. In other words, smart growth is exactly what most people
say they want and come to the West for.
But the wasteful sprawling development that we have seen so much of in the
past 15 years isn't due only to a lack of understanding of smart growth and
the tools necessary to make it a reality. Another problem is that we have
skewed our state and local infrastructure investments and development permit
systems in a way that actively promotes and subsidizes sprawling
development.
One reason is that we haven't learned how to mesh the legitimately competing
desires (and fears) of enough Montanans to make smart growth happen.
To create the future most Montanans and Westerners want, we need to know how
different people in what remains of the undeveloped West see growth. The
following are admittedly gross generalizations, but they're also broadly
true.
The rancher: He's concerned the regulations needed to implement smart growth
will limit his ability to sell his land for development in the future. But
he also resents the encroachment of subdivisions that threaten his operation
and the rural life he loves.
The city dweller: She enjoys being close to her kids' schools, to the store,
and to work, so she doesn't have to spend all her precious free time as a
taxi driver. But she also worries about how the new apartment building
proposed down the street will impact her property values.
The home builder: He works on a thin profit margin from house to house. The
more expensive the house, the higher the profit. So he's glad to build
McMansions outside town. He recognizes sprawl makes the town less
attractive, traffic has gotten worse, and his hunting grounds have been
fragmented by ranchettes. But he figures that is the price of progress.
The new rural resident: She loves the quiet of her few acres. But she
worries about new subdivisions proposed nearby, and about growing traffic,
worsening roads, and the threat of new septic systems to her drinking
water -- as well as the added taxes needed to fix such problems.
The conservationist: He supports smart growth because it will protect
wildlife habitat, river corridors, water quality, and open space. But he
often forgets we need to ensure that all Montanans can find an attractive
and affordable home in town.
The low-income mom: Single mothers or low-income families worry most about
paying the bills. Their need for affordable rent forces them to live in a
poorly built and unattractive home, often on the edge of town, which means
they drive a lot. The cost of maintaining the car isn't cheap, and the
constant driving is a hassle.
The Realtor: He appreciates the open lands and small-town life that make
living and buying a home in Montana so attractive. But he doesn't want to
support the measures that protect those amenities and property values over
the long term because he fears they'll limit his short-term income.
There is some validity in all of these hopes and fears. The trick is how to
address enough of them so that a majority of us see smart growth as in our
best interest. Let me address the concerns of each of these people one at a
time.
The rancher:
Most farmers and ranchers already know that one of the only ways to ensure
an adequate land base of working lands is zoning. But many don't know that
you can zone working lands to protect them and either allow small parts of
those lands to be developed or to sell their development rights.
What if counties helped farmers and ranchers by halting development from
eating up most of the best lands while also helping them develop small
portions of farm and ranch (mostly the less productive lands) to be used for
cluster development?
Put another way, if you've got 200 acres of farmland, you could put 20
houses on 10-acre lots and be forced to quit farming while ensuring that the
land will never be used for farming again, or you could put 20 or more
houses on 10 acres and still farm most of the remaining 190 acres.
When designed correctly, these types of developments will make the farmers
and ranchers more money than simply selling or developing all their land
because people are willing to pay a premium for the open space that is the
remaining farmland. It's win-win.
The city dweller:
For smart growth to work, most people need to live in town. But people in
cities sometimes get nervous when, say, apartments go up down the street.
There are two ways to address such fears.
One is to explain how bringing more people to town protects city dwellers.
This is because when people move out of town, in-town schools shut down,
in-town traffic gets worse, open space is lost, and vibrant downtowns
deteriorate as strip malls rise.
Second, we need to show that new development can protect urbanites' property
values. Cities can do this by working with neighborhoods to pass design
standards that ensure that new development looks like the older parts of
town that people cherish.
The home builder:
Cities can do a hundred things to make building in town attractive but most
cities in Montana haven't done everything they can.
We need to make our zoning and building codes simple and predictable, and we
need to level the playing field by making sure that everyone builds to the
same standards, whether you are inside the city boundary or just outside.
Cities and counties need to work together to help with the cost of providing
city services including streets, sewer and water for affordable homes inside
and immediately adjacent to our cities.
We also need to streamline the permit process for building smart growth so
that it takes less time and costs less to build. And cities must convince
the Legislature to direct funding away from building bigger roads that are a
gigantic subsidy to sprawl and instead address the existing transportation
needs of our towns.
The new rural resident:
Most people in the country want to keep their area lightly developed --
that's why they moved there. Some people call this a "pull up the
drawbridge" or "I've got mine" mentality. Perhaps it is.
But it's also an important source of support for smart growth. We need to
show rural residents how they can protect the lifestyle that they moved
there for, either by working with their county commission to adopt zoning or
by creating their own, citizen-initiated zoning district. Without zoning,
rural residents have no say in how their areas will grow.
The conservationist:
Conservationists need to continue to work with fishermen, hunters and
average Montanans to explain the threat that out-of-control sprawl poses to
fish, wildlife, family farming and ranching, and the quality of our drinking
water, while actively helping cities and counties implement plans to
accommodate growth as efficiently, attractively and affordably as possible
into our existing cities and towns.
The low-income family:
We urgently need to convince cities and counties to identify areas inside
and immediately adjacent to existing cities where small lots will be
encouraged.
Small lots do not mean "low-income ghettos." Rather, mixing small-lot
developments with a variety of housing types creates areas just like the
historic neighborhoods in and around our downtowns.
These neighborhoods have big and small houses, apartments and townhouses,
all mixed together -- and all on modest, town-sized lots. When we build this
way, attractive homes that sell for $70,000 can sit next to attractive homes
that sell for $170,000, and taxes can be less because streets, sewers and
water lines are all shorter.
To achieve this, cities need to give all the incentives and streamlining
that I mentioned for the builders, above.
The Realtor:
The arguments for Realtors are mostly the same as for the builders. We need
to show them smart growth is not no-growth, that there's a lot of money to
be made, and that in the long term, we'll protect the things that make
Montana real estate so desirable (and profitable).
These marketable amenities will become ever more important as more and more
places in the West refuse to make smart growth a reality and we take the
steps necessary to make it a reality here.
Obviously, this will take a lot of education and organizing. A farsighted
governor and Legislature will have to redirect growth subsidies. Wise county
commissioners and city councilors will have to reform local zoning and
building regulations.
It's a tall order, but by not doing it we guarantee the Californication of
our part of the West. Do we have any other choice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Tim Davis is the executive director of the Montana Smart Growth Coalition.
3/2/04
Mars Exploration Rover Mission: Press Releases: "Scientists have concluded the part of Mars that NASA's Opportunity rover is exploring was soaking wet in the past.Evidence the rover found in a rock outcrop led scientists to the conclusion. Clues from the rocks' composition, such as the presence of sulfates, and the rocks' physical appearance, such as niches where crystals grew, helped make the case for a watery history.
"Liquid water once flowed through these rocks. It changed their texture, and it changed their chemistry," said Dr. Steve Squyres of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., principal investigator for the science instruments on Opportunity and its twin, Spirit. "We've been able to read the tell-tale clues the water left behind, giving us confidence in that conclusion."
"Liquid water once flowed through these rocks. It changed their texture, and it changed their chemistry," said Dr. Steve Squyres of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., principal investigator for the science instruments on Opportunity and its twin, Spirit. "We've been able to read the tell-tale clues the water left behind, giving us confidence in that conclusion."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
