Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (150777)	9/3/2002 10:42:10 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1586088

In addition to not having the best layout, that site doesn't have the best arguments. They make a few reasonable arguments, for example showing the subsidies that go into our current development pattern, but even these don't rise to the level of showing the ideas that they want to attack are myths. There are also subsidies for denser development and mass transportation and everything they advocate. The government sticks its nose in all over, but the desire for suburban houses and the buying of them while regulated and somewhat subsidized still is a largely free market activity, if your going to consider almost anything in America free market. They show that people care about quality of life, and then they use that to "show" that people are upset about sprawl, while in many cases the quality people want is a house with their own land and a good road infrastructure in the suburbs. Myth: Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Single Reason Why House Purchase Prices Soar Is largely a straw man. I wouldn't say it is the single reason but it is an important reason. Its a major factor in making houses unaffordable for many people. Myth: Land Loss Threat Overblown Not a myth, simple fact. And sprawlwatch.org does nothing to show otherwise. Myth: Controls on Development Trample Individual Property Rights Another fact. Your link avoids the issue while pretending to refute it. There only direct argument against it is calling it ironic. Really that isn't even an argument. Then they talk about declineing property values when few people face declineing property values and in any case values for things go both up and down in free markets as the stock markets have shown the past couple of years. Myth: "Smart Growth" is the Newest Rationale for Government Growth Another fact, not a myth. They call it "a "Bottom-Up" Movement", but its still government growth even if it was democratically supported. They would have been more honest and probably effective to just accept the idea that it is government growth and then argue for government growth but then they couldn't call the idea they oppose a myth. Tim PS I responded to your links arguments, do you care to respond to the links in my post?