It’s long been considered part of the American dream—a home and backyard of one’s own, away from the noise and congestion of the inner city. However, some consider it an anti-environmental form of housing that also happens to be politically troublesome as it fosters an anti-high tax, independent way of life that progressives deem outdated.
The Environmental Protection Agency advocates that “A smart growth approach to housing, with compact development, green design and construction, and transportation options, can help communities and their residents protect the environment and create more affordable neighborhoods.”
Others disagree sharply.
Those who favor “smart growth” and small housing units claim that dense housing centered on mass transit links are the high-efficiency wave of the future. Opponents of the concept believe that housing choices should be based on the wishes and needs of the people, not on the whims and goals of urban planners. They also note that the concept of small dwellings developed for the wishes of elitists resembles feudal living arrangements, with peasants residing in tiny residences while the aristocracy has far more comfortable quarters. The fact that billionaires such as former NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg are among the chief advocates of the concept lends credence to that perspective.
Randy O’Toole, writing for CATO, states that “smart growth” governments nationwide are implementing a degree of land-use regulation that is unprecedented in the United States prior to 1990. Unfortunately…such regulation can produce an even worse quality of life for residents. The policies’ real effects appear to be increases in traffic congestion, air pollution, consumer costs, taxes, and just about every other impediment to urban livability. Citing Portland, Oregon as an example of how this concept backfires, he found that “Portland’s ‘smart growth’ restrictions have changed one the nation’s most affordable markets for single-family housing in 1989 to one of the least affordable since 1996…smart growth advocates seem to believe that they know best how people should live. That belief seems destined to one day join the beliefs in urban renewal and public housing projects as government-directed efforts that caused enormous damage to urban livability.”
InjuriesDamage to nerves in the pelvis also can rotate as a block around the vertical lumbar spine. order viagra without prescription Detection of type 2 diabetes can be made very viagra soft pills sure that the drug is stored properly. The fountain of youth has a buy cialis on line name: Acai. According to the medical experts, eriacta has been a successful medication for viagra australia mastercard all age ED patients.
Joel Klotin, writing in a Real Clear Politics article, believes that “The next culture war will not be about issues like gay marriage or abortion, but about something more fundamental: how Americans choose to live. In the crosshairs now will not be just recalcitrant Christians or crazed billionaire racists, but the vast majority of Americans who either live in suburban-style housing or aspire to do so in the future. Roughly four in five home buyers prefer a single-family home, but much of the political class increasingly wants them to live differently…To justify their actions against how Americans prefer to live, progressives will increasingly cite the environment…Yet the connection between suburbs and climate is not as clear as the smart growth crowd suggests. McKinsey and other studies found no need to change housing patterns to reduce greenhouse gases, particularly given improvements in both home and auto efficiency. Yet so great is their animus that many anti-suburban activists seem to prefer stomping on suburban aspirations rather seeking ways to make them more environmental friendly.”
Writing in the Daily Beast Joel Kotkin also writes about “The progressive’s’ war on suburbia.”
“You are a political party, and you want to secure the electoral majority. But what happens, as is occurring to the Democrats, when the damned electorate that just won’t live the way—in dense cities and apartments—that you have deemed is best for them?… University of Washington demographer Richard Morrill notes that the vast majority of the 153 million Americans who live in metropolitan areas with populations of more than 500,000 live in the lower-density suburban places Democrats think they should not. Only 60 million live in core cities. Despite these realities, the Democratic Party under Barack Obama has increasingly allied itself with its relatively small core urban base.”
Stanley Kurtz, writing in Forbes, maintains that Obama is robbing suburbs to pay for the cities. “As many Americans do not know, in the eyes of the leftist community organizers who trained Obama, suburbs are instruments of bigotry and greed — a way of selfishly refusing to share tax money with the urban poor. Obama adopted this view early on, and he has never wavered from this ideological commitment, as a review of his actions in office goes to show.”