<NYC's PortsThe Oil Drum: LocalNew Mets Stadium>

7 comments on A Letter from Marlena in Bethlehem, PA

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Super G on April 6, 2006 - 9:21am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Almost everyone I know who has lived in the suburbs for a while says things like, "When we first moved here, our community was surrounded by nature, in the middle of nowhere" and then they bemoan the fact that now the wildnerness surrounding them is being hacked down on all sides by new developments.

Why, in their minds, is it OK to be among the first people to settle in unspoiled country, but not OK for the McMansions that sprout up next to them? I find this attitude extremely hypocritical.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on April 6, 2006 - 9:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The other question is: If they were so against the development that came, why didn't they try to stop it or mold it into something more to their liking? Preventing sprawl was within their control and they gave it away to developers. The key line in her letter about the value of her house skyrocketing is the answer.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Yankee on April 6, 2006 - 10:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The question about it being in our control is also an interesting one. Yes, there is a history of people stopping such sprawl. But for all those cases, there are the thousands of Walmarts and strip malls that people now bemoan, but were EITHER too lazy or, more likely, too uninformed to do anything about. By the time these things are built, it's often too late. Sure, the prospect of a WalMart might be publicized, but a plain old strip mall? The ground is being hacked into before you can do anything about it.

So in some sense, prevention may be within our control (in that zoning ordinances could be changed or an individual store could be stopped), but a lot of people might not know that.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on April 6, 2006 - 10:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's another example of how average people are so disconnected from their local governments. Everyone was wrapped up in Kerry v. Bush that they missed the local land use committee meeting to stand up against sprawl. The zoning variance is granted (or not even required) and construction begins. Before you have a chance to react, you're driving 0.1 miles to access it.

But it's unfair to blame any one individual. This was a community failure at all levels. Sprawl fighting at the site by site level can only be partially effective. What's needed is a long term local/state/regional plan of land use that preserves open space and concentrates development near established (not new!) transportation hubs.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Brisztow on April 7, 2006 - 8:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Much of the land used in this development was privately own by one family (instead of a city/township), so how can the public control an individual's rights to sell his land as he sees fit? Perhaps this is more of an educational challenge for the community.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on April 7, 2006 - 9:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The family is completely entitled to sell it to the highest bidder, but they or the new owner is not entitled to do anything they want with the property.

This is where good zoning regulation comes in. The community at some level controls the level of development in the area as well as all the municipal services that these types of development require. Roads need to be connected. Electrical / sewer systems need to be integrated. There may be impacts like flooding to surrounding property owners if the development does not have a good drainage system, etc...

"Freedom", broadly defined, balances the freedom to do whatever you want, with the freedom from negative consequences to others around you.

Surrounding residents to a new development may have to pay higher taxes to build the new roads and maintain all the infrastructure to support it, not to mention the increase in quality of life issues like traffic, noise and loss of open space. But I doubt any of them were notified or asked before the bulldozers came.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.