this issue is something which we started to discuss a while back, and i
kinda dropped out for a bit because my life had become real complicated
all of a sudden. however, it is something i did wanted to continue
discussing.
for those who don't know, my training was in architecture, and if i can
take on my profession a bit, there tends to be a heavy undercurrent in
the profession which seems to feel that architects can save the world
through "good design."
i tend to be a bit more pragmatic then that, but i do feel strongly that solid
design principles can mitigate a variety of issues. in other words, what,
and how, we build can affect our lives to the good. for that reason, i
have the very same concerns with the
"develop-at-all-costs-without-regard-to-issues-other-then-economics"
camp as i do with the "NO DEVELOPMENT!" camp.
when our friend andy was participating in the discussions last year, we
pretty much went over the pure economics and "takings" perspectives.
so, i want to address the other side of the picture.
If i were a cynic, (and i have stood so accused in the past) i would
characterize the NO DEVELOPMENT view by saying that, to the faithful
of this view, good development is defined as all of the development
which happened in the past before they arrived on scene and which
provides them with goods and service which they now enjoy. bad
development is then defined as any new development which is proposed
to occur after their arrival.
obviously, this is extreme.... but, we do seem to be seeing examples of
such a perspective.
the stated desire is for "growth in the quality of life." i may be thick as a
brick, because i don't see how growth in quality of life can occur without
a continued, sustained growth in the economic base. numbers alone
seem to bear this out. being as simplistic as possible, if my wife and i
have three children, then three good, well-paying jobs need to be
created in about 20 to 25 years to support them to the standard to which
they are accustomed. then they each have three children, then in
another 20 to 25 years, another nine jobs will need to be created. (ok,
so maybe 8, if i retire and one of my grandchildren assumes the role.)
another scenario... a road was built ten years ago before i purchase a
house on that road. a lid was created to build the road, but now the debt
is retired. good for me, i have a paved road with sidewalks, curbs, etc.
5 years ago, a no-growth statute was passed. good for me, since i'm
near the end of the road, no new traffic burden will be added, and i can
enjoy a quite "frontage," free from traffic. 10 years from now, the
road is potholed, since there has not been any growth, the city does not
have a continued revenue stream to support road maintenance, so
something called "deferred maintenance" happens. has the quality of life
improved or degraded? 20 years from now, the road is so unpassable
that fire and emergency services can't pass down it... worse yet, with
25 years of no new construction, there are no local paving firms left, and
the cost of rebuilding the road is prohibitive, regardless of what we are
willing to tax ourselves. has the quality of life improved or degraded?
so, i see the need for a continued growth pattern if we are to even
maintain the current quality of life, much less improve on it. my concern
is with the "whats", "hows", and "how much." those are the things i'm
interested in discussing and working through. honestly, i don't have
much interest in either "let's build anything and everything because we
can" OR "let's do nothing at all."
i realize i've kinda thrown this up on the wall in a very simplistic fashion,
but i welcome any comments.