Suburbs are unsustainable?

[DetroitDad]

This doesn't sound sustainable.

People who say things like that are usually the same people who take a long car commute home to heat up a ham and cheese hot pocket and watch the latest reality garbage, or search and post the latest profile photos of some DYers calling them random names. I'm sure that isn't you though, JL.

[Stosh]

Trying to discredit someone because they use visual aides and references is an act of an arrogant little infant who is losing an argument. If I'm not making any sense than it would be easy to discredit me and prove me wrong. Stop fighting me and fight the problem.

Infant? LOL! I suppose you should look in the mirror, since you are the one doing the name calling on this board. I've proved you wrong repeatedly among the posts made on this topic. Try re-reading all the posts made in the previous pages, since it seems that your memory's been conveniently wiped away.

Arrogance? I'm not the one posturing like some kind of planning god. You've repeatedly and consistently put yourself front and center in any and all arguments, as an authority.

Fighting the problem? When you introduce ideas that promote slums as agents of change? Random blog posts from more pompous and pretentious people? I think that I already am, don't you think?

Lets get to the points I was trying to make earlier on the Fractal Geometry:

Two relationships exist in this theory. One has to do with the relationship of the length of a road in proportion to the population growth along the said road. The other theory lies within the structure of buildings, and their setbacks and placement.

This person that you are so enamored with is in favor of eliminating most barriers to development. No or few building codes. Kind of like a urban anarchist, so to speak. Not something that is so great, in my opinion. Try living next to a stamping plant that works 24/7, you'll get the idea.

And truly, since you love this guy's ideas so much, maybe you should take his advice. Move to the urban prarie and set up your lean-to. Start a business? There's no possible way that allowing people to build as they wish will get you a desired result. Think the outskirts of Mexico City for a good example of that.

[Stosh]

And while we are on the subject of fractal geometry, here's an interesting construct.

That should keep you busy for a while.

[DetroitDad]

Infant? LOL! I suppose you should look in the mirror, since you are the one doing the name calling on this board. I've proved you wrong repeatedly among the posts made on this topic. Try re-reading all the posts made in the previous pages, since it seems that your memory's been conveniently wiped away.

Arrogance? I'm not the one posturing like some kind of planning god. You've repeatedly and consistently put yourself front and center in any and all arguments, as an authority.

Fighting the problem? When you introduce ideas that promote slums as agents of change? Random blog posts from more pompous and pretentious people? I think that I already am, don't you think?

Lets get to the points I was trying to make earlier on the Fractal Geometry:

Two relationships exist in this theory. One has to do with the relationship of the length of a road in proportion to the population growth along the said road. The other theory lies within the structure of buildings, and their setbacks and placement.

This person that you are so enamored with is in favor of eliminating most barriers to development. No or few building codes. Kind of like a urban anarchist, so to speak. Not something that is so great, in my opinion. Try living next to a stamping plant that works 24/7, you'll get the idea.

And truly, since you love this guy's ideas so much, maybe you should take his advice. Move to the urban prarie and set up your lean-to. Start a business? There's no possible way that allowing people to build as they wish will get you a desired result. Think the outskirts of Mexico City for a good example of that.

Stosh, did you actually read this? He does NOT argue against all building codes, you have put words in his mouth just like you have with me and others in the past. Your posts are a joke and aren't even worth replying to in my opinion.

[Stosh]

Stosh, did you actually read this? He does NOT argue against all building codes, you have put words in his mouth just like you have with me and others in the past. Your posts are a joke and aren't even worth replying to in my opinion.

Really. How quaint. No one needs to put words in your mouth DD. You do a fine job all by yourself.
Honestly, having to endure your pathetic attempts at insults IS a joke. So be it.

Here's a nice quote from your buddy:

I have become highly critical of measures that seek to increase the density of subdivision developments by smart growth zoning regulations. They tend to leave the structure of neighborhoods in such a state that further subdivision processes within its tissue are impossible, and the neighborhood becomes unable to adapt itself as its population changes. Instead we should be building low density subdivision developments that can grow naturally into metropolitan neighborhoods, and this growth will be controlled by its community as its members make the decision to give up a part of their property to accomodate the changes the community is undergoing.

What this means, in a nutshell, is the elimination of zoning. The theory is that as the population increases, there will be stores built to support the population. All well and good in an "ivory tower" context. Real world situation, not so much success. This is nothing new, by the way,. It's how cities were built over time. And in the case of Detroit, and it's suburbs, it's called sprawl. Funny, isn't it?

Mom and pop groceries, bars, restaurants, and stores were intertwined among residential areas for years in Detroit, Highland Park, and Hamtramck. They died along with the neighborhoods. Nowdays, you can't reopen these stores, of course, due to zoning. So, the elimination of zoning is what he wants. Mixed use is just that. Anything goes, more or less. If you read the above, you'll notice that he rejects the smart growth zoning regulations. What do you think that this entails? It's a free for all, dependant on the whim of the builder. In a perfect world, sure. Utopia. But the world is filled with people not so, as one would say, friendly.

Examples of smart growth code is found here.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/codeexamples.htm

Of course, once you open the Pandora's box, you get all other uses as well. What Matt fails to comprehend in his railing against the bulldozer mentality is the fact that some of the population might not be all that compliant with everyone else. Withdrawing services from areas isn't condusive to homesteading. There's always a need for a sherriff or fire brigade.


So, the bottom line is, that there is absolutely nothing new under the sun. Just more dillweeds with a keyboard and a bully pulpit.
Here's a link to Helie's paper. More of the same.
http://www.archnet.org/gws/IJAR/9961/


Scroll down to the item Conceptualizing the Principles of Emergent Urbanism-75/91.

[crawford]

There's no possible way that allowing people to build as they wish will get you a desired result. Think the outskirts of Mexico City for a good example of that.

I actually think DetroitDad would like this scenario for metro Detroit!

Mexico City's wealth and prosperity is primarily in the core, while the outer periphery is composed of hellish slums.

[LodgeDodger]

I actually think DetroitDad would like this scenario for metro Detroit!

Mexico City's wealth and prosperity is primarily in the core, while the outer periphery is composed of hellish slums.

DetroitDad doesn't fully understand what it takes for a city to be sustainable. He doesn't appear to have any sort of formal education, yet sitting in a library and reading about such subjects make him an expert. The problem is, he's young. He hasn't yet had time to build any sort of practical experience.

DetroitDad's catty and uncalled for remarks to posters on this forum who question the validity of his postings serve to drive away valid discussion and the more insightful posters.

My advice to him is to go to school, get a formal education, and live a few years. I believe he would like to do good, but lacks the knowledge to independently assess some of the more involved concepts he puts forth.

[Novine]

"Instead we should be building low density subdivision developments that can grow naturally into metropolitan neighborhoods, and this growth will be controlled by its community as its members make the decision to give up a part of their property to accomodate the changes the community is undergoing."

An intellectual view by someone who hasn't been out in the real world. Someone should point out to him that most of the neighborhoods in the city of Detroit built in the 20th Century were considered low density as compared to your core city neighborhoods. What happened to those neighborhoods? Did they become more dense? No, people left and moved out to the new neighborhoods in the suburbs. The only place this strategy can work is on an island like Manhattan where the amount of buildable land is constrained by geography or where you have growth that is far exceeding the ability to expand. Otherwise, development sprawls outward. It's only been happening for the past 100 years in Detroit. One would think the guy might see a pattern.

[DetroitDad]

Nonsense, some of you need to get over your disdain for blogs and everyday DetroitDads contributing their opinions and thoughts. I know that some of you are products of a dieing newspaper industry, and seem to think that only professional journalist's works should be read. No one wants to read this stuff you find so offensively threatening, I know.

As to being too young, I've actually got college and real world experience under my belt, but it all is really irrelevant. You seem to be a type of people that has strived for the age where you can be condescending on younger people. You need to realize that learning is a life long thing. Elders of a society should be careful not to get as set in their ways as you guys have become. It is true the elders often teach the young, but sometimes the young can teach the elders.

You guys are living in a fantasy land, brainwashed by the real estate, automotive, and home building suburban industry lobbies of yesteryear. I agree that in an age where no one was really seriously thinking about peak oil and sustainability, the suburbs were a good option. Get with the times, this is 2009 and the suburbs are quickly becoming a relic of the past and a model of unsustainability; one of the world's biggest mistakes.

Most suburbs are built in pods, commercial developments are separate from light industrial developments and residential developments. Residential developments are separate from other residential developments based on things such as income, life style, or age. While some things should be separated, not everything should be separated to the degree it is in suburbia.

Many large pod developments can not adapt to change, in part because they are so large and segregated. Redeveloping Wonderland and Livonia Mall when those pods outlived their uses for example, has been a nightmare. Those pods were not able to quickly adapt, and instead relied on large scale developments. Large scale developments are a problem because one, we aren't going to have the money for large scale redevelopments in the near future, and two, they take too long to build or modify. A skyscraper or large mall that begins pulling permits and construction planning in a boom time can often end up being completed in a bust time when there is no longer a need [[Las Vegas City Center, Empire State Building, etc.).

As much as people like Stosh like skyscrapers, the skyscraper is not sustainable. For one, ultra large skyscrapers require a lot of energy to build and run them, and two, they can be a nightmare to redevelop and renovate, as is very apparent in Detroit. The other issue with skyscrapers is that they just create problems unless you have an infrastructure like New York that absorb them with lots of transit options. What you get when you build dense towers in suburbia is really just more traffic congestion and wasted surface parking space, because they don't have the infrastructure to handle the density. When skyscrapers are built in most American cities without the needed infrastructure the city becomes what we have here in Detroit, congestion mixed with lots of demolition in favor of surface parking. A skyscraper needs a system and community that can support it before it is built.

A city or suburb comprised of dense small buildings that are allowed to grow organically is much more sustainable than planned communities and cities full of mega projects. The stores that Lodgedodger and Toolbox can walk to are great, but can they survive without the people that can't walk there? Large big box stores do not exist for the community, and when they're gone, you will not be envying Lodgedodger and Toolbox who then have to live next to an abandoned hulking big box store. At least the abandoned buildings in Downtown have some good architecture, what will these big boxes provide to the community when they are vacant?

So this is it, Stosh said I've been concentrating on small parts of sustainability, now I'm concentrating on the largest issue. Detroit is not sustainable in what it has become, but Detroit is not sustainable because it is potentially a great system [[if managed and taxed properly) with no purpose, not enough people are opening businesses or moving here. However, unlike Detroit, the suburbs are unsustainable based on flaws in their metaphorical foundation that are not easily or cheaply fixed. They could be fixed, but it would take much more to fix the suburbs than it will to fix Detroit.

Finally, as to certain estranged DetroitYESers [[banned members) and sites using this site for their entertainment, Stosh's picture should keep some of those individuals entertained for a few hours, judging by their contributions elsewhere.

[Stosh]

I'm not even going to bother quoting what you just wrote.

First off, I'm glad the picture entertained you, and possibly others.

Secondly, I find it odd that now you seem to change your opinion of the sustainability of Detroit. First the suburbs aren't sustainable, now Detroit isn't. Make up your mind on which it is. Or not. Either way, it doesn't really matter.

I know some incredibly smart young people. And I also know some incredibly stupid young people. Same with those of any age. In the case of the young teaching the elders, I can see that happening, when the young have something to impart that makes sense.

Nobody finds anything you write remotely threatening. In fact, the things that you cut and paste are at times rather informative. Your writing, not so much, I'm afraid.

I'm not a fan of skyscrapers. But repeatedly you have mentioned in the past how Downtown Detroit is sustainable. Filled with skyscrapers that you once said were a part of a sustainable system. Once again, a paradox. Which one is it?

It's just hopeless to attempt to reconcile the many conflicting sides that you seem to present in your post. I'll leave that for others to pick through and comment on, if anyone actually gives a care.

Good luck in your quest, Don Quixote, you'll need it.

[DetroitDad]

I'm not even going to bother quoting what you just wrote.

First off, I'm glad the picture entertained you, and possibly others.

Secondly, I find it odd that now you seem to change your opinion of the sustainability of Detroit. First the suburbs aren't sustainable, now Detroit isn't. Make up your mind on which it is. Or not. Either way, it doesn't really matter.

I know some incredibly smart young people. And I also know some incredibly stupid young people. Same with those of any age. In the case of the young teaching the elders, I can see that happening, when the young have something to impart that makes sense.

Nobody finds anything you write remotely threatening. In fact, the things that you cut and paste are at times rather informative. Your writing, not so much, I'm afraid.

I'm not a fan of skyscrapers. But repeatedly you have mentioned in the past how Downtown Detroit is sustainable. Filled with skyscrapers that you once said were a part of a sustainable system. Once again, a paradox. Which one is it?

It's just hopeless to attempt to reconcile the many conflicting sides that you seem to present in your post. I'll leave that for others to pick through and comment on, if anyone actually gives a care.

Good luck in your quest, Don Quixote, you'll need it.

Lost for words other than inane insults, Stosh? Where are your counter claims and denial?

Anyway, there you go again putting words in my mouth or stating them out of context. I mainly said that Detroit is sustainable when comparing it to it's suburbs or in the context of the future, and corrected myself in other instances. It is also not impossible for me to learn things and change my opinions Stosh, as I try to keep an open mind on most issues, resolving never to settle.

I now agree that both Detroit and it's suburbs are not currently sustainable, but Detroit stands the better chance, as I outlined in my last post. I also never once said skyscrapers were sustainable other than out of sarcasm or in jest, which you never were once able to pick up on.

[Stosh]

Well, at least we agree on something, I suppose. The region is unsustainable.

As for inane insults and counter claims, I'll leave that task for others, if they care to bother. I'm sure there will be no lack of that type of behavior. Or maybe I'm wrong. Judging by the responses generated here, you don't seem to have much of an audience anymore.

[DetroitDad]

Well, at least we agree on something, I suppose. The region is unsustainable.

As for inane insults and counter claims, I'll leave that task for others, if they care to bother. I'm sure there will be no lack of that type of behavior. Or maybe I'm wrong. Judging by the responses generated here, you don't seem to have much of an audience anymore.

Good point, it degenerated into arguments. I do find it interesting that you felt the need to repeat yourself even more than I did. As Gannon realized early on, I clearly had a reason for doing this other than a lack of self control...

[crawford]

I mainly said that Detroit is sustainable when comparing it to it's suburbs or in the context of the future, and corrected myself in other instances.

No, it isn't. Detroit isn't remotely sustainable. It's a ward of the State, and completely dependent on the wealth generated in the suburbs.

Is it self-supporting? No

Does it grow jobs? No

Is it safe? No

Is it a good place to raise the young? No

Is it transit and pedestrian oriented? No

Detroit scores an 0 for 5. Suburbs score a 4 for 5, losing out only on transit and pedestrian viability.

[DetroitDad]

No, it isn't. Detroit isn't remotely sustainable. It's a ward of the State, and completely dependent on the wealth generated in the suburbs.

Is it self-supporting? No

Does it grow jobs? No

Is it safe? No

Is it a good place to raise the young? No

Is it transit and pedestrian oriented? No

Detroit scores an 0 for 5. Suburbs score a 4 for 5, losing out only on transit and pedestrian viability.

Concerning the greater downtown area only;

Is it self-supporting? No... thanks to the suburbs taking up all the good farmland.

Does it grow jobs? No, but neither does suburban Detroit [[see my post above about the icing on the unsustainable cake).

Is it safe? Yes! [[Relative to the viewer).

Is it a good place to raise the young? Arguable, but it is better than suburbia [[see my first posts on this topic)

Is it transit and pedestrian oriented? More so than suburbia, again.

3 out of 5 for the inner city it appears, 0 out of 5 for suburbia!

Anyway, it is irrelevant to the long term; see my above post about the icing on the unsustainable cake, post #135. It turns out Detroit was one of several canaries in the coal mine, and the suburbs and rest of the country are following suit. What we are seeing now in the Detroit suburbs and elsewhere is the raising of taxes while services decline, the commercial and industrial tax base disappearing, residents loosing their homes causing a mass increase in renters, tons of empty nests, many other people who are underwater on their mortgages, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. I know this is a hard pill to swallow, but suburbia is going the way of the dinosaur.

[iheartthed]

No, it isn't. Detroit isn't remotely sustainable. It's a ward of the State, and completely dependent on the wealth generated in the suburbs.

Is it self-supporting? No

Does it grow jobs? No

Is it safe? No

Is it a good place to raise the young? No

Is it transit and pedestrian oriented? No

Detroit scores an 0 for 5. Suburbs score a 4 for 5, losing out only on transit and pedestrian viability.

I'd like to know what wealth generated in the suburbs goes to support Detroit. I'd also like to know how the suburbs "grow jobs". Doesn't Metro Detroit have the highest unemployment rate of any major metro in America?

[crawford]

I'd like to know what wealth generated in the suburbs goes to support Detroit. I'd also like to know how the suburbs "grow jobs". Doesn't Metro Detroit have the highest unemployment rate of any major metro in America?

Detroit receives more in state funds that it sends to Lansing, and the suburbs do the inverse, so it's absolutely true that the suburbs subsidize Detroit.

As for your second statement, I'm completely mystified as to your point. Job creation and unemployment are two different concepts. And most suburbs have relatively low unemployment, especially compared to Detroit. Most suburbs have unemployment in the single digits.

[DetroitDad]

Anyway, I really don't care if you live close enough to walk to a Dairy Queen and Walmart, if your community has enough pooled affluence to attract jobs and build good schools at the expense of the region, or if your community has made the selfish choice to pawn of undesirables and the poor to it's neighboring communities.

Our whole system is unsustainable because the whole system is one system. If I am right, this is a disaster that will last for decades as suburbia catches the cancer the rest of Detroit had. If I am wrong, this is a disaster in the sense that we will go along living this happy motoring la-la land life in suburbia. You know, I could send my daughter to the nice suburban school and live in that neighborhood, but what kind of example am I setting for her, and what kind of future would I be providing for her. Here, let me put it this way; all those kids that suburbia has labeled it's throw away children in Detroit are the same kids who are going to grow up to become the criminals and drains on society that my daughter is [[and your kids are) going to have to live amongst.

I am enclosing a link and quote someone brought to my attention recently on the Streetsblog. This is about New York City, but it echoes some of my feelings on Detroit immensely. It is long, but it is well worth the read.

Preparing for Institutional Collapse
posted by Larry Littlefield
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littl..._collapse.html
Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:39am
Letting go of one’s illusions is a difficult process that takes a long, long time, but I am just about there. From a young age I have been a believer in public services and benefits as a way of providing some measure of assurance for other people, people I rely on every time I purchase a good or service, of a decent life regardless of one’s personal income or standing. After all, I initially chose public service as a career. And I have been a defender of the public institutions when compared with those who were only concerned with their own situation and preference put in less, or get out more, as if the community was a greedy adversary to be beaten in life rather than something one is a part of. Now, however, I see that it is probably hopeless.

Under the current generation of “leaders,� “the community,� in its governmental form, is controlled by insatiable interests and sits on top of those who happen to live in New York City, New York State, and the United States. While promising general, universal benefits in the future, or lower taxes in the present, they have already taken so much out of that future for themselves and self-interest groups that it is unlikely that there will be a functioning school system, usable parks, convenient mass transit, affordable health care, or a livable Social Security retirement stipend for my children’s generation. Even at high future taxes. They’ve blown it all, rationalized or just ignored the near certain effects on others, and they won’t give it back. So perhaps all the time, energy and money directed toward trying to reform or improve our social institutions, particularly out government institutions, would be better spent preparing to do without them.

This is a difficult conclusion for me to arrive at, for three reasons. First, my chosen lifestyle, which might be described as happy living through materially modest living, assumes the substitution of cheaper shared amenities -- public parks, transit, etc. -- for more costly and wasteful personal amenities. If I end up paying for those shared amenities and not getting them, the way I paid local and [[especially) state taxes for elementary school and didn’t get it for my children, that choice isn’t possible.

Second, my goal in life has been for the rest of the world to, net, be somewhat better off for my existence, rather than getting a “profit� by imposing a “loss� on others. So beating the system to suck more out and put less in isn’t going to make me happy. And being well off enough personally that I don’t rely on social institutions won’t do either, as I am concerned about my neighbors.

Worst of all ,we in New York City are at the end of a long climb back from institutional decline. After prior generations “took all their was to take,� in the words of one union leader, before decamping to the suburbs, city residents were left paying high taxes for rich pensions, other public employee retiree benefits, debts run up in the pasts, and sinecures for those still around and milking the system. In return they endured a police force that did not stop crime, subways that barely worked, parks that were dangerous and in disrepair, schools so bad they violated the state constitution, bridges that were never painted and had to be closed, etc. Money for nothing. While most of those who chose to live here paid and got little, those who mattered avoided the subways by driving to their special free parking spaces, went to “politician beach� instead of Coney Island, sent their kids to the handful of decent schools by special variance, or lived in the suburbs while drawing money out of the city.

People I admire spent decades rebuilding the city’s public institutions, often substituting their own personal time money when tax dollars were directed elsewhere and public employees stopped working. But while the city tried to recover, political control at the state level remained in the hands of the sort of people who had sucked NYC dry in the 1950s and 1960s. And now, they have repeated the trick statewide. Indeed, in some ways their generation has done it nationwide.

Consider that three bond issues have been passed for the Second Avenue Subway, but as a result of benefits distributed in the past the MTA is so deep in debt that I can’t imagine how we [[or should I say they) will be able to maintain the transit system we have.

Consider that property taxes remain far higher in NYC than they were ten years ago, and spending has soared in its public schools to the point where spending per child is now well above the national average even with a cost of living adjustment. But most of the increase in spending has been on retiree benefits, and with the recent deal to allow teachers to retire and receive pension and health care benefits seven years earlier, money spent in the schools themselves is certain to be slashed, again.

Consider that in 1983 my generation and those after were told we must pay vastly higher payroll taxes throughout our careers, and accept a later retirement age, to ensure Social Security would be there for us. Then all those extra contributions were spent, so now 25 years later we are told that further benefit cuts for, and/or much higher taxes on, those who were not “at or over 55� when Bush said the words are required to once again “save Social Security� -- after all of those who came of age in the 1960s and earlier are in the system and “grandfathered� from any sacrifices.

Consider that every year public spending and subsidies soar for ever-richer health care for those who happen to benefit from public programs or publicly-subsidized private insurance, even as more and more people get nothing.

Consider all the donations people, including my family and many of my friends, have made to public amenities such as parks and libraries, when the services received is cut in the coming years.

Consider how tax breaks mean the rich can disguise their work earnings as capital gains and pay just 15% at the federal level, while in New York City and New York State those benefiting from retirement incomes we will never see pay nothing.

It isn’t just that those who have skillfully obtained “good deals� for themselves in the past are “grandfathered� and get to keep them. Worse, those who already have such deals take more and more every year. Like a bad parasite, the political class and its supporters feel so needy, so entitled, that they cannot help but kill their host. They will just keep grabbing and grabbing until government institutions collapse. [[The executives who sit on each other’s boards and award each other an ever-greater share of business income are doing the same to the broader economy). No one is willing to even impose a psychological price on the inside beneficiaries by forcing them to confront the difference between their unearned privileges and situation of those without. If forced, expect them not only to turn hostile but also to simply rely that “everyone should have more� and “everyone should pay less� in the future, when it might be “possible.� But when the future arrives, all the money has been taken off the top.

And don’t expect the collapse to be announced. Services and benefits will dribble away by stealth. The subway line will not be closed, but trains will seldom arrive due to “circumstances beyond our control.� Medicare will not be repealed for our generation, but payment levels will be reduced to the point that almost no health care provider will accept Medicare -- even as special funds mean more money for Local 1199. The inflation adjustment for Social Security will be recalculated. Future teachers will be paid less in order to direct money to the life of leisure of those retiring, so certification -- and sick leave -- rules will be loosened up so someone will more or less show up. High School requirements will be maintained, but required courses will fill up with insiders, forcing others to wait years to take them -- until they drop out or are given a piece of paper anyway to help their “self esteem.� We’ll have libraries -- without books, open two days per week. And if you get robbed, you can make an appointment to file a police report in a month or two. Etc.

[DetroitDad]

The future of public services and benefits is privatization and “placardization.� We already see privatization in the public sidewalks, public property individual people are “required� to maintain. So in affluent neighborhoods the sidewalks are good, in poor neighborhoods they are terrible. We see placardization in the free parking allocated to those with certain connections, many but not all of them in the public sector. Someday there will be education placards, health care placards, park placards, library placards -- all off the books and all secret, of course. Isn’t it amazing, when you think about it, how little the political class relies on public services? They have their tax-free pensions, not just Social Security, their private retiree health insurance that pays for what Medicare will not, their private cars and private parking, their suburban or private or special schools. They drive around in their SUVs with tinted windows. The really well off, meanwhile, can fend for themselves without public services and benefits. They don’t have to care, either.

In education, moreover, we can’t expect the parochial school system to be there for my grandchildren as it was for my children. It is already collapsing under the weight of actually trying to provide an affordable education, over and above the taxes parents pay, to those who are not affluent, something the NYC public schools generally have not bothered to do for most of the past 30 years. The UFT, among others, seems determined to kill it off, so it will be in an even stronger position to say “pay more or your children will not be educated.� Knowing all along that as we pay more our children will nonetheless not be educated. The well off will be able to afford the private $20,000 per year schools.

No, the Client 9 business was not the defining moment for the man who had declared “Day One Everything Changes.� That moment had arrived when he capitulated on last year’s budget, signed a huge teacher pension enhancement in the face of an upcoming fiscal disaster after having promised to improve the schools, and had his appointee release an MTA capital plan that proposes to borrow $20 billion to defer long promised improvements while deferring maintenance.

In fact for those without connections we may, as a nation, be heading back to the pre-progressive era in public services and benefits. But not in taxation. The money older generations have promised themselves, and promised to the wealthy and those in other countries in exchange for more benefits for less taxes for themselves, mean the federal, state and local governments will be coming after us for more and more money even as public services disappear and the poor are left to fend for themselves. Indeed, they will be coming after the poor for taxes. So it’s no use becoming a conservative or Republican, because they will be in favor of collecting those taxes too someday -- after the fiscal collapse, when they can’t borrow anymore to hand out favors those who matter to them.

Here is the dilemma. Our social institutions, in government and business, are in the hands of a self-perpetuating group of self-interested people. The more ordinary people put in to government and business institutions -- in taxes, hard work, savings and investment -- the more those people take out for themselves and their supporters. I’ve argued for years that the institutions need to be revitalized, taken back, because we need them. I now suspect that we may have to do without them, whether we need them or not.

When I ran for public office, I tried talking to people about the cumulative effect of all the selling out of the future, all the special deals for the “special people,� on our common life. Down in Flatbush I ran into a woman who said the following. “My kids didn’t get to go to public schools, because they were terrible. The police don’t protect us. We won’t get Social Security. We’ll never get anything. I just don’t want to pay anymore; I just want to be left alone.� Yes lady, I remember every word.

After my Don Quixote attempt was mostly ignored, and considering how weak my position was in attempting to convince anyone else to try, I wrote the following about New York State’s public sector: “The situation is apparently similar to corporate governance. Top executives and directors may be enriching themselves, diluting ownership with stock issues and options, and bankrupting the company, but electoral rules make it impossible to vote them out. It is easier just to sell the stock.�

I wasn’t ready to give up then, but perhaps I am now. Perhaps our “leaders� have finally achieved the resignation of the downtrodden peasant, as evidenced in the Italian novel Bread and Wine, one of my favorite books, in which a revolutionary disguised as a priest tries to convince the peasants to unify to fight back against the unfair political system. They say there is nothing they can do about it other than try to beat the system and survive. Frankly, I begin to think that the U.S. is about ready for an Il Duce right now, since at the state level we already have a government like the one in Naples, were as a result of so many people beating the system for so long the city ended up filled with garbage that no one would pick up and no one could find a place for -- even as illegal dumping poisons the buffalo mozzarella. [[Google up Naples garbage and Naples mozzarella if you are interested in what is going on).

So what do you say to the kids, other than “Dad tried to do all he could� and "you may not have viable government services in the future but at least you have a viable family, something most of those who have applied their political values to their personal lives do not have."

Looking for inspiration, I came upon this website referenced on a financial economics blog I participate in: http://www.youwalkaway.com/. What the website does, in exchange for a fee, is explain to people who are struggling to pay unaffordable mortgages, on houses whose value is dropping, who are doomed to foreclosure anyway, that they are better off walking away. The mortgage they signed for shouldn’t really be thought of as their moral obligation, according to the site, and one the dream of homeownership is gone, you realize that you’ll be better off just moving on.

How about the dream of a fair, viable community? A responsible, prosperous, fair-minded country? I wrote on the site that we in New York need a http://www.wewalkaway.com/ , to explain to us that since public services and benefits are doomed no matter what, we might as well refuse to pay taxes and have their state and their city and their federal government [[not ours in the end) go bankrupt and default on debt and retiree “obligations� others have imposed on us without our consent. A day later I thought to look, and someone had reserved the domain name the day after I wrote that [[it’s a popular site). Which means that at least one other person is thinking the same thing.

Thinking that perhaps the “walkaway� philosophy may not be shortsighted and selfish after all, if in reality any additional financial contributions to our political institutions will simply be stolen and could be in lieu of charitable contributions that might actually benefit someone who is actually less well off that I am. As opposed to someone who feels entitled to more. Call it the “audacity of hopelessness� that opens one mind to seeking another way out.

I am no expert, I am just an average Metro Detroit father that is mad, hence all the quotes and visual aides. I am mad this is happening, I am mad that the future is going to be a hard one for America's youth, I am mad that so many support didn't stop it, and I am mad that this system was created in the first place.

I knew Diva's intent with this topic, so I decided to not make this a walkable vs. walkable debate, but instead insist that it was a moral issue.

If you are not part of the solution than you are part of the problem.

[DetroitDad]

Oh, and suburbia was the world's biggest bubble. It was once said that in order to continue the economic growth of our country, we had to adopt a highly wasteful economic system.

I know that seems irrelevant when you're looking at how close you live to Aco, but bubbles aren't known for their sustainability.

[Johnlodge]

People who say things like that are usually the same people who take a long car commute home to heat up a ham and cheese hot pocket and watch the latest reality garbage, or search and post the latest profile photos of some DYers calling them random names. I'm sure that isn't you though, JL.

I have a very short commute, and my wife [[whom I chose to get married to and make sure I can sustain a family before bringing children into the world with) and I rarely eat processed foods. More often, we walk to the excellent market down the street and get something nice and fresh. What I watch on TV is probably irrelevant. You don't know so much about me, so I wouldn't try playing that game, since all of your personal details are laying all over the internet for anybody to see. Also, I haven't posted your photos anywhere, must be one of the other myriad of people you've pissed off with your endless rantings and blogs filled with the ideological nonsense of young man who has a lot of learning to do.

[iheartthed]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...dollar.gas.cnn

[EastSider]

It was once said that in order to continue the economic growth of our country, we had to adopt a highly wasteful economic system.

Source for that quote? I'd like to know who said it and in what context. The apparent contradictions make me think there's a whole lot of context missing.

[Rockin' Best]

So long as suburbs, even those far outlying, have functioning infrastructures, they are sustainable. Beyond that, with "infilling" there is now a competitive environment for the suburbs in the central city. The recent suburban "town center" movement, using new construction to create walking and interacting retail and social environments with housing in buildings upper floors, can be replicated in urban areas. They can be integrated into the remains of existing neighborhoods, such as Brush Park, to incorporate compatible designs into an overall thematic scheme.

Of course, all it takes is money and political will.

[Sludgedaddy]

......Here's one for all the old unsustainable Beatniks:

Amid the the Rubble and Ruin of an Unintentional Stonehenge
I await the coming Dawn skyclad to welcome the Solstice
Anticipating a New Inflattable Doll
In the Image of Ayn Rand.

....Sludgedaddy