why do we build, and rebuild, cities below sea level ???

[welshTerrier2]

why do we allow unrestricted building along our coastlines in hurricane-prone areas?

why do we build cities out West where there are no local supplies of water?

why do we build cities with no parks and no places for pedestrians?

why do we build cities with no mass transit and allow massive traffic problems to severely lessen the quality of life?

why do we build cities with no housing for the poor?

the answer, my friend, is rampant capitalism ... why are we so opposed to central planning? why must we so value "free markets" and property rights that we end up with horrible systems that result in the kinds of inevitable destruction we're seeing in New Orleans ...

it's not just bush; it's capitalism ... will we ever learn?

[ClintonTyree]

1. We won't..........

not New Orleans anyway. It's finished and they know it. They're not going to come right out and say it of course, they'll release reality to Americans a little at a time. But in the end, New Orleans will not be rebuilt where it stands right now.

[leveymg]

2. Think of how fast the Soviet Union collapsed.

It's happening here, now. It only takes a little overstressing to make a top-down monolith fall within its own footprint.

The problem isn't capitalism or communism. It's overly-large, centrally-run organizations within which group-think is rewarded and dissent ignored or punished.

I have no problem with building in dangerous but scenic, historical places, provided that the people who live there pay the risk premium themselves. The rich should not demand that the middle-class subsidize their beachfront property lifestyles.

[welshTerrier2]

4. interesting response ...

first, i'm in full agreement with your statement about not demanding that the middle-class subsidize this madness ... too much beachfront insanity is being subsidized by the American people ...

but as to your focus on "overly-large, centrally-run organizations", there we disagree ...

let me be clear on this point ... i'm strongly in favor of the idea that locals may know many things and may safeguard the interests of their local communities more effectively than some far off, out of touch government in Washington ... to that extent, we agree ...

but i work with my local town government ... they are virtually powerless to oppose the "profits before people" motivations of big developers ... my town has tried to place restrictions on building ... we've tried all sorts of zoning (not snob zoning) regulations to safeguard our community ... we truly have no power ... we have mandatory water bans due to insufficient supplies, local property taxes over $7000 a year, crowded schools and all sorts of other overcrowding problems ...

big government needs to change the central paradigm under which local governments are forced to operate ... the divide-and-conquer approach you're calling for will make the powers that oppose the greedy profit-seekers weaker, not stronger ... i am deeply supportive of reforming our institutions to give local governments a far greater voice in Washington ... communication in a democracy has to be a two-way street; not a top-down, ill-informed approach where national "leaders" pass down rulings without understanding their impact on local communities ... but this does not embrace your theme of lessening the ultimate power of a central government ... good central government would incorporate the knowledge of local communities and their close ties to representing the best interests of their citizens without weakening the power to enforce their objectives ...

just my two cents ...

and just to be clear regarding your reference to the Soviet Union, that would NOT be a model i would advocate either ...

[leveymg]

6. The problem you describe is one of disproportionate power

The developers in your area clearly have far too much money and clout, and probably have the local zoning and roads commissions in their hip pocket.

As a result of overdevelopment, local resources are overutilized, utilities are too expensive, and taxes continue to rise as population density increases.

There are solutions. A surtax on developer profits and mandatory setasides for moderate income housing and parkland. Land use and construction fees need to be raised so the full cost to the community of growth is paid by those who profit from it.

Also, there need to incentives for preserving affordable housing stock. A solution for that is an escalating surcharge on the single-family houses that exceed the median size within the community. Teardowns of moderate-priced houses and construction of McMansion fields -- both huge problems in the DC area -- would be slowed, drastically.

If you redistribute the profits, you redistribute the power.

[DJ MEW]

3. allow me to answer these more fully

1. why do we allow unrestricted building along our coastlines in hurricane-prone areas?

Because most of the time the weather is wonderful and the view is amazing and everyone wants to live under those conditions. They must accept the risks for the glory.

2. why do we build cities out West where there are no local supplies of water?

Large mineral deposits drove people west and created towns in places that were inconvenient.

3. why do we build cities with no parks and no places for pedestrians?

Capitalism

4. why do we build cities with no mass transit and allow massive traffic problems to severely lessen the quality of life?

It costs money to build, it costs money to maintain, and it costs money to operate. All of these costs are paid for with taxes and ride fares. People would rather accept the degraded quality of life then spend a few more dollars.

5. why do we build cities with no housing for the poor?

Republicans are against spending money on housing for our poor people.

All the answers I gave are basically the same as saying capitalism.

[Igel]

5. Some stabs at answers.

Lest they get too close. :-)

We allow unrestricted building because politicians only see the next election. Those building and living in floodplains and in other risky areas pay taxes and vote; tell them to move, and you have to reimburse them. Let them pay for the damage to their property, and they vote you out of office.

Same for building cities out West. No politician wants to preside over desert. They like public works, esp. large ones that hire lots of people and provide lots of jobs. No politicians wants to tell landowners that they can't sell their water, or that their land is going to revert to desert. No politicians wants to buy out those property owners, and leave the state/city/county holding desert.

We don't have parks because usually instead of annexing land and then controlling growth, cities let growth happen and then annex the built-up areas. And if they impose growth controls, then you get either a ring-effect (as people build outside of local controls), or politicized, not intelligent, land use.

We have little mass transit because our population densities are too low and our probably destinations too dispersed.

We build cities with little housing for the poor because nobody wants to be forced to build it, and nobody wants it in their back yards. When we do build it, it consolidates the poor into the equivalent of ghettos. When we disperse those raised in ghettos, the middle class areas the poor are dispersed into scream as their crime rate goes up and their school's test scores go down.

It's not just *. It's not just capitalism. It's people.

[Debi]

7. Couldn't we ask the same questions as the the first for any area?

Earthquakes along the San Andreas Faultline...commuinties by forests, where forrest fires occur...entire cities in the dessert (Las Vegas)....and don't forget tornadoes on the plains or avalanches and mudslides in the mountainous areas...

All your other questions, especially the question about housing for the poor? Because the people in charge don't see it as their problem. They have enough money, the poor ought to go make their own, this is after all an ownership society. So go get a job and then you can have a place to live. Sad.