Is
Iran really going to inspect its own nukes in Obama's Iran deal?
Today's Bee includes an AP article that says just that (with the
appropriate tut-tutting from Very Important People)
...The only trouble is that it's a big, fat lie. Read the link for the details.
Honestly, reading the paper is a lot of work, and big fat lies don't help me keep the enamel on my molars.
One other Bee lie from today: An Illinois study discloses that SACOG's blueprint project hasn't been that effective. (Surprise!)
If you're out of the loop on this, the Blueprint was a regional program to encourage smart growth. Essentially, this means pedestrian-friendly, mixed use (residences, commerce, offices, etc.) neighborhoods. This not only allows people to walk, it encourages such things as transit (gotta walk to them stops!), and solving some social problems. If you're likely to encounter a homeless person, the demand for solving that particular problem is likely to increase. SSF follows more than a decade of making Sacramento City walkable, for one example.
So why has the Blueprint "failed"? Two reasons:
1. SACOG distributes federal transportation money. Other Councils of Government (e.g. Maryland) require their members to follow agreed policies--like smart growth. In Sacramento, we want only voluntary compliance...so SACOG recommendations are widely ignored....and largely because of #2, outlying development remains a problem
2. Outlying ("greenfield") development lengthens commutes, and tends to sprawl. It requires every driving-age person own a car just to get groceries, never mind employment. Because walking to stops is daunting (watch out for the speeding cars on the roads design almost exclusively for autos!)...transit is virtually impossible, and is definitely financially non-viable.
So...why develop greenfields? Because you can purchase (or option) agricultural land for a few thousand dollars an acre, and sell it, once it's been approved for development for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Note the appearance of the word "dollars" here. It's what drives everything. Yes, yes, I know Frank Lloyd Wright used to say "form follows function," but today's saying is "form follows finance."
So...SACOG offers voluntary guidelines, and the most money to be made does not come from infill, it comes from greenfield. In fact with a little creative accounting those thousands of percent profit are not even touched by IRS.
So there's a huge subsidy to ignore anything SACOG says. Gosh, I wonder why their advice is so widely ignored?
...And mind you, this is the "liberal" media. America! What a country!
...The only trouble is that it's a big, fat lie. Read the link for the details.
Honestly, reading the paper is a lot of work, and big fat lies don't help me keep the enamel on my molars.
One other Bee lie from today: An Illinois study discloses that SACOG's blueprint project hasn't been that effective. (Surprise!)
If you're out of the loop on this, the Blueprint was a regional program to encourage smart growth. Essentially, this means pedestrian-friendly, mixed use (residences, commerce, offices, etc.) neighborhoods. This not only allows people to walk, it encourages such things as transit (gotta walk to them stops!), and solving some social problems. If you're likely to encounter a homeless person, the demand for solving that particular problem is likely to increase. SSF follows more than a decade of making Sacramento City walkable, for one example.
So why has the Blueprint "failed"? Two reasons:
1. SACOG distributes federal transportation money. Other Councils of Government (e.g. Maryland) require their members to follow agreed policies--like smart growth. In Sacramento, we want only voluntary compliance...so SACOG recommendations are widely ignored....and largely because of #2, outlying development remains a problem
2. Outlying ("greenfield") development lengthens commutes, and tends to sprawl. It requires every driving-age person own a car just to get groceries, never mind employment. Because walking to stops is daunting (watch out for the speeding cars on the roads design almost exclusively for autos!)...transit is virtually impossible, and is definitely financially non-viable.
So...why develop greenfields? Because you can purchase (or option) agricultural land for a few thousand dollars an acre, and sell it, once it's been approved for development for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Note the appearance of the word "dollars" here. It's what drives everything. Yes, yes, I know Frank Lloyd Wright used to say "form follows function," but today's saying is "form follows finance."
So...SACOG offers voluntary guidelines, and the most money to be made does not come from infill, it comes from greenfield. In fact with a little creative accounting those thousands of percent profit are not even touched by IRS.
So there's a huge subsidy to ignore anything SACOG says. Gosh, I wonder why their advice is so widely ignored?
...And mind you, this is the "liberal" media. America! What a country!
No comments:
Post a Comment
One of the objects if this blog is to elevate civil discourse. Please do your part by presenting arguments rather than attacks or unfounded accusations.