A Glance in the Rearview Mirror
This weblog is a little more than a month old. For those of you just tuning in, I thought it would be a good time to recap the highlights so far. For those who have been reading all along, I hope this post helps consolidate the picture of all we’ve covered. We don’t want to get lost in the minutia of individual articles. Effecting change requires a constant grasp on the big picture.
Growth Myths
We’ve spent the most time so far debunking several growth myths, arguments developers and others in the growth industry use to convince us that “we must grow to thrive.” These arguments are indeed myths as they are almost all demonstrably and fundamentally flawed, often wholly wrong. Here’s the list of myths we’ve busted so far. (Click to read the applicable article)
All are myths. All are busted.
We looked at a fourth myth as well. Yet I didn’t list it above as it hardly even qualifies as a myth. It’s really just a diversionary couple of comments, commonly used around here, evidently to justify residential growth. It’s so nonsensical though that just putting it in the form of a single statement makes it look plain silly:
So that one’s busted too, though I’ll likely still devote another short post to it to fit it into the official myth busting series.
The post showing the unwitting admission the growth machine makes as a result of myth #3 is well worth thinking about as well.
Sustainable development
The other central part of our work here so far has been to start exploring the concept of sustainable development as it might apply in Mt. Vernon and Lisbon. We need alternatives to residential development, which is no alternative at all since it only creates a drag on our economy as it errodes the character of our towns. Sustainable development is a real alternative, already in use to some degree, which could nourish our economies and communities as a whole. So far…
and began to…
That will continue.
Etcetera
Oh, and don’t forget the Wal-Mart movie we’re bringing to the Bijou on November 14th!
That’s not all we’ve covered. But it should be more than enough to get you up to speed or to help pull together the big picture of what we’re doing. If you want to dig further, take a look at the interchange regarding WalMart and other big box retailers under the first post on the site. Also see the post on the Project’s stance on people moving here, the story of the mighty little water meters of Bolinas (no residential growth since 1971 — and thriving!), and the rest.
To those of you who have been checking in here from the start I extend a thanks and an invitation to become more active in commenting. You need not say anything much; a quick sentence is fine and keeps me from having to pour over the hieroglyphics of site statistics to reassure myself that people are reading.
To you newcomers, I extend the same invitation. I ask as well that you read enough to be clear on the importance of the message. These towns as we know them are at risk. Take it from someone who’s seen the destruction this kind of “development” can wreak.
Thanks!
October 23rd, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Way down in the 17th comment under the first post on the site, Patty left a comment which I’m copying and replying to here to make it a little more visible to casual readers:
Patty — I think the Swedish system you describe sounds intriguing. I’ve been reading about how much land is consumed each year by residential and other development and the numbers are staggering. (I’ll post something on it soon.) According to one source, New Jersey, for instance, has been losing 50 acres a day to development. That’s 18,250 acres per year! The Swedish system sounds like it would preserve a great deal of land. That has to be a good thing.
Of course some would complain that the Swedish system would interfere with the free market or the freedom to do what you want with your own land, or what have you. But we’ve instituted plenty of other regulations concerning what you can reasonably do with a piece of land or a home or some other building. (You can’t dump toxic chemicals. You can’t build something that doesn’t meet code. In many places you have to meet certain aesthetic requirements. You can’t build at all in some places…) So, when there’s good reason, a law or a restriction can make a lot of sense. And that applies here. We’re covering too much land with “development” (”diminishment” might be the better term), and now is a good time to stop.
As for your last question, I should first mention that I’m pretty sure the cost of the average Stonebrook home, for instance, is a good deal higher than that of the average home in the older part of MV. So the money saved moving to an older home could of course be applied to fixing it up.
More fundamentally, though, I think the answer is simply to stop building subdivisions. An analogy might help. Suppose someone came along and built a 40 story glass and steel condo tower on the edge of MV or Lisbon. (Maybe not all that hard to do given the recent history of P&Z decisions, at least in MV. :|) There’s no question some people would arrive here and decide that was the place for them. i.e., maybe they like the high rise condo lifestyle, but like our location near CR and IC… whatever. Also, it requires considerably less maintenance than even a new house. Yes, some would choose that. But should we allow it to be built in the first place? No. Would it damage our small town character? Yes. It’s the same with the newest developments going up now.
People have all sorts of preferences, but a town has no obligation to cater to all of them. Indeed, it can’t do so without risking losing its identity.