Damn. swamp isn't just getting taken to the woodshed, he's being forced to pick out the board he's about to be paddled with.

Posted by creilmann on 12/29/2010 6:31:00 PM (view original):

 People wanted to live in their own houses with their own yards and the FHA made this possible. I agree they overstepped their constutional limits, but it was to give people what they wanted, not to force them to do something they would never want.

With this sentence, you've neatly summarized the tea party philosophy.  Eliminate government spending unless it benefits me.  Don't you dare violate the sanctity of our constitution unless of course it's to subsidize my way of life.  It's okay for the Feds to subsidize low-density, suburban housing, but it's downright communist to subsidize high-density urban housing.  Keep pumping billions of federal dollars into roads outside my house, but if a city wants light rail they better pay for it themselves.  And don't even think about trying to give me advice on how to eat a healthy meal Mrs. Obama, just make sure your husband continues to allow billions in subsidies to make sure that fast food or convenience food is cheap, cheap, cheap so I can keep shoving it down my gullet.  Don't you dare use my tax dollars to provide health care for our citizens, but I'll throw a fit if you lay a hand on my medicare.

Bunch of selfish hypocrites.

If the suburbs were truly a result of the free market, then you should have no problem in letting the buyer take on the true cost of suburban living.  Roads, water, sewer, sanitation and other municipal services all fully paid for by the buyer with no additional cost going to current residents.  I would bet that if this were true, today's suburbs either wouldn't exist or would be vastly different to what they look like now. 

1 Roads? Roads go everywhere. They have always been built by the government. It is a logical and constitutionaly limited role of government. People were living in the cities between the big cities for a long time. The idea that they built the roads to create suburbs is a bit of a stretch

I never wrote that roads were originally built to create suburbs, although today they often do.  I said that subsidized road and highway development facilitates suburbs.  Your argument was that suburbs were a result of free market decisions of the public.  My argument was that the federal, state and local governments subsidize suburbs by create highway infrastructure specifically for them.  Historically, roads were built between to existing urban areas.  Today, we build highways out into the middle of corn fields to anticipate suburban growth. 

2 Everywhere has zoning rules. You try to make connection between the government and the suburbs. The zoning rules for Warren, my suburb, were not made by the same poeple who made them for Detroit, the major city in my area. There is no connection beteen the two groups. How could this be a conspiracy?

I never wrote that there was such a connection.  I'm talking about a municipality, no matter what the size, and it's relation to suburban development within it's jurisdiction.  When they create laws that dictate lot sizes, parking minimums, building types, etc, that's not a free market community, that is a government-planned community.  If low-density suburban development is what everyone wants, then why have laws making other development illegal?

3 Now the FHA is corrupt? People wanted to live in their own houses with their own yards and the FHA made this possible. I agree they overstepped their constutional limits, but it was to give people what they wanted, not to force them to do something they would never want.

If people want it, then let them pay for it.  

This has been the basis for a lot of attacks on the Tea Party and for that matter Conservatives as a whole. How can you be for less government if you take government stuff.

The answer is simple, Liberals forced us to. I didnt choose to give my money to SS and Medicare. I wasnt even forced to do it myself. My employer takes it out before I ever see it. I would love to be able to invest my money, much like I do with my 401K. I would live a private medical account and private insurance provided by my employer or with my money. I had that choice taken from me. On to your specific points...(numbers respond to your paragraphs, not my original points)

1 What exactly is the difference between they way Detroit pays for their roads and sewers and the way Warren does? Answer nothing. Again if everyone got off the gravy train we would all be better off. You are applying a standard to the suburbs, pay your own costs, that no one would ever aplly to a major city.

2 Again every road is paid for in the same way. You want to apply a standard to the suburbs to force people to live in cities. The road commission builds roads to try to respond to demand. And even when they try to promote growth it often fails. The I-94 corridor was built because they thought it was a natural gorwth area. In reality I-75 became the growth area.

3 Zoning is not about forcing people to live in the way the government wants. It is about maximizing value. Keeping shops and apartments out of residential areas makes the area more attractive and more valuable. Do you think Condo boards and all their tyranical rules are based on anything than the interest of the owners overall?

I agree that we have more government interference in our lives than we need. It should be eliminated.

It should not be eliminated for people who you politically opposed first!

You want all the Govenment support to go to cities and have the suburbs pay taxes and get nothing in return.

As long as there was a level playing field the suburbs would thrive.

Swamp, this is one you need to quit on. You had tissue torn and a bit of bleeding. You were simply flat out crushed. You were overmatched. Crushed. Your follow-up questions were weak , pathetic and desperate . This one is so easy I'd take you on except you've already made clear how pointless your position is. You just flat out lost, pathetic, desperate, mindless points notwithstanding

The liberals forced us!!!  The oppressed silent majority bit is getting old.  The problem with that bit is that I don't remember Tea Partiers yelling about Social Security at town hall meetings.  I don't remember signs opposing medicare at their rallies.  When Tea Party darlings Rand Paul and Sharon Angle mentioned the privatization or elimination of these programs, they quickly backtracked and never mentioned it again.  When Bush proposed the privatization of Social Security in 2005, the GOP-held House and Senate let it die.  Funny how, with an opportunity to eliminate such significant government interference in their lives, I don't seem to remember Tea Party "Patriots" storming into Senate offices, demanding that they pass the proposal.  When the new farm bill was crafted in 2005 with yet even more subsidies tacked on, I don't remember the Tea Party marching on Washington to protest such a clear manipulation of the free market.

Like I said, the Tea Party is only interested in stopping government spending when they're not the direct beneficiaries of it.

As for your counterpoints.....

1.  I'm not sure how to explain this to you so that you'll understand.  I'm not comparing Warren to Detroit or Evanston to Chicago or Plano to Dallas.  These are outerlying self-sustaining cities unto themselves.  They provide there own municipal services.  They are mistakenly called suburbs, but they are not what this discussion is about.  This is about the sprawling low-density development that spreads out from these cities and towns.  These are the communities enjoy the luxuries of municipal services and infrastructure without having to fully compensate the city or town for the cost of extending those services out to them.  If suburbanites paid the true costs of these services themselves, you would see fewer far flung suburbs and the ones that did exist would be high income communities that could afford it.  Cities would grow organically as they have for centuries and services would branch out slowly at a pace that would be affordable to the community.

On the topic of Warren (Swamp's hometown), it's interesting to note that it has been one of the top population losers in the country since 1970 and apparently Warren's government has realized that it's current sprawling model is not working and too expensive to maintain so it's redeveloping a new "Downtown Warren" with high-density, mixed use, pedestrian-friendly development.  Enjoy Swamp!

2.  And even when they try to promote growth it often fails. The I-94 corridor was built because they thought it was a natural gorwth area. In reality I-75 became the growth area.

Sometimes it fails, sometimes it doesn't.  But with this, you seem to concede that the government does build highways in anticipation of growth instead of as a demand to growth.  In other words, it manipulates the market with highways.

3. Zoning is not about forcing people to live in the way the government wants.

Technically no, it's about maximizing profits for the builders by using government to restrict a resident's freedom to develop their property the way they would like.

Keeping shops and apartments out of residential areas makes the area more attractive and more valuable.

Oversimplified and mostly false.  Yeah, if I build an adult bookstore in the neighborhood, it can negatively affect property values, but a restaurant, or bookstore or beauty salon, etc, can all have positive affects on values.  Unfortunately, it is usually illegal for me to do so.

As long as there was a level playing field the suburbs would thrive.

No, if the playing field were truly level, most of the middle class would go back to denser communities in cities and towns were they could afford to live as they have for centuries and suburbs would go back to being exclusive high income communities as they were pre-WWII.  As I've proven over and over, suburbs exist as they are today because of heavy government subsidies.

So we are talking about the same thing can you name an area that fits this definition of a suburb?

I can look up anywhere in America so make it as good an example that you can think of.

On point one, crell, we may differ. Unless what I am about to say is, in fact, your point. While Plano is, to a degree, an outlying, self-sustaning city it would not be anywhere near the size it is without its proximity to Dallas. It would still be a small Texas backwater. But, like I said, perhaps that is part of the point. Plano would never have ben able to sustain it's population without the influence of Dallas. It's size is due to proximity to a major city and government-provided roads affording easy access to that city. 

So no definitions seem to be coming so I will just respond.

To put such a fine line of the term suburb makes this conversation almost irelevant.

The battle between Detroit and the Suburbs has been going on for a long time. L Brooks Patterson vs Coleman Young was a long running feud.

All the points you brought up were used.

So I cannot understand how warren isnt a Suburb?

Fine, then let's just use the word sprawl since you cannot seem to figure out what I'm talking about when I say low-density, single-use.  I understand that Warren may be considered a suburb of Detroit, but to my knowledge, the people of Warren do not have the municipal services of Detroit extended to their homes.  Therefore, there is no connection between Warren and Detroit in regards to this topic.  When I talk about a suburban development using the towns municipal services, I'm talking specifically about the low density development that separates itself from the town or city, yet still relies on that city to provide water, sewer, etc.  I know very little about Warren, but I would assume, like most towns and cities in the US, it has a distinct inner core that was the town of Warren for many decades, then in the mid-1900's, sprawling residential and commercial development sprung up around it.  It's that development that I am talking about.  That is the kind of development that usually gets a free ride in regards to new infrastructure and services.

Back to the larger topic at hand which was the lack of free market choice in the development of the suburbs.  After reviewing my previous posts, I noticed I left out one more tool in the government planning of suburbs, property taxes.  Property taxes are skewed to penalize development and reward land speculation and low-density. Yet another point that shows how suburban sprawl was, and still is, master-planned development with heavy government intervention.

Posted by zadnor on 12/30/2010 11:24:00 AM (view original):
On point one, crell, we may differ. Unless what I am about to say is, in fact, your point. While Plano is, to a degree, an outlying, self-sustaning city it would not be anywhere near the size it is without its proximity to Dallas. It would still be a small Texas backwater. But, like I said, perhaps that is part of the point. Plano would never have ben able to sustain it's population without the influence of Dallas. It's size is due to proximity to a major city and government-provided roads affording easy access to that city. 

True, but the particular point I was trying to make to Swamp was that there is no direct services provided to Plano from Dallas.  In other words, the citizens of Plano do not leech off of the municipal services that Dallas provides to it's citizens.  On the other hand, if you look at the sprawl development around Plano, you'll see what I'm talking about.  That's the kind of far flung development that wants to separate itself from the town of Plano, but still benefit from the services of Plano.  And when Plano has to pay for extending services to these developments, the cost is usually spread out amongst all it's citizens instead of just the ones who directly benefit.

Posted by creilmann on 1/1/2011 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Fine, then let's just use the word sprawl since you cannot seem to figure out what I'm talking about when I say low-density, single-use.  I understand that Warren may be considered a suburb of Detroit, but to my knowledge, the people of Warren do not have the municipal services of Detroit extended to their homes.  Therefore, there is no connection between Warren and Detroit in regards to this topic.  When I talk about a suburban development using the towns municipal services, I'm talking specifically about the low density development that separates itself from the town or city, yet still relies on that city to provide water, sewer, etc.  I know very little about Warren, but I would assume, like most towns and cities in the US, it has a distinct inner core that was the town of Warren for many decades, then in the mid-1900's, sprawling residential and commercial development sprung up around it.  It's that development that I am talking about.  That is the kind of development that usually gets a free ride in regards to new infrastructure and services.

Back to the larger topic at hand which was the lack of free market choice in the development of the suburbs.  After reviewing my previous posts, I noticed I left out one more tool in the government planning of suburbs, property taxes.  Property taxes are skewed to penalize development and reward land speculation and low-density. Yet another point that shows how suburban sprawl was, and still is, master-planned development with heavy government intervention.

The thing that seems to bother me about your whole pitch is your are clearly implying intent on someones part. This was a plan to create suburban sprawl. This was not just happening. If that is true who is doing this.

Zoming, taxes, and roads are all controlled by multiple government entities. The Suburb is often in a different county and that means that their roads, zoming and taxes were decided by different people than the city. Sometimes multiple counties.

This is a classic boogey man. "They" made the suburbs! "They" did this to you!

Can you answer who they are?

This is Swamp's feeble attempt to make my argument sound like a crazy conspiracy theory.  My guess is that he has realized that he has, yet again, gotten himself into a discussion that he has no business being in so the only thing left is to try and discredit his opponent.

The spread of the suburbs was totally free market.

That, Swamp, is the topic at hand.  You argued that the suburbs we're a free market decision.  I have presented many points that say otherwise and you still haven't really responded to them.  Your debate patterns are predictable and hysterical.  So let's get back on track.  The state created affordability in the suburbs by providing the infrastructure (at the cost of urban dwellers), by providing affordable loans that could only be used in the suburbs,  and by creating tax incentives for home owners.  When people moved to the suburbs, the government regulated how they lived through zoning laws and parking requirements.  The government also incentivized the sprawl of low-density development through property taxes that reward speculation and cheap construction.  All of that is presented in my previous posts.  

So can you answer something?  With all of the heavy government regulations and incentives that exist to lure people out to the suburbs, are you really going to stick to your argument that the 'burbs were a result of free market economics?

100% free market. If all the government actions were random and not part of a plan your argument falls flat. You said "lure people". That means ther was concious intent. Who was trying to "lure people". Who and why?

I didnt want to say crazy conspiracy theory. It isnt really a crazy theory. All the things you claim did happen, the conclusions you draw based on those facts is the problem.

1 People want to own their own homes. This is really core to the discussion. People wanted to live in subdivisions. The demand was not created, it was filled.

2 Roads. There have been roads leading out of Detroit going to Port Huron, Flint and Lansing forever. It is the same in most towns. Roads between major and secondary cities have existed since before cars. The Feds put some Intersates up in the 50s. Most other roads were built by each county to meet demand. Roads followed development, they never lead it.

3 Taxes. The government did give tax breaks for home interest. To my knowlwdge it applied to every person, not just suburbs. As for property taxes, I cant imagine a person in Oakland or Macomb county (The 2 major counties north of Detroit, One more blue collar and one more white collar) paying less in taxes on a similar home then anyone in the high density City of Detroit.

4 Zoning laws. It is the people who live here that dont want a store on the corner. We want all the houses together to look pretty. We want all the stores in malls. We made that choice and elected county zoming officials that would carry out our vision. Again demand before supply.

I know you believe what you say. This is part of the class warfare that the Democratic party has waged on America since the 60s. They are against you. The suburbanites are taking away from your city. As I said this battle raged in the Detroit area and it still does. The recent battles over the Detroit Water are just an extension of the same battles from the past.

I answered your question. Answer mine....Who and why?

So what you're saying is that you have no idea what free market means.  Government regulations and subsidies do not add up to free market.  I assumed this was basic economic knowledge that you would have already possessed.  

People wanted to live in subdivisions. The demand was not created, it was filled.

Maybe, maybe not.  Isn't it up to the private sector to identify these demands and supply them to the public?  Why do we need government insured loans, tax incentives, low-density zoning, etc?  Those are not tools of the free market.  People want lots of things.  For example, people want affordable health insurance, but you and your tea party brethren have spent the last two years throwing a fit about the prospect of government health care.  Why is it okay for the state to make suburban housing affordable, but a socialist evil to make health care affordable?  

Again the issue isnt did the government do these things. The issue is was there a point to it.

Your hyping on zoning is based on either you not understanding what it is, or you assuming that it sounds good and most people do not know what zoning is. The reason there isnt a small market on the corner of my street isnt based on zoning. It is based on he couldnt survive. The 7-11 I pass every day can do it better and cheaper. If someone wanted to put up a store in a subdivision and the people who lived there wanted it they could apply for a variance and put up a store.

The government insured loans and tax breaks are in place to create jobs. Again you can build anywhere and get the same breaks. Builders have a strong PAC.

I think the government should not do that, but it has nothing to do with the suburbs!

The last poll I saw said 58% of Americans opposed Obamacare. And at the height of the Healt Care debate people opposed a single payer plan about 2-1. Who are these people you speak of?

And you still either cannot or will not answer...Who and Why?

As usual, I've come to the point in our debate where I realize that this has all been pointless (cue Anton).  You don't even know the concept of one of the principals you claim to hold so dear.  The little bit of it that you do understand is pushed aside when it comes to a commodity that benefits you.  You are the worst of hypocrites.