response 126 of 143:

Apr 18 11:02 UTC 2002

I did not say the event could not be held somewhere which is also accessible
by car, such as public school gyms for dances.  My premise would lead to lots
more public transportation.

response 128 of 143:

Apr 18 17:09 UTC 2002

I agree with keesan that current land use (sprawl) might cause problems 
in the future. I also know it isnt my personal preference. But, the 
problem is very complex and it should be noted that dense populations 
have their own problems. 

Anyhow, regarding public transportation - the only way to get a 
substantial number of people using public transportation is for public 
transportation to cost less than driving a car. Obviously I dont mean 
just financial costs but costs of time, pleasure, status, etc. 

There are lots of ways to make driving a car more costly and taking 
public transportation less costly. You could increase the amount of tax 
dollars that gets spent on public transportation in order to add routes 
and run busses more frequently. You can decrease the amount of tax 
dollars that get spent on parking effectively raising parking rates. 
You can refuse to build new roads or to widen existing ones which would 
create traffic jams which would add to the hassle of driving a car 
*and* riding the bus but would make taking a train nicer reletively. A 
zoning law such as Sindi suggests would also work but only if you could 
get every community in an area to participate. 

response 130 of 143:

Apr 18 18:05 UTC 2002

#124> Why not require that public transit go to all major business centers?
Forcing private business to cater to the whims of government doesn't do
anything but cement the government's opinion that it can do as it pleases.

response 132 of 143:

Apr 18 18:43 UTC 2002

Portland, Oregon has tried limiting sprawl with ordinances.  The main
result is that property inside the growth boundary is now extremely
expensive.  People who can't afford the higher property rates will be
forced to move farther out, which is sort of counterproductive if you're
trying to limit sprawl...

response 136 of 143:

Apr 18 19:53 UTC 2002

And naturally you shouldnt be allowed to do anything on your land that 
will harm land next to yours. e.g you shouldnt be allowed to build a 
sewage pond in lieu of paying for a real sewer system since sewage 
ponds often leak and contaminate everything around it or if you are 
allowed to build something like a lagoon style sewage system or even a 
septic field, you should be required to pay for any damage to any of 
your neighbor's land should that land become contaminated. 

Also, if you are planning on subdividing your property and building 
lots of little houses on it, you should be required to pay the 
community for any extra initial expenses they have because of that 
development -- extra schools, better roads, etc. 

response 138 of 143:

Apr 18 20:19 UTC 2002

Re #133: I'd contend that a lot of the differences between Detroit and
Portland -- a safe, walkable downtown, for example -- don't have much to
do with sprawl restrictions.  Portland was a nice place long before they
stopped outward development.

Re #137: I can only imagine how clogged our court system would be if
every time someone started piling junked cars on their lot, or built a
building too close to their property line, or decided to keep pigs on
their back lawn, a lawsuit had to be filed to get them to stop. 
Consider, too, that you'd then have no guidelines to follow;  you
wouldn't know how far back you had to build your garage to be sure your
neighbor wouldn't successfully sue to get it torn down.

response 142 of 143:

Apr 19 02:36 UTC 2002

keesan, do you realize that your arguments start with a conclusion and work
backward toward the premise instead of the other way around, and that by so
doing, you reflect a total disregard for the actual state of reality?