Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial columnist Patrick McIleran addressed in his blog my post regarding his piece on a scuttled conservation suburb in East Troy.
While he and I disagree, I'm grateful that he took the time to engage my little tirade. However, he mischaracterized what I'd said in some instances (no big deal; little things like saying that I think "the spreading out of cities is a bad thing," etc.), so I added my comments to his post in the extended link below.
Also, in contrast to my admittedly screed-like blog post, my letter to the editor was much more sedate:
LETTER TO JOURNAL SENTINEL
Hello,
I'm astounded by the gaps in Patrick McIlheran's knowledge of issues related to sustainable development as exposed in his head-scratcher of an editorial, "When Arm's Length Is Just Long Enough." McIleran seems to believe that the principal goal of a conservation subdivision like the one scotched in East Troy is basically "preserving farms" in an area where "we're not pinched to grow food."
Besides setting up an absurd straw man argument, McIlheran utterly ignores a laundry list of serious problems associated with his beloved cul-de-sacs and two-acre lots, problems that so-called new urbanist communities are attempting to mitigate.
Want to talk about simple self-interest? Keep building cul-de-sac after cul-de-sac with single road access to already overburdened collector roads and the sound of birdies outside your window will soon be drowned out by the drone of steady traffic a quarter-mile away on the only road within another mile that leads to the highway. Watch the cost of getting sewer and power lines out to sprawled subdivisions strangle the city budget (surely you've seen the formula: $1 of residential tax income costs suburban city governments about $1.22 largely due to developer-driven "planning"). And then - - here comes the boogie man that seems to get real attention - - watch your property taxes go up again and again.
Nothing touchy-feely about it. Sprawl is expensive, and something has to change. Not everyone can simply move "farther out" every time things get out of control in proximity to their formerly-ideal home.
I know of which I speak; I've lived in a sprawl-bound suburb for nearly a decade. While I hope for - - and have begun working for - - a more enlightened attitude right here, I will likely move my family to a more community-conscious, less vehicle-centric city if the status quo is maintained.
John Michlig
From Patrick McIleran's Blog, my comments in Green
Sometimes you need a little social isolation
John Michlig takes issue with my Wednesday column on "sprawl," saying that the spreading out of cities is a bad thing.
Well, certain aspects of the spreading out of cities are, in my opinion, detrimental. You have to "spread out" to survive.
For one thing, he says, suburbs involve cul-de-sacs, another taboo to planners -- but nonetheless beloved by home buyers. Michlig, like others, contends these concentrate traffic in a way that gridded streets don't.
True, perhaps, but as made clear in that hyperlinked story, a refreshing piece on just how much home-buyers actually prefer cul-de-sacs, people who live on such streets appear to be crystal-clear about the tradeoffs, and they accept them. And for broader costs -- more turn lanes here or there, some extra arterial capacity -- the sensible thing to do is levy the costs by impact fee rather than declaring war on home-buyers' preferences.
I can't disagree that people might like cul-de-sacs, but shouldn't we look beyond the tip of our own noses when planning on a community and regional basis? I'm sure my neighbor would like an gun range in his backyard, but might his increased satisfaction have an adverse effect on surrounding residents?
The impact fee issue is addressed later on ...
Michlig also contends houses on 2- to 5-acre lots lead to more erosion. I suppose so, if you keep horses in the yard and let them wear the grass down to dirt. But surely that's not typical.
Interesting supposition. However, we are talking about LAWNS - - typical in nearly all suburban backyards - - that allow swifter-than-natural run-off, not to mention the chemical fertilizers introduced into the water table. (Shamed admission: I use a lawn service, and the width of my yard that I allow to grow wild does little to mitigate that.)
How would 3 acres of grass or wetland or prairie lead to more soil erosion than leaving the land in soybeans or corn? In topsoil loss, agriculture, for all its other merits, outstrips yards.
Straw man argument. McIlheran has positioned "farmland preservation" as the focus of conservation subdivisions, not me. Grass, wetland and prairie are also useful and conserved to good effect by smart planning practices.
And while you need impervious roads to reach those spread-out homes, the necessary roads in denser development cover a greater proportion of the development's land, leaving less for run-off. This is why MMSD's runoff initiative includes a focus on older, denser subdivisions, where there's less room for runoff to soak in.
This is a question of geometry. Do you concentrate a development to contain impervious surfaces in a manageable zone around which you cultivate grass, wetland and prairie, or do you continue to thread ultra-wide, speed-encouraging curved roads (another common subdivision practice) hither and yon through the countryside, fragmenting the area?
He also contends that suburbia will socially isolate one's family. Again, maybe: I don't live in suburbia, so I can't say, though I grew up in exurbia and don't feel I was stunted. Surely, the distance from neighbors isn't a surprise to people moving to big-lot country. And I've heard the comment so frequently that an advantage to big lots is separation from neighbors that I have to believe what Michlig calls isolation is something sought out by many people in exurbia: Only they call it privacy.
Not "suburbia will socially isolate one's family," but certain suburban "planning" practices lead to an isolation that greatly crimps, for instance, the independence of a child who is old enough to bike or walk to the park, library, store etc. - - - but the park, library, and/or store are not at all accessible by bike or walkway!
Also, I - - and perhaps he - - grew up in a different suburbia/exurbia than what we're seeing now. Mr. McIleran might be very surprised by a biking-to-the-store/library/park experience in certain areas here in Franklin. (Ironically, there are also some excellent bike trails here.)
Perhaps they don't have kids -- he contends exurbia's bad because kids must be driven everywhere. Or if they do, that may be a small price to pay to get better schools. Again, "social isolation" is good or bad depending on what you're isolated from.
No argument from me regarding isolation and privacy as a choice.
And he mentions the cost of running infrastructure to spread-out places. But again, among 2- to 5-acre lots, densities are low enough to get by with wells and septic systems or, now, rainwater capture systems. Where that won't do, local authories have the option of fees on new development. I never brought up who pays the cost of new development, but it's not a difficult thing to allocate real costs fairly.
I may be misunderstanding. Is Mr. McIlheran not aware of recent legislation that FREES developers from paying upfront impact fees on their subdivisions? Even if these impact fees are limited to expenses for parks and green space, the lack of these payments will curtail a community's ability to run "pipe and wires" out to another far-flung group of houses. From the Journal-Sentinel:
Given those financial difficulties, "Why would any community allow a new subdivision?" Miller asked. The answer is they probably won't, as the Cedarburg Common Council demonstrated shortly after the bill became law when it declined to give preliminary approval to a 54-lot subdivision. "A community can't plan to make those improvements if they don't know when the cash is coming in," said Mayor Greg Myers in a statement blasting the new law. Forget more affordable housing; now, there may be no new housing.
One other point I'd contest: Michlig seems to presume I don't like conservation subdivisions.
I never said that. In fact, I don't give a rip one way or another about them. I'm sure they're a dandy idea for people who want such things, though I'm unlikely to move into one for reasons both of expense and preference.
My point was that the Town of East Troy neighbors didn't like it and specifically preferred what they had instead. More to the point, the East Troy neighbors weren't against all conservation subdivisions, as Michlig is against East Troy's pattern on principle. They just didn't want it nearby. Michlig, it appears, doesn't want 5-acre lots anywhere.
I think the opposite is true. I'm all for CHOICE - - so there should (and always will) be areas with 5-acre lots available AND areas with denser development. But if you don't build it - - ala East Troy's rejection of this particular conservation subdivision - - then there is no choice and it appears as if there is a group of people who do not want conservation subdivisions anywhere in their community.
One more complaint: I never wrote "you dumb tree-hugging liberals." I didn't even get close. I was quite careful to be critical of those who are broadly critical of suburbs on what I think are specious grounds, but I didn't even hint they were liberals (some are, in fact, conservatives).
That was a paraphrase of what I perceived as his tone and certainly not presented in any way to imply he wrote it (I assumed "you dumb tree-hugging liberals" was absurd enough to not be taken seriously, and I attached his editorial to my comments). But he makes a good point: this issue crosses liberal/conservative ideology. However, he must admit that the impetus for most initiatives that contain the word "conservation" come from the liberal side.
And I didn't say they were dumb. I said they were bossy, which is a different sin entirely. This was one of several extrapolations by Michlig of what he believed me to really be thinking, I guess. In doing so, he missed the mark, I'm afraid.
I confess to extrapolations. However, his noting the "abstract satisfaction of knowing that soybeans stretch undisturbed beyond a tidy urban boundary" contains a whiff of mockery directed toward... someone.
Worked up
On top of all that, what gets me is the tone taken by Mr. Michlig. He doesn't just contest my conclusions; he says they're bizarre. He doesn't just say I'm wrong, he says I'm wrong because I don't read enough (amusingly, this is mentioned in the context of Reason, a journal I do, in fact, read).
Well, not that he DOESN'T read enough in some general sense, but that he seemed not to have read widely on this particular subject. Or, he willfully mono-focused on the "farmland preservation" issue without mentioning the myriad other issues brought to bear in this kind of discussion.
Why the tone of anger? Why the personal edge?
That's a question of context. Were I to engage Mr. McIleran's points in a public, widely-read forum like a daily or weekly newspaper, I would certain adopt a much, much more objective tone (my letter to the editor was very subdued). However, this particular blog - - as is the case with many ongoing blogs - - is a very subjective exercise. There will always be a personal edge and occasional heat-of-the-moment fervor. And there will always be the little "comment" button below each entry so that people can respond in direct proximity to what I've written.
While I like to be somewhat entertaining in my blog postings (I admit to peppering the entry in question with impolitic words like "absurd,""inept," and "bizarre"), I agree that it would be unfair to adopt such an edgy tone in a forum where there is no opportunity for direct comment and/or rebuttal.
I would contend it's because my original point is right, that this is more about aesthetics than facts. For its ardent critics, such as James Howard Kunstler (warning: this link leads to his blog that bears a name I wouldn't repeat before mixed company), building a home on 5 acres is not merely inadvisable or unwise, it's sin. And their anger at it can lead to intemperance.
I don't know about aesthetics vs. facts, but I can't argue with him regarding Kunstler. : )
Comments