Perhaps we can start with Warmists like Barack Obama, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, and all the rest
Green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning.
How can cities that have green building codes have zoning bylaws that protect low-density single family housing?
These days it seems that everyone is fighting over zoning. Housing costs in many cities are unaffordable but the great proportion of the cities are locked into single-family zoning and building anything but a detached house seems almost impossible. Right now we see these battles in Seattle, San Francisco, and Toronto, but they are happening just about in every successful city.
And the hilarious thing about it all is that these are also cities that have green building standards. San Francisco has a green building codedesigned to reduce energy use, Seattle’s green standard “saves resources and promotes renewable, clean energy”, Toronto’s standard’s intent is to “reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.”
The great hypocrisy is that the single biggest factor in the carbon footprint of our cities isn’t the amount of insulation in our walls, it’s the zoning. (snip)
We have been saying it for years: denser urban living is the key to reducing our carbon footprint. Some, like David Owen, call for really high density; I have called for the Goldilocks Density; the fashionable phrase now is the missing middle; both describe density high enough to support local businesses so that one can mostly get around by walking, but buildings that are low enough that they can be efficiently built out of low carbon materials like wood.
Interesting. Forcing Everyone Else into tight urban areas. A lot easier to control them and keep an eye on them, eh?
We have been talking about the relationship of density and carbon for years, and we have been talking about green building codes, certifications and bylaws. But green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning. Any civic government that calls itself green while protecting low density single family housing is just being hypocritical.
What they mean is that government needs to pass regulations restricting single family housing. Sounds less like a science or more like authoritative government as pushed by idiots who think the bad parts will never effect themselves.
They aren’t doing any better about getting away from that watermelon accusation are they?
Negative.
The left absolutely hates that people have the freedom to live in suburbs or anywhere else not in the urban core, and I think most of it’s just because they lose those tax dollars they feel should be theirs. We’ve heard them try to demonize choice by calling it urban sprawl as if it’s some sort of cancer, and when that doesn’t work they try to expand their hands into your pockets through regionalism.
Most municipal planning departments are chock-full of rabid leftists. So, instead of getting a lot of rational long-term planning that delivers services and housing to the needs of the community, you get many costly regulations and simply asinine requirements that feed their political agendas instead of common sense goals. There is plenty of room for strict zoning that is easy, smart, and cost-effective. Go to any college planning department and say you’re a private developer: they’ll look at you like you’re a cross between everyone they’ve ever hated in their lives.
Ants. To would-be queens and drones, the rest of you are just workers and they, being in charge, need to provide efficient little cubicles for you to live in. Your ambitions are irrelevant. So it goes with every aspect of Socialism/Communism. The new aristocracy lives pretty well and everyone else is not important.