Smart Urban Planning?

Have you ever felt out of step with the majority at a gathering?  Last night I was a town council meeting where I felt like the guy wearing shorts and a tee shirt at a black tie affair.
My town is finally coming to grips with an issue that has been brewing for years. The Province of Ontario has mandated my town as a growth centre - part of the Greater Toronto Area. The town still has a large component of zoned farmland that could be developed to accommodate this new growth. Let's put aside for the moment the issue that the Province can dictate where people should live and how towns should develop, I think that's wrong.
The town's councillors felt compelled to act on the provincial edict. A variety of special interest groups ranging from the David Suzuki Foundation, to all manner of ratepayers, farmers, and developers groups fought (in a civilized way) to convince the town councillors how to plan this future growth. There were public meetings, council meeting, special meetings and on an on for years. The essence of the debate focussed on rezoning the farmland. The developers and the farmers wanted the land rezoned for future development in accord with the provincial edict, the other groups, lets call them the environmental lobby, wanted to preserve 100% of the farmland (some of the best land in the Canada) for future food production (as a Food-belt) and concentrate any future growth within the existing urban developed land. That concentration is euphemistically called "intensification" or I prefer "densification". Councillors were prepared to apportion up to 60% of the future growth within the existing urbanized land and the rest on the rezoned farmland.
So yesterday was decision day and the environmental lobby had there guns out (metaphorically speaking). The mayor, who doesn't know the meaning of brevity, rambled on about the "process" and thanked all present (and those in the past) for the civil conduct displayed. A lot of "back-patting" followed, it is after all an election year.  Then came two hours of deputations beginning with a representative from the Suzuki Foundation who played this video which featured the guru himself. One after another people spoke, mostly on behalf of the environmental lobby, followed by raucous applause. Each repeated how the farmland was essential, even though our growing season is short and farmers are having difficulty competing with farm produce from offshore. Many of the farmers are nearing retirement age with no one willing to purchase their land and keep the farms going. For them selling to a developer may be a profitable out.
The environmental lobby would prevent this, farmers would be forced to continue or sell to anyone but a developer and take far less than the fair market value of the property. One eloquent speaker, the daughter of a farmer, spoke about how her father would like to do nothing else but continue his farm, but his age will make that difficult sooner than later.
Many from the environmental lobby spoke about "smart growth" in towns like Portland Oregon and wanted my town to be a model for smart growth in Canada. The problem is that smart growth has its share of criticisms now, after being around in the States for years. Portland and other cities have many of the problems, that were supposed to be avoided with smart growth. Smart growth is also supposed to be more conducive to beating climate change (if you think that's a problem), but studies have shown the opposite is true. Here is an interesting debate if you have an hour to kill.
All of this debate was going on during our Great Recession, which I fear is still in the early stages. The smart growth approach depends heavily on major governmental transit expenditures. These would need to be financed with increased debt, which could be a problem given the possibility of sovereign defaults in Europe. A default could cause money to stop flowing like those days in the fall of 2008.
Today in the Globe, our friend Neil Reynolds lays out one of the chief problems with Western society. All of this is related to how governments take on responsibilities they should not - smart growth, stupid idea.          
 

Why weddings matter

Last week at this time my family and friends were preparing for the wedding of my son to his fiance and former girlfriend. This event has been long anticipated, and even though they were living together we all knew that the marriage was a big deal.
By coincidence on the morning of the marriage, Margaret Wente (one of my "go-to" columnists) in the Globe and Mail published "Why weddings matter more than ever". I tried reading it to my family at the breakfast table and the emotions were very strong in the context of the day.
After the wedding I read comments about this column in the paper and online. I felt that many people missed one of Ms. Wente's most important points, so I wrote my own letter to the editor. Now that the kids are off on a honeymoon, the relatives have returned safely home, and the dust is settling in my house, I thought I would share with you what I wrote to the Globe and Mail:

Margaret Wente’s column (Why weddings matter… May 1^st) was published on the same day my son was married, so it had a special impact in my household that morning.

 Ms. Wente mentioned that wedding rates are in decline and that “No government, no matter how well-heeled or well-intentioned, can offer an effective substitute for the devotion and parental investment of two nurturing adults.” 

I absolutely agree and I believe that our governments in the last 60 years have usurped the position and responsibility of family, church and community. Who needs these institutions when strangers are coerced by government through a myriad of welfare programs, into providing for all our needs from cradle to grave?

It is no coincidence that rates of marriage have declined, and that rates of divorce and single parent families have increased in that span of 60 years.

My son’s wedding was wonderful!

The Globe editor did not publish this letter, frustrating yes, but that is one reason I blog.

  

 

Reactions to political words

A recent survey of Americans by the Pew Research Center shows that Libertarians have some work to do in defining what they represent.
The chart shows that among those surveyed the reaction to the word Libertarian is not screamingly positive, on the contrary. Yet the terms "States' rights", "Civil liberties" and "Civil rights" have distinctly positive reactions. All of these might be supported to a large degree in the libertarian idea. The disconnect between these terms and the term libertarian seems larger than is warranted, so maybe those ideas are not part of the libertarian sales pitch. They should be.
The article points out that Republicans take a dim view of libertarians, (so much for the term "right-wing" when applied to libertarians) while Democrats are evenly divided and Independents have a much more favourable view (44% positive/32% negative). The term "right-wing" which I just mentioned, would to me, more closely fit "fascist-authoritarian-socialists" who are Republicans, by and large (of course they would disagree).
Libertarians are in desperate need of better marketing strategies or they will be stuck with this negative view.

Ion Propulsion - The Next Generation

For all you "trekkies" or "trekkers" here is more evidence that Star Trek has changed the world.  A space probe called Dawn is travelling beyond the orbit of Mars and heading into the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Dawn is supposed to achieve "standard orbit" (a Star Trek term - see picture) around the asteroid Vesta, staying and exploring a while then heading off to the asteroid Ceres later. These are two of the largest asteroids in this solar system. Why study asteroids? Well, the standard NASA answer is to gets some insights into how they formed and help scientists understand the formation of the solar system. Of course asteroids may be cholk-full of raw materials, so science may not be the only reason for such a trip.
This is not the first time asteroids or comets have been visited. On July 4th, 2005, NASA's Deep Impact probe intentionally collided with the comet Temple 1. In January 2006, NASA's Stardust probe returned samples of the Comet Wild and is on route to visit Temple 1 in 2011. In September 2008 the European Space Agency's Rosetta probe flew by the asteroid Steins.
But the Dawn visit is unique because it orbits two asteroids and if it had used conventional fuel it would have been too heavy to launch with current vehicles. Instead of conventional fuel Dawn uses Ion propulsion, a concept made popular during the original Star Trek series.  This clip helps explain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjR36EAR_B4