PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : "Sprawl, Schmall... Give Me More Development" by L. Brooks Patterson (Metro Detroit)



LMich
12-19-2006, 09:25 AM
I'm not sure when L. Brooks Patterson (County Executive of Oakland County, suburban Detroit) wrote this having stumbled upon it, but it gives you a clear insight into how Patterson views Metro Detroit and regionalism.

Patterson makes some very good points (what evil genius doesn't? The man's smart, no doubt.), but I think it also shows how narrowly he views things, and how short-sighted and nonchalant he is about the negatives of sprawl. It's a good read whatever you take from it.

Sprawl, Schmall... Give Me More Development

you think four-letter words are dirty and nasty, how about that six-letter word: sprawl.

To the doom and gloom crowd, "sprawl" ranks right up there with the plague, leprosy, and the French.

Well, let me state it unequivocally: I love sprawl. I need it. I promote it. Oakland County can't get enough of it. Are you getting the picture?

Sprawl is not evil. In fact, it is good. It is the inevitable result of a free people exercising their cherished, constitutionally protected rights as individuals to pursue their dreams when choosing where to live, where to work, where to educate, and where to recreate.

Let's stop the hysteria and honestly ask ourselves what is sprawl? "Sprawl" is the unfortunate pejorative title government planners give to economic development that takes place in areas they can't control. In reality, "sprawl" is new houses, new school buildings, new plants, and new office and retail facilities. "Sprawl" is new jobs, new hope and the fulfillment of lifelong dreams. It's the American Dream unfolding before your eyes.

Today, if a company pulls up stakes, abandons a suburban location and moves into the central city (often doubling or tripling the commute time for its employees), the anti-American Dream doom-and- gloomers call it "economic revitalization," and they praise it.
But if a company, a residential builder, or a family moves out into the suburbs, it's condemned by the anti-American Dreamers. "It's sprawl," they hiss, "it's bad." They demand new laws be imposed turning local control over to state government planners charged with discouraging, containing, shutting down, stopping and reversing growth outside central cities.

The anti-American Dreamers would have you believe that suburban growth is at the root of all problems that beset our cities, both in Michigan and across our country. They seem to believe that citizens left thriving cities, and that it was their departure that caused high crime, high taxes, invisible public services, and failing public school systems.

Anybody who believes that line of thinking is taking denial to a whole new level. Sprawl did not cause the decline of the cities. Cities declined because they squandered their assets. High crime rates, high taxes, failing schools, foul air and a lack of open green spaces forced people to move.

Sprawlers, like me, simply wanted a home with green grass on a safe, well maintained street, a quality neighborhood school that actually educated their children, a good job, nearby parks and recreational spaces, and a local government that actually delivers the services their taxes paid for. In other words, they wanted a place like today's Oakland County.

Some of the more disingenuous anti-Dreamers complain that we are blacktopping Oakland County. They claim that our farms and forestland is being gobbled up by developers, those nasty people who build single family homes instead of high density housing projects. They are concerned that Oakland County, and indeed all of America, will soon be one big Blockbuster parking lot. But the facts refute their hysterical myths.

First, the truth is that any responsible examination of Oakland County's robust, vital and life-sustaining development clearly shows that the sky is not falling. Oakland County's satisfied residents, responsible business leaders, and the elected and appointed officials of our 61 cities, villages and townships have done a good job as stewards of Oakland's 910 square miles.

This is demonstrated by how we have developed our land resources.

Check it out: single family homes, a primary goal for many families seeking their share of the American Dream, take up 38.5 percent of the total land in Oakland County. Vacant land is the next largest land use, at 13.6 percent. Recreation and conservation uses (permanently set aside) follow at 13.3 percent. Lakes and rivers take 5.9 percent of our land area; agriculture uses 4.2 percent, industry follows at 4.2 percent, public spaces use 3.8 percent, and commercial uses account for only 2.1 percent. (The remaining 13.4 of land use is made up of utility right-of-ways, railroads, and mobile home parks.) We have a balance of land uses that works!
Secondly, according to readily available research, Michigan today is still 91 percent rural. And at the present rate of development, Michigan has a couple of millenniums left before it would be a totally urbanized state.

What about the claim that America is being paved over? Well, the total land in the United States is 3.6 million square miles. Of that total land mass, some 126,000 square miles are considered urbanized. This means that less than 3.5 percent of America is "developed" urban area.

Are the developers really gathering up all the farm land and forest acres for their own greedy purposes? Not hardly. Today there is more forested land in Michigan than there was 100 years ago. While the amount of land being used for farming is declining, it's not primarily because of development, but rather because of improved productivity within the farming industry itself.

Today, due to technological improvements, we grow and produce more products for market on substantially less land. In fact, a substantial percentage of our farming produce is now shipped overseas. We still easily feed ourselves as a nation.

One final myth debunker: How much land do we have? Try this: if every man, woman and child in America were forced to relocate to the State of Texas, each of us would have 3/5 acre to call our own.
So the next time you hear the word sprawl, embrace it. It simply means economic development. It means jobs. It means the freedom to choose. It translates into quality of life.

And the next time somebody rubs your face in the word sprawl, take a long, hard look at that person. Too often you will see some limousine liberal who long ago fled our cities. Now, they want others to go back and take their place. They want to use the power of government to force you back into a city, or a neighborhood, or a housing type they chose not to live in themselves. They want to force you back to the city to help purge themselves of their perceived sin of abandonment.

If you remember nothing else, please remember this: it's all about the pronoun "it". "It" is the subject of intense competition. "It" is the most sought after thing in the country. "It" is called economic development. If you don't have "it," and someone does, "it" is a bad thing called "sprawl." Ask yourself, if "it" is so evil, why do they want "it" so badly that they compete for "it," they give tax breaks to attract "it," give incentives and create enterprise zones to secure "it?" You know the answer.

L. Brooks Patterson
Oakland County Executive

http://www.oakgov.com/exec/brooks/sprawl.html

hudkina
12-19-2006, 09:00 PM
Let me guess, Patterson just bought several hundred acres of land in Brandon TWP that he's just itching to make money from...

I'm fine with Oakland County developing itself. But it needs to do so in a more organized way. Is Patterson proud of the fact that places are developing so disorderly that dirt roads are starting to see traffic jams because of all of the subdivisions going up? Does he love the fact that schools in formerly rural townships are suffering because they are extremely overcrowded? Can he not get enough of grid-locked traffic on two lane roads that were designed to hold 1/20th of the traffic they now see? Or how about the extra costs that the rest of us have to endure because 10 families want city water on their cul-de-sac off 30 Mile Rd.

The thing I find funny is that Patterson doesn't realize that Oakland County is already being passed over by Livingston County as the "it" county. He needs to realize that as businesses start moving out to Brighton there's nothing he can do to stop it. Oakland County is on the verge of becoming the next Wayne County if Michigan keeps the same mentality.

the pope
12-19-2006, 11:10 PM
patterson does an excellent job of touting the northern "developing" suburbs and giving zero shits for the ol' inner ring burbs which are built out. That's why I don't vote for him.

LMich
12-20-2006, 12:17 AM
The main problem with Patterson ideology is what happens when it happens to his county? Sprawl begets more sprawl, and as made a point by Hudkina, much of Oakland County is already old news, and much of it starting to become old news. It's really obvious, but sprawl is unsustainable.

Patterson, and he'll never have acknowledge this because his pride is too strong, is going to have to realize Oakland Counties future is actually to its past, and that means concentrating development in the already developed in the south of the county. He needs to move his ideology back south closer to 8 Mile instead of letting it continue to drift to 38 Mile Road.

So, Patterson, what happens when development starts to drift beyond 38 Mile Road? Soar grapes, I guess.

But, I'm wondering how hard it will be for Oakland County to centralize its efforts? For a county to be a 1,000,000+ to have not one city over 100,000 is pretty rare, and I'm wondering if a new exec even did decide to concentrate development where would they concentrate it?

MayorOfChicago
12-20-2006, 12:29 AM
Cities were the "HOT" thing 60 years ago. Then they went into decline as suburbs became the "HOT" thing.

Now suburbs are becoming old, with new edge cities the "HOT" place people are moving.

My issue is now people are finally moving back and revitalizing these cities, and with 10,000 people per square mile that's a lot of tax dollars to help pay for infrastructure improvements, rehabbing 3-flats and apartment buildings, etc.

You take a suburb with 1/5 of that density, and basically the same amount of roads and all these little houses, stores, parking lots, etc. It's going to be much more difficult in 50 years to rebuild and repave all these streets for vastly fewer people.

I think cities are much easier to bring back than some of these endless "sprawling" suburbs. There are less people per build square mile who are going to have to pay for these things when they finally get "old" and need to be rebuilt. Even if people don't "flee" the burbs, they're going to age and need to be re-built. Once they start declining people WILL start leaving for something shiny and new.

This country needs to learn how to PRESERVE and MAINTAIN, not just use our wealth to move onto something brand new when our current development starts to show any age.

volguus zildrohar
12-20-2006, 12:37 AM
This sounds like the lunacy of a guy who's wife rolls in her sleep and keeps pushing him to the edge of the bed.

MayorOfChicago
12-20-2006, 01:14 AM
imagine the dreams you could have rolling in your sleep!

Michi
12-20-2006, 01:37 AM
So, L. Brooks said it best. Oakland County does not deserve economic development incentives. That's too bad. They're noncompetitive to begin with, being that their residents are sprawling into one of two places: Macomb County to the east or Livingston County to the west. I wonder who's accountable for that, Mr. Patterson. You're so smart and evil, why don't you tell us. :tup:

Michi
12-20-2006, 01:44 AM
This sounds like the lunacy of a guy who's wife rolls in her sleep and keeps pushing him to the edge of the bed.

The only rolling Patterson does is behind the wheel while drunk. He's been pulled over for drunk driving out in his hometown of Independence Township (wherever that is)...some place off the beaten path that leaches off the Oakland County Sheriffs Office.

Seriously, I've been to Brooks' Independence Twp once. It was like going out to camp, but only all the camps were nestled in the forest and 10,000 square feet, rather than 700.

LMich
12-20-2006, 02:00 AM
I'm kind of worried about the future of Oakland County for this reason:

Under Patterson, the county has sprawled quite a ways from its southeast corner start pretty much nullifying alot of the power the old part of the county once had.

So, with the north and west of the county having more say than ever before, when Patterson is out, will their new exec be elected from the exurbs or the Woodward corridor? I feel Pattersons will to sprawl the county to hell is going to hurt it, politically, for a long time to come. He didn't just create new suburbs, he created and sustained a movement away from the Southfields, Royal Oaks, and even Troys, which is hard to believe.

MotorCityDave
12-20-2006, 03:33 PM
Sounds like the ramblings of a senile old man.... or the high school debate kid that chooses his side of the debate by drawing a card... actually, the high school debate kid would probably be able to present a better arguement for the 'good of sprawl' that this article does.

MotorCityDave
12-20-2006, 03:38 PM
The thing I find funny is that Patterson doesn't realize that Oakland County is already being passed over by Livingston County as the "it" county. He needs to realize that as businesses start moving out to Brighton there's nothing he can do to stop it. Oakland County is on the verge of becoming the next Wayne County if Michigan keeps the same mentality.

I don't think he really cares, because he knows he will be dead by the time any one notices what happened.... or at least retired, and then the Oakland Co faithful can blame the new guy that took his place, and say "things all started to go down hill since Patterson left".... little do they know, it all started about half way through his term, and it took years for the layman to notice, then it was too late.

He is no different than most politicians (or any business man for that matter), the object is to make as much money as possible while you can, you know that the job doesn't last forever.

SuburbanNation
12-24-2006, 11:48 PM
oh my god...

Marcu
12-25-2006, 01:18 AM
I think cities are much easier to bring back than some of these endless "sprawling" suburbs. There are less people per build square mile who are going to have to pay for these things when they finally get "old" and need to be rebuilt. Even if people don't "flee" the burbs, they're going to age and need to be re-built.


Suburban construction has gotten so cheap that we can just graze it and start over. Cookie-cutter suburbia is easy to replicate. Either that or the population growth can fill it.

detroit_alive
12-25-2006, 03:07 PM
Its true marco, most office developments have a projected 15 year life span before they completely lose their value.

Exodus
12-26-2006, 08:18 PM
I didn't have to read it. It's obvious that he is for raping land with subdivisions, malls, and office parks. Which in return hurts the city.:hell:

LMich
12-26-2006, 10:32 PM
That is true, but I find people frame this far too narrowly. This doesn't just hurt Detroit, which was largely drained, leeched from, and used up years ago by the original exodus, the people being hurt the most, now, by this new wave of sprawl is actually the old inner ring, and the oldest of the sprawlburbs. This isn't just a city vs. suburb issue, this is now an issue of suburb vs suburb. Patterson isn't still just working against Detroit, he's working against much of the Woodward Corridor. In effect, he's working against the whole of Oakland County in the long run as sprawl just begets more sprawl, and, like a cancer, it's already used up much of Oakland County, and we can already seeing the disease spread out from there to other counties. It's an ideology of "get it while it lasts" but that's incredibly short-sighted. It's not building for the future. It's building for the here-and-now, future generations be damned.

hudkina
12-27-2006, 04:14 AM
I don't think it's nearly as bad as that. Without population growth sprawl will create a large surplus of inventory that will probably not sell, especially in places like Hazel Park, Lincoln Park, Eastpointe, etc. but I doubt those places would see the phenomenon seen in Detroit.

LMich
12-27-2006, 04:30 AM
I wasn't implying that, at all, rather the current leeching has now moved on from the Oakland County leeching off of Detroit to Oakland County leeching off of itself, spreading itself far too thin for this to be sustainable. But, there will come a time when it won't make economic sense to continue to growth out to 29 Mile Road and the like, and those transient housing options are going to be hit hard in the move back towards the inner-ring making the places you mentioned more attractive in the future.



Forums Directory