Welcome to the Antiplanner

[Drmyeyes]

I guess I didn't get the drift supposedly implied by the lady's comment about mid-priced housing being attributed to higher density development. It seemed like her main complaint is that the ideal qualities of readily accessible services and amenities claimed for high density isn't the reality. The idea that land use protections boil down to artificially constrained land supply resulting in higher prices for mid-priced housing is one that seems to be reaching pretty hard for an excuse to dismiss land use laws and land use protections. Even if it is more expensive for this reason somewhere, the arguments for land use protections and high density mid-priced housing outweigh unrestrained land development. It's startling that some people fail to recognize this easily visible reality. Without the UGB, development spread would be rampant, roads and traffic would multiply exponentially.

I think developers would build something different if someone would show them a good idea for something different and help them do it in a way that wouldn't mke them feel like they were going to lose their shirt going out the gate, and developers could get away from devoting so much energy to becoming tycoons.

Tract houses in the desert is such a baffling response to that environment. Hasn't any developer in that area learned a thing about the advantages of a massed building like Navaho pueblos?

[zilfondel]

In response to the post above about women not being able to carry groceries and kids on a bike... they have pretty much solved this problem in the Netherlands and Denmark.







Notice also that the bike lanes are wider than 2 feet!

[zilfondel]

Randal O'Toole & Thoreau Institute

We all know of him and what his "arguments" are. But what exactly lies at the root of the Oak Grove, Oregon's so-called libertarian anti-transit think tank?

Interestingly, between 1997 and 2005, the Thoreau Institute took approximately $321,100 from several foundations:

Sarah Scaife Foundation
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation

but who are these foundations, and what are their motives? According to media transparency, and compiled on the Light Rail Now advocacy website, they are solely comprised of right-wing conservative interests.

The details continue! The following has been quoted from the lightrail now website, but you can find the details on the media transparency links above as well.

Ahem:

Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation – This is "a foundation financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune", according to Media Transparency.

At one time, its largest single holding was stock in Gulf Oil Corporation. It was estimated some years ago to be a $200 million foundation. It became active in supporting conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman. Since then, Scaife has been a leading financier of New Right causes.

Charles G. Koch Foundation – This foundation is deeply rooted in the petroleum and petrochemical industries. According to Media Transparency,

David and Charles Koch, sons of the ultraconservative founder of Koch Industries, Fred Koch, direct the three Koch family foundations: the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. David and Charles control Koch Industries, the second-largest privately owned company and the largest privately owned energy company in the nation; they have a combined net worth of approximately $4 billion, placing them among the top 50 wealthiest individuals in the country and among the top 100 wealthiest individuals in the world in 2003, according to Forbes.

Koch Industries, Inc. has primarily been involved in petroleum and chemicals. Its website boasts that...

Koch companies have been involved in the petroleum business since 1940, growing refining capacity more than 80-fold in six decades. Today, the Flint Hills Resources group of businesses, subsidiaries of Koch Industries, are engaged in petroleum refining, chemicals and lube oil production, crude oil supply and trading, and wholesale marketing and trading of fuel oil, base oils, gasoline, petrochemicals, chemical intermediates, asphalt and other products. A subsidiary of Koch Supply & Trading also produces jet fuel, gas oil, naphtha and residual fuel in Europe.
[...]

As a result of Flint Hills Resources' various interests in production facilities in the petroleum chain, the company has expanded its marketing capability regularly to create value for customers. An example of that expansion is the 2003 entry into the base lube oil business following the purchase of a half-interest in Louisiana- based Excel Paralubes. The lube oil business is a natural extension of Flint Hills Resources, and has introduced it to a new customer base. The company's products are used in motor oil, agriculture oils and marine oils, among others.

In 2005, Flint Hills Resources began operating a system of strategically located asphalt terminals, formerly owned by Koch Materials Company, to market product from the Minnesota refinery. This refinery's production of asphalt sparked Koch companies' 1979 entry into asphalt marketing.

Koch further emphasizes its roots in the oil. gas, and chemical pipeline industry:

As part of a 1946 refining acquisition, Koch Industries' predecessor company acquired a small crude oil pipeline system in southwestern Oklahoma. Over the years, Koch companies have bought or built and sold pipeline systems transporting crude oil and refined products, as well as natural gas, natural gas liquids and anhydrous ammonia. Today, Koch Pipeline Company, L.P. owns and operates pipelines carrying crude oil, refined products and natural gas liquids.

Major donors to Randal O'Toole's anti-transit, pro-sprawl campaign stand to gain from continuing overwhelming dependency on motor vehicle mobility, and from sprawl development which reinforces that dependency. Through its involvement in asphalt production, Koch Industries profits from highway construction, such as this jumble of freeway ramps and bridges in Milwaukee.
[Photo: Congress for the New Urbanism]


Media Transparency provides the following additional information with regard to the Koch family's political ideology and "charitable" investment policies:

Following in the footsteps of their father, a member of the John Birch Society, the Kochs clearly have an ultra-conservative bent. Charles Koch founded the Cato Institute, and David Koch co-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) [now FreedomWorks], where he serves as chairman of the board of directors. David also serves on the board of the Cato Institute. The Koch foundations make substantial annual contributions to these organizations (more than $12 million to each between 1985 and 2002) as well as to other influential conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, media organizations, academic institutes and legal organizations, thus participating in every level of the policy process. Their total conservative policy giving exceeded $20 million between 1999 and 2001. As reflected in their creation and funding of Cato and CSE, most of their contributions go to support organizations and groups advancing libertarian theory, privatization, entrepreneurship and free enterprise. David Koch even ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1980. In describing his foundation's contributions, he states, "My overall concept is to minimize the role of government and to maximize the role of private economy and to maximize personal freedoms."

The brothers' libertarian and free-market orientation comes as no surprise, given their ownership of Koch Industries, an oil and gas corporation.

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. – According to Media Transparency, "With $516 million in assets1 (2004), the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin is the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundation."

As of the end of 2004, it was giving away more than $33 million a year. Its financial resources, its clear political agenda, and its extensive national network of contacts and collaborators in political, academic and media circles has allowed it to exert an important influence on key issues of public policy. While its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in the areas of welfare "reform" and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers.


Sources: Media Transparency - the money behind conservative media
Light Rail Now advocacy website

Another good site on antitransit think-tanks:
lightrail.org - transit opponents

========================

"Urbanpdx," when I read, under your posts, the exact same ideological perspectives on "free market" solutions (read: build more fucking roads) and the "arguments" to fuck transit and rail, what I find most perplexing is that they are almost VERBATIM as what I might find on O'Toole's website and others networked with him. Noting the very nature of this vast spiderweb of conservative "think-tanks," I find it absolutely ridiculous to read the exact same paragraphs posted by you on skyscraperpage's NW forum!

In conclusion, you have completely convinced me that not only do you not have any valid opinions or arguments, you don't even have an actual libertarian perspective. In actuality, you may as well be a conservative drone being paid to surf websites by wealthy American oil & gas companies to spread their own ideological viewpoints and water down alternative internet discussions.

[Urbanpdx]

lol

[Drmyeyes]

There was a funny bit in the Oregonian today about a feud that's been going on amongst local libertarians. They're suing each other because those that are members of the organization haven't been following the rules they've set up for themselves. Well something like that.

[pdxstreetcar]

The funny thing is we had privately-owned tax paying railroads and trolley companies providing almost all of the passenger transportation in the country 100 years ago. They succeeded quite well doing it too, making a profit and moving people fast and efficiently.

It was the government subsidized highways and airports that put these companies out of business, plus there were tax policies and regulations that were burdensome to these companies at the same time road and air travel was receiving government assistance to grow. Now we have subsidized highways, airports, passenger rail and transit.

Freight rail is the only mode of transportation not dependent on the government and yet it has to compete against trucks traveling on subsidized highways.

[mcbaby]

Originally Posted by Urbanpdx

lol

back to your old tricks again I see..

[Dr. Smoke]

Urbanpdx is not laughing very convincingly...
Good bust, zilfondel.

It should also be mentioned that Richard Mellon Scaife is the one who funded the Arkansas Project, which was the source of all these investigations against President Clinton by Ken Starr, one after another, each failing in its turn but overall costing taxpayers $80 MILLION and turning the nation upside-down -- for nothing.

Let's just call it what it was: these Rightists made an attempt to overthrow the duly-elected government of the United States. A treasonous but failed coup de etat.

[Dr. Smoke]

And further to transit, we should also remember National City Lines, a front company which 'acquired' (didn't always buy) our highly efficient, non-polluting, and quiet electric streetcar systems nationwide, and replaced them with GM buses, which burn that oily shit and put out alot of smoke.

The Strong will always use their strength to eliminate competition... not to compete. (Please see my post on the first page hereto) It's been proven time and time again. Libertarianism is a dangerous and primitive philosophy. Reasonable government regulation, as we had in the 50's through '70's, is the only answer.

[Urbanpdx]

Originally Posted by Dr. Smoke

And further to transit, we should also remember National City Lines, a front company which 'acquired' (didn't always buy) our highly efficient, non-polluting, and quiet electric streetcar systems nationwide, and replaced them with GM buses, which burn that oily shit and put out alot of smoke.

The Strong will always use their strength to eliminate competition... not to compete. (Please see my post on the first page hereto) It's been proven time and time again. Libertarianism is a dangerous and primitive philosophy. Reasonable government regulation, as we had in the 50's through '70's, is the only answer.

We have been over this before here Smokie but I'm not sure you were with us...

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=30

[Urbanpdx]

I'm not sure what the source of donationed funds comes into play. If Randall's research and lobbying help an organization isn't it natural that they would support it?

I give money to the Cascade Policy Institiute and other groups trying to stop density and TOD's even though I make lots of money on them. I donate as a person because I think it is right. Businesses donate because it is good business. It seems like a chicken and egg thing.

[Urbanpdx]

I forwarded your posts to Randal O'Toole...his response:


Sticks and stones may break my bones, but innuendo will never hurt me.

If they added up all the money that the Thoreau Institute has taken
from left-wing foundations (Shalon, Tides, Bullitt, Hewlett, to name
a few), what would they conclude? The former director of the Bullitt
Foundation (one of the most liberal foundations in Washington state)
is also one of the two or three leading light-rail opponents in
Seattle. Hmm, sounds like a conspiracy!

Best,

Randal

[WonderlandPark]

Well, this is turning into an abortion debate. Both sides are entrenched and no minds are going to be changed. Debating with a libertarian is like arguing with a kid, IMO.

[Urbanpdx]

what are we debating about again?

[Dr. Smoke]

I agree WonderlandPark. Urbanpdx simply doesn't seem to read or understand what we say.

Originally Posted by Urbanpdx

We have been over this before here Smokie but I'm not sure you were with us...
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=30

Your link is a propaganda piece, and I will show why.

Snell’s basic claim is that General Motors (along with Firestone Tire, Chevron, and Phillips Petroleum) bought National City Lines, which owned numerous streetcar companies, in order to dismantle the streetcars lines. The truth is that the National City conspiracy was solely aimed at selling General Motors buses, Firestone tires, and Chevron/Phillips oil. Just as the government ordered Boeing to divest itself of United Airlines (which it owned to monopolize the sale of Boeing aircraft) and the Pullman Manufacturing Company to divest itself of the Pullman operating company (which it used to monopolize sale of sleeping cars to the railroads), the government ordered General Motors and the other companies to shed their interest in National City in 1949.

- Snell isn't making claims or fabricating issues. These are publicly-recorded facts:
- National City Lines was not bought by the aforementioned companies. It was formed by them in 1933 as a holding company, for the express purpose of acquiring local transit systems throughout the country, mostly in medium-size cities.
- National City Lines then proceeded to dismantle existing electric mass-transit, which was indeed in disrepair, but not because it didn't suit the market. We were coming out of the Great Depression, and were gearing up for WW2!
- What does the fact that the government ordered National City Lines dismantled, have to do with their manipulation of mass transit to the detriment of society. Are you saying, 'sure they were cheating, but it got fixed by the government'?

Your reference simply has the facts wrong when it says:

Over the next sixteen years, when the conspiracy was active, more than 300 streetcar systems converted to buses. National City had an interest in fewer than thirty of these systems — along with at least thirty more that did not convert to buses during this time.

- National City Lines bought out more than 100 electric surface-traction (streetcar) systems in 45 cities (including New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Tulsa, and Los Angeles), and their transit systems were then dismantled and replaced with (specifically) GM buses.

I will not belabor this forum to further discredit your reference Urbanpdx, but is it true that you support the government's dismantling of National City Lines, as justified in your reference? Or would you have preferred that their monopoly continue?

Can you not see that this is a clear example of the Strong intentionally using their strength to destroy competition and create a monopoly?

[zilfondel]

In a capitalistic system, there is always a tendency towards mergers & acquisitions. See late 19th century, Standard Oil & friends. Not that I am against capitalism, but it can be fairly easily manipulated to benefit a few biggies: ie, Enron, Haliburton, etc, etc.