Opinion

[Print] [Email]

Memo to suburbanites: Government doesn't want you to live there any more

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/30/09 4:16 PM EDT

If you like living in the suburbs, having your own little piece of God's green Earth, and being part of the community schools, churches and civic groups, well, too bad because the "Smart Growth" progressives in Congress and the National Reseach Council have a new report that shows how much better things would be if instead you and your family lived in an urban high rise.

According to a news alert from the NRC, the report examines "how suburbanization -- made possible largely due to the prevalence of automobiles and the extensive U.S. highway system -- impacts the number of miles we drive, our reliance on petroleum fuel, and the percent of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

"The report looks at studies on compact, mixed-use development where people live in denser environments with jobs and shopping close by, to determine whether a shift to this type of land use could lessen vehicle use, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions."

Why would living in "denser environments" be better? Well, for you and your family, it wouldn't be, but it would be for Smart Growth progressives in and out of govenment because it would be so much easier for them to control how you and your family live.

Why? Well, just to take the first example that comes to mind: Instead of relying upon a private car that can take you wherever you decide to go, you will have to use government-owned mass transit that only takes you where the government thinks you should be able to go.

And without independent mobility, you won't have nearly as much freedom to do things, like send your kids to a school you prefer instead of the government school closest to your high rise.

Also, you probably will have to get a job working at one of those massive bureaucratic institutions that thrive in the close-in urban sky scraper environment. So your future economic opportunities will be much more limited than they are now.

You can also forget about making trips to the grocery store and Wal-Mart to take advantage of the lower prices that come with economies of scale, just-in-time delivery, and consumer-driven product offerings. The big chain grocery stories and retailers won't be able to offer either the lower prices or product variety they do now because there won't be nearly as many of their stores around.

Thanks to mass transit, it will be hard to get to those that do survive, and even when you manage to get there, you won't be able to carry home nearly as many items riding on mass transit than you could in your own private car. So it will be more trips for fewer items, on a daily or every other day basis, just like your great grandmother and great grand father lived back in the 19th century.

And that is what this is all about. You may have read about the 19th century in school. That was when people living in crowded, smelly, crime-ridden big cities like Philly, New York and Cleveland began fleeing to the suburbs. They did so to get some room for their families to grow, to get away from the daily dangers of the big city, and to live the American Dream of better jobs, better schools, more freedom.

Kind of makes you wonder what the Smart Growth progressives have against people living the American Dream in the suburbs, doesn't it?

And by the way, why do we need a federally funded National Research Council study to tell us people who live in cities drive less than people who live in the suburbs?

Follow The Examiner

Morning Must Reads -- Gibbs undermines Obama

Two Parties Join Together, Then Resume Divided Ways When will President Obama give up on the Robert Gibbs experiment? Immediately after Obama made a surprise appearance in a...

—Chris Stirewalt

Lawyers feel the pinch of recession, too

From the National Law Journal: ABA will cut dues for many lawyers not at big firms The American Bar Association announced this week that it's cutting the cost of dues for solo...

—David Freddoso

Poll: Republicans gain on Obama, public welcomes GOP power to block

A new poll shows Republicans making solid gains, and President Obama losing ground, in public opinion on the most important issues facing the country. The survey, by the...

—Byron York

RFK, Jr.: Rush Limbaugh does it, so why shouldn't I?

In response to the attention we gave him for his old column on how Washington has "anemic winters" because of global warming, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells NRO's Robert...

—David Freddoso

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Anna

Aug 30, 2009

If Obama and the democrats continue down the present road, the American people are going to lose all independence and be nothing but robots under a totalitarian rule. Obama has been in office for less than a year and the handwriting on the wall is very clear.

FBO!

Aug 30, 2009

This is the best piece of news yet. If they attempt this, there will be a revolution and everything will between the two coasts will free themselves from the brainless snobs who inhabit both coastlines.

RHO1953

Aug 30, 2009

You hit the nail on the head. It is exactly what they want, a return to pre-industrial America. Drones in a giant hive, living to serve the government. We are indeed on the cusp of a revolution. We may not be able to wait till the mid-terms to start taking the country back.

justamom

Aug 30, 2009

It is already known that disease spreads quicker in the city because of crowding. Well how about mental illness? It would explain some of the boneheaded decisions coming from DC and why some people are stupid enough to vote for them.

motorman

Aug 30, 2009

the libs want wage earners back in the liberal run cities to pay taxes because all they have now there is he takers because of their stupid policies.

Peach

Aug 30, 2009

Ha, the jokes on them. Country folks can and will survive!

Aug 31, 2009

You've just described Orwell's "1984" vision of Oceania's London. All of my adolescent nightmares from reading this book back in the 60's are TOO close to becoming reality.

KansasGirl

Aug 31, 2009

I don't think the suburbanites, me included, will going softly into the night. I don't even step foot in KC Mo. It is far too dangerous.

archphips

Aug 31, 2009

equating smart growth with high rises is like equating health care reform with "death panels", a sheer appeal to the low instincts and fear instead of the brain. Have you ever travelled in Europe and its mostly compact and healthy towns and villages? No slums there and much less sprawl and half the vehicle miles travelled per year per person, half the energy consumption?
Ah, I forgot, they are all enslaved by government and socialism, right?
If you are on a dead end, wouldn't it be smart to think about different directions instead of smacking your head into a barrier?
Look around: There are urban Targets, and big chain retailers who have discovered the advantages of density. Not even necessarily along the dreaded coasts, you can find them even in Austin! A journalist should keep eyes and mind open instead of perpetuating this old hat of the glorious suburb!!!

Rick

Aug 31, 2009

My family resides in the subs and also in rural. We value of lives and stay out of the urban areas.

ScarletDove

Aug 31, 2009

I am not surprised by one more "controlling" factor in the name of environment, Smart Growth or what ever guise is put on another control layer, compliments of the libs. Indeed, there will be a civil uprising if this silliness continues to be shoved down our throats, while the higher ups do as they please.

Mark in Texas

Aug 31, 2009

archphips

Here's a recent photo from one of those nonexistent European slums:

http://newshopper.sulekha.com/slideshow/political-and-civil-unrest/927314.htm

It shows one of the reasons that Europeans drive a lot less than Americans i.e. It's tough to drive when the Muslim youths have set your car on fire.

Boy, I sure hope the government forces us to live like Europeans.

bobc

Aug 31, 2009

This is like the U.N.'s Agenda 21, a plan that has us living in cities like rats in a maze, while they take land and forbid building on it...I would guess, the ones that may be allowed to build, would be the UN or rich.

Research Agenda 21 then stop these fools!

csgstewart

Aug 31, 2009

As a Navy veteran who proudly defended this country and someone working for smarter growth, I'm more than disappointed by the alarmist rhetoric in Mark's column. Smart growth works in cities, suburbs and rural areas to reduce traffic, to reduce infrastructure costs, to help save families money, to improve safety for our children as they walk and bike. In many ways it is a conservative movement, saving tax dollars. Smart growth communities include suburbs where you can actually walk to the school or the store, a return to the small towns that were the centers of our communities, and the revival of cities as greener/high-quality of life communities.

LC in DC

Aug 31, 2009

I grew up in Fairfax County, and live in Adams Morgan now. I love to be able to walk to a coffee shop, the grocery store, go running in the beautiful park and run into friends at the bus stop. My parents still live in Fairfax and I enjoy visiting their big yard for a barbecue, then hopping on the Metro to come home. This article is truly amazing in its commitment to twisting reality and fear-mongering.

Carol Ott

Aug 31, 2009

I live in a large city, and can't understand the point of your article. Smart Growth principles aren't solely applicable to cities -- they work for suburbs, too. The point is to reduce traffic congestion (something people in DC can surely relate to) and to create livable communities where owning a car isn't a must -- isn't that what small-town America is about? Nobody's telling you how to live -- these are principles that any community can follow, whether city or suburb.

And for the record, Smart Growth is far from a "liberal" ideal. Last I checked, many conservatives (myself included) were proponents of smaller government, better choices for communities, saving and preserving open spaces and rural lands, and lower taxes.

David Crossley

Aug 31, 2009

This is so ignorant. Smart growth is about MORE choices, not less. Nearly half of Americans want to live in what's called walkable urbanism, but transportation and other public policies have made that almost impossible.

Here is a writer defending the Soviet-style central planning for sprawl that has prevented these choices.

justamom

Aug 31, 2009

The problem is that smart growth depends on all of us living side by side, separated by narrow stretches of lawn. Kids have to go to parks to play. Which means more chances of someone harming them. There is a greater number of kids roaming which means more gangs, drugs, etc. And the rest: snooping/gossiping neighbors, loud music, dogs, can't park a truck in driveway, can't have basketball hoops, can't pick house color, etc, etc. In rural areas we have too much freedom, that is why they want us all in the cities.

Aug 31, 2009

RHO1953: wouldn't a return to the cities in fact be a return to INDUSTRIAL America?

justamom

Aug 31, 2009

Also, like Peach said, we take care of ourselves in the country. We don't have to depend on government for food, water, energy, etc. We can protect ourselves because the less growth, the less crime. Smart growth is about control. Why else do they insist that everybody should live their way? You want to live in a city, fine. A suburban area, fine. If I want to live in a rural area, it should be fine too.

mell

Aug 31, 2009

Government trying to push educated law biding tax paying citizens into the inner city to live in mixed use (economic equality dreamland) apartments and ride on public transportation that they despise to rub shoulders with people who need new victims. No thanks.

P.S.- you better no be getting better health care than a poor uneducated lazy person, because that makes you very very greedy and EVIL!

aceg1434

Aug 31, 2009

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but, you aren't as safe in your suburban home as you think. And you have an inflated sense of entitlement.

ZZMike

Aug 31, 2009

For anybody who promotes "how much better things would be if instead you and your family lived in an urban high rise.", I have only two words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini-Green

Cabrini Green

Patrick

Aug 31, 2009

Urban living isn't necessarily high-rises, my rowhouse is plenty dense as are any neighborhoods built before WWII. And being able to walk or bike to stores, neighbors, and jobs makes us more free and less dependent upon a congested roadway network that can't handle all of the traffic. Likewise, the study simply states the environmental impact of different land types, doesn't recommend any type of mandates. We've been subsidizing and zoning for one form of development for the past 50 years and now it makes sense to reconsider and shift course. There's still a lot of suburban housing available and more will be built if people want that.

Sara

Aug 31, 2009

The Left's power lies in the cities with people who depend upon the government for their every need and for their survival. That is why city voters are socialist. That is why the Left wants everyone stacked up in the city.

We have been through this before with the Left. They hated the subrubs and did all they could to hurt people who lived outside the cities in the 70s. Unless they can get a police state in place, they can yap all they want. Americans won't choose to suffer and die for them in their dirty, oppressive and crime ridden cities.

justamom

Aug 31, 2009

Some people just don't get it. Many of us do not want to live in urban or suburban areas. I don't want stores built within walking distance. I have found that the more people living together, the more selfish, rude and mean they become. No thanks. There are suburban areas and traffic jams because "smart" planning made it too expensive to live in the cities. And entitlement - who is acting more entitled? Me for wanting to be left alone or you think it is okay to tell me where/how to live?

Mark Tapscott

Aug 31, 2009

To Carol Ott: Thanks for the comment. I must point out, though, that there is not a single example of traffic congestion being reduced in a major city as a result of the implementation of Smart Growth policies. The result is always more congestion because Smart Growth means fewer, if any, new roads are built, even as the human and auto populations grow, thus guaranteeing more congestion. The single most glaring example of this in the DC region is the failure to build the Outer Beltway that was scheduled in the 1960s. It would have rerouted around the area all that out-of-state I-95 traffic that now clogs the Beltway and I-95 from Springfield to Fredericksburg every day, but especially on weekends. Smart Growth cannot reduce congestion unless it somehow empowers government to force autos off the road.

John

Aug 31, 2009

The number one cause of sprawl is open borders, yet the same people who whine about it are almost to a person supporters of open borders. It ain't about sprawl, it's about multiculturalism and fears about its unviability.

Chuck

Aug 31, 2009

Urban sprawl burdens the taxpayer and destroys this country. Most of you happy finger workers are obese, because you live in a suburb and use a half ton wheelchair to buy a big mac and a diet coke while waiting in the AC at the drive through each and everyday.

Although I am a conservative, against illegal aliens, I am as against destroying this country because many of you only think about yourselves and your many times half useless family members. The "new Urbanism" activists arent telling you that you need to live in highrises, but to rebuild existing cities- where there is already the infrastructure to support you and your families, instead of the never ending widening of roads at the cost of everyone because of poorly planned subdivisions and your obese selves cravings for Mickey D's.

This Gahyyyyy

Sep 1, 2009

This is nothing new. It is part of of Agenda 21 under the UN in Rio De Janiero Conference 1992, signed onto by George HW Bush. Stunning to see insane and radical plans they are trying to push into fruition.

I'm not a wacko

Sep 1, 2009

This agenda is part of the Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy that one can discern by closely examining the pyramid printed on US currency. It was foretold in the Book of Enoch, and we are now seeing the end of days. Repent, sinners, repent!

Jason

Sep 3, 2009

Smart growth is good for businesses by increasing the number of customers within driving distance of the business.

Smart growth doesn't prevent the use of the automobile. Instead, it reduces our travel time to our jobs, churches and to shopping - sometimes we are so close we can just walk - if you live in a small town or a big city, you know what I'm talking about.

Also, smart growth helps reduce the loss of our farmland and parkland by reducing the amount of acres needed for new growth. Our countryside can remain beautiful for many generations.

Suburban and rural living is quite peaceful and beautiful. However, the reasons above are good reasons to try and make our cities peaceful and beautiful as well.

Seriously?

Sep 4, 2009

1. I fear for our country when this many of my fellow citizens truly believe the government is coming to get them.
2. How the reactionaries miss the fact that the second work in Smart Growth is GROWTH? New homes, businesses, etc. will continue to be built. The idea is to build them in such a way that LIVABLE communities are created. Wouldn't you rather live someplace where you could walk across the street to run an errand or get a coffee? Or would rather live in Tyson's Corner, which is so poorly built that even driving is difficult?

Seriously? 2

Sep 4, 2009

2. How do the reactionaries miss the fact that the second word in Smart Growth is GROWTH? New homes, businesses, etc. will continue to be built. The idea is to build them in such a way that LIVABLE communities are created. Wouldn't you rather live someplace where you could walk across the street to run an errand or get a coffee? Or would you rather live in Tyson's Corner, which is so poorly built that even driving is difficult?
3. People can continue to live in rural areas. No one wants you to leave. The idea of Smart Growth is that when large developments are built, they should be built in a more efficient way - walkable, access to transit, saving infrastructure costs including extending water and sewer lines.

Captainpoopypants

Sep 7, 2009

Just gonna be another influx of Richers

Bets

Feb 3, 2010

NO! People will not be allowed to live in rural areas. Seriously, YOU need to read agenda 21 you ignorant progessive.

Local

Another snowball fight planned for Dupont Circle

The Official Dupont Circle Snowball Fight facebook fanpage has over 6,000 fans now, and it looks as if snowed in DC'ers will return for another battle. Full story

Politics

GOP winning war over Miranda rights for terrorists

Even as the administration defends its decision to grant accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, the president himself is hinting that things might be done differently in the future. Full story

Local

D.C. region braces for up to 20 more inches of snow

The National Weather Service has the entire D.C. metro area, from Prince William County north, under a winter storm warning for 10 to 20 inches of snow. Forecasters have had their eyes on this storm for days, but the projected snow totals were bumped up late Monday. Full story

Memo to suburbanites: Government doesn't want you to live there any more

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/30/09 4:16 PM EDT