Objections to neg containment

Objections to neg containment - AmodulefromM.Gaffney

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
A module from M. Gaffney, “Containment Policies for Urban Sprawl” From Richard Stauber (ed.) Approaches to the Study of Urbanization . Governmental Research Center, The University of Kansas, 1964, Chapter X, pp. 115-33. (Book is distributed by The State Printer, Topeka KS, rather than the University which published it.) Reprints were distributed by The Brookings Instn., 1775 Mass. Ave. N.W., Washington D.C.; and The Robert Schalkenbach Fdtn., now at 41 E. 72nd St., New York, N.Y. 10021 -- both now out of stock. Republished in Compact Cities: a Neglected Way of Conserving Energy , Joint Hearings, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; and Committee on Interstate and Foreign commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 96th Congress 1st Sess. Washington: USGPO, 1980, pp. 283-312 (Congressman Henry Reuss). Republished in The Congressional Record , March 16, 1972 (Congressman Les Aspin). Objections to Negative  Containment.  There are several legitimate  objections to negative containment policies.  Some are of a  distributive nature.  Containment, which grants high-density to  some and denies it to others, is discriminatory.  A favored area  selected by the planner for a new shopping center would become  worth some $100,000 an acre, while land reserved for open space or  five-acre lots won't be worth a twentieth part of that.  That may  please half the owners, who are not interested in early resale, but  only in low taxes.  But the other half will wax full wroth.  When  the planning commission and the zoning board flit about sprinkling  little golden showers here rather than there, they make  millionaires of some and social reformers of others.  How anyone  could ever expect the losers to accept their fate philosophically is  something that occasionally makes me wonder-even though some of my  best friends are planners-if they have any idea what they are doing.  The fatuity of exhorting those whose lands have been reserved for  open space to forego their capital gains out of enthusiasm for the  Director of Planning's vision of the "county beautiful" simply  staggers one's credulity.  Several landowners already have gone to  court protesting that low-density zoning was depriving them of  property without due process. Low-density zoning also discriminates among buyers.  It is widely  observed today that large-lot zoning has proceeded to such extremes  that most suburban land is reserved for a tiny fraction of the 
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/16/2012 for the course ECON 123 taught by Professor Smith during the Winter '11 term at UC Riverside.

Page1 / 5

Objections to neg containment - AmodulefromM.Gaffney

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online