Refreshing Presidental remarkings.

EXCELLENT OBSERVATIONS JUSTIN. Many of us saw this redistributionism coming --- no surprises for me. With my experience of having worked in the Detroit area, my translation of what Obama is saying is this: "No more white people moving out away from the non-white people." Detroit has "lines in the sand" - one side white, the other side black. The white side (generally speaking), moving progressively out towards the country, is more and more wealthy. The ghetto of Detroit looks like a post-apocalyptic war zone. I think a lot of whites grow up in the suburbs, go to college, then get a corporate job in the suburbs and never truly understand or are exposed to the ghetto - especially the pampered/spoiled soccer moms & church ladies.

I agree with Obama though and think his presidency is good for America - even though he is waaaay to liberal for me. We do need to figure out and solve, once and for all, gentrification - the American dream can't simply be a house & yard in the burbs as far out as possible anymore. Will it will truly work in places like Detroit? Doubtful. Certain segments of our society are going to have live more civilized lives and take MUCH better care of themselves and their surroundings - speak english properly and conduct their lives with dignity (raise their standards). Other segments are going to have to develop more realistic, grounded perspectives (lower their standards a little).
My two cents.

Seriously though.. How can the president tell people what to do with their own property if it is legal within the local zoning laws?

Ha one intelligent contribution of Andre Levin, keep going when you are not led by your AGW blind negationism you are rather good.

And all this wish fulfillment has what to do with green cars?

BTW, old people will only move into cities IF they are clean and safe. If you look at cities mentioned here they are neither.

Andrey: The problem with New Urbanism is the reality that you're not going to get everyone behaving the way they need to in order to co-habitate peacefully in environments where they're packed in like sardines. You're going to have people with lowriders parking their hoopties on what little lawn they have & blasting their subwoofers...fighting with their "bitches & hoes" or "chicas"-all kinds of disturbances...and once you've bought a place & moved in, good luck getting out in this market....definitely NOT a Truman Show utopian picture.

In Orlando, Florida and other major cities, developers built massive upscale condo developments thinking yuppies would flock to these areas that have bars & restaurants that might cater to them --- but they didn't think to address ingress/egress to these areas, crime, the massive amounts of "homeless" people (sometimes a con by normal people to make extra money) on the streets that are constantly panhandling, and various other sleaze. So for those and other reasons, vast condo buildings, ready for move-in, are sitting empty.

Obama needs to attack these fundamental problems of urban areas in ways that only he can. People aren't going to want to live and work in an area like Detroit that has mass transportation, if you still have to order your food through 6-inch thick bullet-proof glass, work in an area where garbage is piling up on the streets & commercial buildings have bricks where the windows used to be and are surrounded with chain link fences & razor wire (where you need a remote-control to get in) because of the crime & drug dealing that takes place out in the open. People aren't going to want to live in a ghetto where 1/3-2/3 of the residential homes have been burned to the ground & most of the homes that are remaining have their windows smashed out and are falling apart. Go ahead & build mass transporation to these areas - it has government boondoggle written all over it.

urban spaces are fine for people who welcomed the rented experience (live music, restaurants, etc.). Those of us that build or grow things survive better in suburban spaces. Urban spaces are great for young people who are strong and capable of asserting their rights to exist. Anyone needing someone else to defend them (children, older people) are a risk to the ever present criminal element.

walkable cities trade-off economic freedom for the tyranny of the local merchant. If you need to live off of what you can get to by walking or highly inefficient public transit, you end up in a monopoly situation where you have one merchant to go to and I can guarantee you, they will charge a premium for that service.

urban spaces are significantly more expensive per square foot than suburban. The price differential between equivalent urban and suburban spaces will subsidize 20 years of automobile use. a related question is how in the tubes or the economic loss of people abandoning suburban properties and moving into urban spaces? Who is going to build urban properties, how dense, and how high? The current subway/bus model of public transportation implies there will be housing clusters of tens of thousands of people around each public transit stop.

bringing this comment back on topic for the blog, public transit is less efficient than electric cars. A bus with a four mpg rating must have seven passengers minimum at all times to reach energy parity with a 30 mile per gallon car. If you have electric vehicle which is three times more efficient, that means your average passenger load for public transit bus in order to reach energy parity needs to be 21 passengers for every single mile that bus operates.

another thing to consider is the cost of building public transportation. Would it be cheaper to use the same money to buy everyone an electric car? There's a good chance it would be.

according to current technology, electric vehicles won't make it practical to commute more than 30 or 40 miles each way to a job. What they will make practical is preserving a financial investment in suburban properties by enabling you to get to a nearby transit stop as well as putting 3 or 4 markets within range so you aren't held hostage by the local merchants.

"Smart Growth" has already proven itself to be a disaster. In Montgomery County, Maryland, they are building massive, high-rise, condos near public transportation (METRO). What it has done is make the streets in those areas gridlocked and unusable. It's a "lets make things dramatically worse!" plan.

Why is it that liberal fantasies are always disasters for people?

The limits of expansion are real, Obama doesn't need to enforce them. We taxpayers are tired of paying for roads to nowhere so that developers can fill them in with sprawl. It is profoundly stupid to think that if you live at the edge of Exurbia, your home prices and taxes should be cheaper! You should be free to live where ever you want, but you should be required to pay for the privilege. Do you think anyone living in McMansions could afford it if they had to foot the bill for the infrastructure that allowed them to get there? It's the wealth of urban dwellers living economically close to each other that generates enough tax dollars to support the free loaders in the edge suburbs. Obama gets this because unlike "W" he can do simple math. Ignorance and freedom are incompatible. Highways to exurbia are very expensive, I am tired of paying for them. Come share a wall and a floor with me where we both can walk to work or catch a train and we will both be freer and wealthier, because our taxes and cost of living will be greatly reduced. But please don't bring your automatic weapons.

"The suburban sprawl is the greatest misallocation
of resources the world has ever known."

-James Howard Kunstler
(author of: The Long Emergency)

creativforce-

I would like to point out two inherent flaws in your arugments:

1. The longer term trend in the US has been toward urbanization. Since the relative advantage of the US compared to Europe is our agricultural riches, in 1900 the vast majority of Americans lived on farms. American lifestyle is more suited to wide open spaces. I grew up in a farm and now live in a city. I can't wait to move back.

2. You think city dwellers allow people in the suburbs to live? Where do these taxes come from? Only interstate highways are paid for by federal taxes. Most local roads are paid for by local taxes.

I would also like to add that I disagree regarding Obama's mathematical prowess. If that were the case, he would realize any of his campaign initiatives were both unrealistic and overstated. Although his bigger problem is his lack of historical perspective and understanding of economics and financial markets.

I would like to point out though that I dislike the suburbs because I think they're ugly and lack character... I just think people should have the choice.
Urban living is even less sustainable than suburban living. At least suburban houses could have geothermal HVAC and solar panels. Rural lifestyle is the only truly sustainable living condition in that sense. You can grow your own food.

creatiforc-
Also, another flaw in your argument is that road maintenance is paid for by gas taxes and tolls. The more you drive, the more you pay.

(I think people are missing the point about the suburbs - that people aren't necessarily because of what is there, but because of what's not....)

The problem with New Urbanism is the reality that you're not going to get everyone behaving the way they need to in order to co-habitate peacefully in environments where they're packed in like sardines. You're going to have people with lowriders parking their hoopties on what little lawn they have & blasting their subwoofers...fighting with their "bitches & hoes" or "chicas"-all kinds of disturbances...and once you've bought a place & moved in, good luck getting out in this market....definitely NOT a Truman Show utopian picture.

In Orlando, Florida and other major cities, developers built massive upscale condo developments thinking yuppies would flock to these areas that have bars & restaurants that might cater to them --- but they didn't think to address ingress/egress to these areas, crime, the massive amounts of "homeless" people (sometimes a con by normal people to make extra money) on the streets that are constantly panhandling, and various other sleaze. So for those and other reasons, vast condo buildings, ready for move-in, are sitting empty.

Obama needs to attack these fundamental problems of urban areas in ways that only he can. People aren't going to want to live and work in urbanized areas like Detroit that have mass transportation, if you still have to order your food through 6-inch thick bullet-proof glass, work in an area where garbage is piling up on the streets & commercial buildings have bricks where the windows used to be and are surrounded with chain link fences & razor wire (where you need a remote-control to get in) because of the crime & drug dealing that takes place out in the open. People aren't going to want to live in a ghetto where 1/3-2/3 of the residential homes have been burned to the ground & most of the homes that are remaining have their windows smashed out and are falling apart. Go ahead & build mass transporation to these areas - it has government boondoggle written all over it.