Can Land Use Planning Save The World?
At their annual conference, California's planners are obsessed with global warming.
"Forget about floor-area ratios, design review standards and conditional use permits. These people think land use planning can save the world."
"At least that's the way it seems at the California Chapter, American Planning Association's annual conference in San Jose. Every session — heck, every conversation in the hallway — seems to touch on global warming. Monday's sessions specifically on AB 32 (the greenhouse gas law) and climate change were overflowing. Even sessions on dense subjects such as indirect source review were well-attended."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Climate Change Changing Assumptions on Land Use, Energy - Jul 02, 2008
Land Use Takes Back Seat In CA's Global Warming Plan - Jun 29, 2008
New Urbanist Town Designed For Ultimate In Green Living - May 10, 2008
Major Land Deal To Protect 240,000 Acres In Southern California - May 09, 2008
Urban Railyard Finds New Life As Wetland Park - Apr 27, 2008
I love how
the California Planning & Development Report (and Paul Shigley) claim that planners are "obsessed" with global warming.
Typical Southern California, conservative, right-wing spin on a global, consensus-based issue.
Perhaps if the California Planning & Development Report was a REAL, credible planning publication, they would leave their libertarian ideologies at the door, and produce something of factual content.
Minor Omission
You forgot Neo-Con, warmongering, and biased. Stick to the script.
You
don't think that Paul Shigley's article was biased?
Paul's smarmy, smart-ass posts do not give planners a good image...
I Found Value
Everybody brings "baggage." I sensed Shigley's bias and accepted it as his perspective not as an agenda. Shigley had some absolutely incisive observations of the conflicts inherent in the departmental structure of municipal governance. I could only laugh at the truth that any fire department's position makes any other conflict pale by comparison.
There's no denying the Planners have gotten the green bug. There's no denying the Engineering staff is less enthusastic. There's also the growing chasm twixt the reality of sustainable/green and climate change/anthropemetrics.
As to "Paul's smarmy, smart-ass posts do not give planners a good image"... Pot, kettle, black.
Value in
Shigley's bias?
His article (and any of his other articles) is tinged with an agenda to minimize the role of the public sector in urban planning, and let the free market govern how the built environment evolves. Again, typical Southern California, libertarian ideology.
Paul Shigley's attempt to cut down planners by saying they are "obsessed" with global warming is merely another attempt by him to undercut their essential public sector role in the development process, and marginalize their activities.