Home › News ›

Can Land Use Planning Save The World?

Posted by: Nate Berg
Thanks to: Bill Fulton
3 October 2007 - 10:00am

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."

Full Story: Tuesday's CCAPA Notebook: Save The Planet!
Source: California Planning & Development Report, October 2, 2007
»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I love how

Submitted by vtboy99 on Wed, 10/03/2007 - 11:09.

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

Submitted by Robert Cote on Wed, 10/03/2007 - 11:32.

You forgot Neo-Con, warmongering, and biased. Stick to the script.

You

Submitted by vtboy99 on Wed, 10/03/2007 - 11:39.

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

Submitted by Robert Cote on Wed, 10/03/2007 - 12:06.

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

Submitted by vtboy99 on Wed, 10/03/2007 - 12:16.

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.

Bookmark and Share
“
The decision to abandon a property is a symptom of the loss of confidence. And while abandonment certainly affects confidence among surrounding homeowners, the most important question to answer is not "how do we deal with abandoned properties?" but "what is the most cost-effective way to restore market confidence, and how do abandoned properties fit into that picture?"
”