"SMART GROWTH" IN CALIFORNIA

Only smart for the rich and childless

Today's Times had an entertaining article called, "Priced Out of Public Service," about a Half Moon Bay councilman who is giving up his seat and moving out of town because he can't afford to live there any more -- a problem that has afflicted more than one California community. Right where the article jumps to B8, however, the reader learns that Sid McCausland is a leader of the anti-growth faction in the city's bitter politics. In his parting shot, he argued that "the pro-growthers, which includes the local paper, routinely distort every issue and twist every fact in an effort to undermine the credibility of those of us who support controlled growth." Controlled growth? Could it be that such government controls have limited the supply of new housing, thereby pushing up the prices of existing homes? Could that be why people like McCausland are being priced out of their town? Is it any wonder that the parts of the state with the toughest growth controls (the Bay Area, the Central Coast, etc.) have the highest home prices?

Here's my beef with the New Urbanism/Smart Growth: This movement typically embraces growth controls (although some New Urbanists argue for their design ideas in a market context) to help create the right aesthetic. But their policies end up creating nice-looking cities that function in a bizarre manner. Often, the New Urbanism paradises (Portland, Santa Barbara, etc.) are worlds of childless Yuppies, with costly boutiques and trendoid restaurants. They look like old-time cities, but don't function like them. Try raising a family in these places. The New Urbanists accuse suburbanites of living in soulless sprawl. They have a point about the bland, look-alike nature of much of suburbia. But they are creating a soulless urbanism, a form of urban living that is devoid of families and true diversity because -- getting back to Half Moon Bay -- the cost of entry is so high thanks to their policies that artificially inflate the cost of housing. They are creating a world where only the wealthy, and only those with the right political connections, can start businesses, build houses, live the American Dream. More on this in a forthcoming column.

Source (Post of March 29)




ANOTHER GREENIE BOONDOGGLE

Critics of the glitch-plagued Las Vegas Monorail might consider the transit line a piece of junk. Now, bonds that helped pay to build the system really are junk. About $455.8 million in bonds were dropped to "speculative" grade, or "junk" status, by Moody's Investors Service on Wednesday amid concerns over lagging ridership and revenues to date. The bonds, which covered a large chunk of the $650 million system's price tag, had been "investment" grade by the global credit ratings firm. Although the downgrade has no effect on the monorail's day-to-day operations, it's a financial black eye for a system that's suffered a string of service pratfalls in 2004. "The downgrade is our way of indicating to investors the prospects of timely payment of debt service are a little riskier now," said Anne Van Praagh, a Moody's analyst who prepared the company's monorail report.....

"The downgrade is based on the actual revenues to date being lower than the original forecast, which is due in large part to the late opening and subsequent shutdown of operations," Moody's said in its report. "The negative outlook anticipates that the system will be required to continue to achieve a significant ramp-up in ridership and revenues in order to achieve financial self-sufficiency," the report said. "While the ramp-up period ridership through the first quarter of 2005 has shown positive growth, more operating history will be needed to fully assess credit quality," Moody's said. .....

In January and February, the monorail averaged around 23,000 riders per day and roughly $66,000 in daily revenues, well below what was needed to break even. Monorail officials have said they expect over 30,000 daily riders this month. It's key that the monorail build on those numbers. Moody's noted that annual operating costs are around $21 million, almost $5 million more than originally expected. That means the monorail needs $51 million a year in advertising and farebox revenues annually to cover its day-to-day costs and pay off its bonds, Moody's said. "With $6 million in advertising revenues currently committed, the monorail would have to raise $45 million in farebox revenues" each year, said Moody's, which projects fares will bring in $34 million this year. Monorail officials expect almost $37 million. "In Moody's view, this represents a significant challenge that will depend on continued system safety and availability and the success of ongoing marketing initiatives," the report said.

More here

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************