Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Social Engineering

  1. #1
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Social Engineering

    While attending a conference for sustainability professionals (as a speaker as well as attendee) I had a thought that this room will LOVE

    Social Engineering....I've seen that term kicked around as an opposition / attack on sustainable concepts. Wonder if we really believe that "traditional" development is free of social engineering pressure? Is building a business, moving a wetland or human community for the benefit of another community, or making laws or rules is not social enginnering? Certainly, encouraging the development (and affecting the development pace/directions of) less-advanced nations (especially for the advantage or profit of others) is social engineering

    IMHO it's ALL social engineering...just some is better-intentioned than others, and some has less likelihood of bad outcomes.

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Well, the 'engineering' aspect rears its ugly head when the decision makers behind whatever proposal is on the table create incentives and disincentives within the proposal to 'engineer' an outcome which DIFFERS from the naturally occurring or 'logical' outcome.

    To use your example, establishing 'off limits' public property restrictions for wetlands/forests etc. located near urban centers reduces the amount of property available for development near those urban centers, thus increasing the value of those properties already owned by well-to-do urban residents, thus encouraging 'gentrification' of existing urban properties to increase their profitability (by remodeling and then appealing to new well-to-do residents), thus pricing gentrified urban properties out of the range of the 'working poor', thus forcing many of the 'working poor' who previously lived in those pre-gentrified urban properties to take up new residence a good distance away from the urban center.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 04-10-2005 at 07:35 AM.

  3. #3
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    So tax incentives for building a business in a certain area, tax rebates for certain actions (small business buying oversized vehicles), subsidies for resource extraction businesses, free road enhancements for headquarters of major companies, etc...these are equally "social enginering" options which affect the NATURALLY OCCURING outcome. I dropped the word "logical" because clearly two people have a different opinion of logic.

    I say it's more natural for a society to (as in early industrial revolution) build products that can be fixed (rather than thrown away, since resources are expensive if not subsidized) and systems which require less inputs (energy, materials, people) and outputs (waste) and which promote the long-term success of a region, community and society/marketplace (as outlined in natural capitalism and as demonstrated by truly NATURAL systems like open space, where everything lives off the waste of everything else and is self perpetuating)

    You disagree with some of this - and both sides use political influence to socially enginner the outcome they think is most appropriate. Ultimately, one solution has the higher likelihood of long-term issues and problems (hmmm...the one creating more pollution, maybe?) but BOTH are engineered solutions.

    As for your examples:
    "establishing 'off limits' public property restrictions for wetlands/forests etc. " you mean protecting the NATURALLY OCCURING systems?

    "reduces the amount of property available for development near those urban centers, thus increasing the value of those properties already owned by well-to-do urban residents," Of curse the developers paving over the unprotected wetlands have no interest in increasing value for their investment...do they?

    Please, show me the study were a nature preserve or wetland restriction near an urban center caused people to be priced out of their homes

    The rest of your statement should read:

    DEVELOPERS CREATING PROFIT FOR THEMSELVES and " thus pricing existing urban properties out of the range of the 'working poor', thus encouraging 'gentrification' of existing urban properties to increase their profitability (by remodeling and then appealing to new well-to-do residents)" HAS THE RESULT OF "forcing many of the 'working poor' who previously lived in those pre-gentrified urban properties to take up new residence a good distance away from the urban center."

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    the 'naturally occurring' or 'logical' outcome would have been to fill in the swamp or cut down the forest, and build on the land close to the urban center ! Today's environmental laws preclude this - unless of course you happen to be from Senate Minority Leader Dusty Harry's state and use his family's lobbying firm to get federal land reservation laws changed in your favor !

    As to the matter of building 'repairable' products ... before the days of multi-million dollar product liability lawsuits and last decimal point pollution controls it was actually possible to build durable goods which could be serviced by third parties, like for example cars with carburetors and ignition 'points' rather than computers.

  5. #5
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Social engineering (political science)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    In the field of political science, social engineering is a mainly pejorative term used to describe the intended effects of authoritarian systems of government. The implication is that some governments, or powerful private groupings, are intending to change or "engineer" the citizenry, for example, by the use of propaganda, through the manipulation of culture, or though the legal system. The discussion of the possibilities for such manipulation became quite active following World War II:


    No, Social Engineering is not the same as "traditional" development. Traditional development lets the Marketplace put the land to its most economically beneficially use. Whether that is as a farm, factory site or neighborhood for families, the Markerplace decides. "Engineering" brings with it the idea of a designed outcome. Notice the terms in the definition, "authoritarian", "propaganda", "manipulation of culture".That is not to say that only liberals engage in Social Engineering. Politicians and others that grant tax breaks to, for example promote the "re-development" of "blighted" parts of the inner city are equally engaged in Social Engineering. I am equally opposed to those programs as well.


    The type of "Sustainable Development" you promote is most certainly Social Engineering. You and other Neo-Environmentalists, among others, are not willing to leave the results to the people most affected. You are not willing to trust people to make the wise choice, so you seek to use the powers of government, and other political and economic pressures to try to achieve the results you desire. Your plan for the United States to engage in Ecological Imperialism in its dealings with the rest of the world, is definitely "authoritarian". You repeatedly call for the "engineering of the citizenry" by telling third-world peoples what type of lifestyle they have a right to hope for. Your attempts at "educating" people smacks of propaganda, since by your own admission you reserve the right to determine what facts are true, depending on whether or not the facts conincide with your idealogy.


    At it's heart, Social Enginnering is a very patronizing world view. Those who promote Social Engineering, including Neo-Envoronmentalists, say to people, "you cannot be trusted to determine what is best for yourself, your family or your community. Therefore, we, the great intellectual class, must determine these things for you."
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  6. #6
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    My, my ... such polarized statements.

    A municipality can have zoning and regulations that provide for higher livability that doesn't provide for social engineering. A completely open market can produce a nicely livable town, if the developers wish it so. Neither system is perfect, and both systems have failures and successes. However, it's my observation that the higher number of more successful communities have had a modicum of planning - usually in the core districts of the city.

  7. #7
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    My, my ... such polarized statements.

    A municipality can have zoning and regulations that provide for higher livability that doesn't provide for social engineering. A completely open market can produce a nicely livable town, if the developers wish it so...
    JZ: I would agree with that statement. I would not put most zoning laws in the category of Social Engineering. My comments had situations in the third world more in mind. One thing about zoning laws is that it is the citizen's through their elected representatives regulating themselves. I believe people are able to make good decisions for themselves, without so-called experts. We all know a lead plant doesn't belong next to a day care, people can work those things out themselves. But when laws are used to prohibit any use for the land to satisfy someone's idea of sustainability, or to protect the habitat of some "endangered" insect, it crosses the line.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  8. #8
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    zoning laws is that it is the citizen's through their elected representatives regulating themselves.
    As every part of our country is run by an elected legislature, when is it not "people's elected representatives regulating themselves"?

    I believe people are able to make good decisions for themselves, without so-called experts.
    Without the proper information? Wow....you would trust anyone to build a bridge without experts? How about create a four star restaurant meal from scratch?

    We all know a lead plant doesn't belong next to a day care, people can work those things out themselves.
    But how often are educated, motivated people really involved in the decision and not profit-motivated corporations or donation/influence motivated politicians alone?

    But when laws are used to prohibit any use for the land to satisfy someone's idea of sustainability, or to protect the habitat of some "endangered" insect, it crosses the line.
    Not if the community, through direct action (as I propose most times) or through elected officials (as you say, that's how we "regulate ourselves") decides those issues are important...which clearly they have.

    Sustainability is NOT about putting the impetus on government...it's about getting PEOPLE to understand the entire situation and make the right decision. At home or at work, we're still the same person (or should be) with values and ethics. Making the most balanced decision is all that matters...and sometimes that decision is that preserving a species or passing on a development opportunity (like the lead plant you mentioned) is more important than the gain.

    By the way, in your example....should we alllow a lead plant to contaminate that location if the day care becomes an old age home?

  9. #9
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    One thing about zoning laws is that it is the citizen's through their elected representatives regulating themselves.
    So in cases where people elect municipal representatives who promise more livable towns through social engineering, that's an OK thing, because they get what they wanted.

    Actually, I agree with that, too. That type of city can be economically viable. Example: Boulder. (Let's not look at the fact that they de facto export their sprawl to neighboring communities or that the cost of housing is out of sight in that city.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    We all know a lead plant doesn't belong next to a day care, people can work those things out themselves.
    I postulate that there are developers who don't care about such things, and if controls were not in place, that would certainly happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    But when laws are used to prohibit any use for the land to satisfy someone's idea of sustainability, or to protect the habitat of some "endangered" insect, it crosses the line.
    But... that's exactly what zoning laws do, in many cases. Establishing zoning for better traffic flow is precisely passing laws to satisfy the town's idea of sustainability (less gas consumption, less road wear, better traffic flow, less pollution, less wasted time).

    I'm just nitpicking, and by doing so, it sounds like I'm arguing to argue. My whole advocacy is one of balance. I get the feel from some of the writing here that getting good gas mileage is downright irresponsible - that having systems that work well and are more environment-friendly is a stupid thing - that a developer with nothing but dollars in mind will help construct a well-run community. I don't think those are correct. Neither are attempts at environmentalism which work to degrade the human condition. We need balance, and I believe we can achieve better balance by being more considerate and conservative with the effect that we're having on our habitat.
    Last edited by Jay Zeno; 04-10-2005 at 05:54 PM.

  10. #10
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    the 'naturally occurring' or 'logical' outcome would have been to fill in the swamp or cut down the forest, and build on the land close to the urban center !
    1. why is destruction logical?

    2. if building close to or in the urban center is so logical, why do developers look for land so far out to build (hint: faster profit to them, screw the long term impacts)?

    In the case of my town, NO developer looks downtown or immediate area (and it's all empty) they all go outside the town (where the tax breaks and socially engineered incentives are, plus cheap land) and build new. 5 yrs later they rip these buildings down (throwing them into ever-larger landfills) and build new ones...or move to a further -out development

    Today's environmental laws preclude this -
    what environmental laws specifically are you referring to?


    [quote]As to the matter of building 'repairable' products ... before the days of multi-million dollar product liability lawsuits and last decimal point pollution controls it was actually possible to build durable goods which could be serviced by third parties, like for example cars with carburetors and ignition 'points' rather than computers.[quote]so it has nothing to do with business school teachings of planned obsolecense, lowest-initial-cost incentives, building repeat customers, or marketing tricks like the "all new Chevy Silverado" which is the same as last years but with different design features? C'mon....do you really believe this?

  11. #11
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    JZ..EXACTLY right:

    We need balance, and I believe we can achieve better balance by being more considerate and conservative with the effect that we're having on our habitat.

    By the way...I invite all Conservatives (even Republicans...and non conservatives) to visit www.REPAMERICA.org - also known as REPUBLICANS for ENVIRONMENTAL PRESEVATION. Typical slogan: if CONSERVatives won't CONSERVe, who will?

  12. #12
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    2. if building close to or in the urban center is so logical, why do developers look for land so far out to build (hint: faster profit to them, screw the long term impacts)?
    This isn't some ridiculous evil developer conspiracy, it's just basic, basic economics:

    --Land outside urban areas is cheaper to acquire
    --Land outside urban areas is cheaper (and easier) to develop
    --Land outside urban areas is cheaper to sell
    --Land outside urban areas is in high demand

    There's a reason people don't want to move into depressed urban areas--they don't want to live there! This isn't rocket science.

    In the case of my town, NO developer looks downtown or immediate area (and it's all empty)
    Why does this surprise you? People with money to buy real estate of any kind don't want to move into ghettos! Again, not rocket science. You'll notice Manhattan doesn't have this problem (or any functioning urban area more broadly) because people want to live there.

    so it has nothing to do with business school teachings of planned obsolecense, lowest-initial-cost incentives, building repeat customers, or marketing tricks like the "all new Chevy Silverado" which is the same as last years but with different design features? C'mon....do you really believe this?
    It's funny to hear you quote business school practices, when of all the current posters here, you consistently exhibit the lowest comprehension of basic economics fundamentals.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  13. #13
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    This isn't some ridiculous evil developer conspiracy, it's just basic, basic economics:

    --Land outside urban areas is cheaper to acquire
    --Land outside urban areas is cheaper (and easier) to develop
    --Land outside urban areas is cheaper to sell
    --Land outside urban areas is in high demand

    There's a reason people don't want to move into depressed urban areas--they don't want to live there! This isn't rocket science.

    Why does this surprise you? People with money to buy real estate of any kind don't want to move into ghettos! Again, not rocket science. You'll notice Manhattan doesn't have this problem (or any functioning urban area more broadly) because people want to live there.
    THANKS for proving my point...or rather disproving the earlier statement
    POSTED BY MELONIE
    the 'naturally occurring' or 'logical' outcome would have been to fill in the swamp or cut down the forest,"


    It's funny to hear you quote business school practices, when of all the current posters here, you consistently exhibit the lowest comprehension of basic economics fundamentals.
    Funny, you forget I have an business degree....with almost a masters in sustainable economics. Truth is, I simply see things differently and have WORKED in the business of making economy ecology and lifestyle BALANCE.

    By the way, you didn't answer my question (response to Mel's assertion) that it's NOT environmental initiatives but "standard economic fundamentals" which created non repairable products.

  14. #14
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    Why does this surprise you? People with money to buy real estate of any kind don't want to move into ghettos! Again, not rocket science. You'll notice Manhattan doesn't have this problem (or any functioning urban area more broadly) because people want to live there.
    There are ways to stimulate growth in infill areas and energize redevelopment, and those ways to do so have been used successfully in a number of communities. Yes, it usually takes government-initiated measures. Yet, when those measures have been successful, why argue how bad they are?

    If the choice is tax advantages/indirect subsidy to revitalize blighted areas, or to let blighted areas continue, sorry, but I'm in favor of giving the place a hand. This is a "subsidy" that, in my sphere of observation, pays off as an investment more often than not, because the redeveloped areas stimulate economy and add significantly to property taxes, sales taxes, and employment base.

  15. #15
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    As every part of our country is run by an elected legislature, when is it not "people's elected representatives regulating themselves"?
    When environmental groups harass private property owners through the courts. When bureacrats at agencies such as the Bureau of Land Mangagement seek to pursue their own agendas. When animals rights groups and their partners in government agencies seek to seize private property without paying for it through the Endangered Species Act. If you want to save the spotted owl, I have no problem with that, go to congress and ask them for the money to buy the land the endangered species' habitat.

    Without the proper information? Wow....you would trust anyone to build a bridge without experts? How about create a four star restaurant meal from scratch?
    You asked about Social Engineering. The general regulations I'm describing don't seek a specific outcome (hence the engineering), only to protect the rights of all involved.

    But how often are educated, motivated people really involved in the decision and not profit-motivated corporations or donation/influence motivated politicians alone?
    Every election.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  16. #16
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    So in cases where people elect municipal representatives who promise more livable towns through social engineering, that's an OK thing, because they get what they want.
    Not if they trample upon the rights of property owners. Government has a right, a duty even, to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. It does not have the right to micro-manage development. Let's say I own a small farm. Government does not have the right to tell me that that land must remain a farm forever. If there is a lead plant next door to my farm, or if government has zoned the land next door for an industrial use, government has a right to tell me that I cannot put a daycare or a residential neighborhood there.

    I postulate that there are developers who don't care about such things, and if controls were not in place, that would certainly happen.
    Broad zoning laws protect all parties. If I owned a lead plant, I'd protest any attempt to put a daycare next door to me. Why? I don't want to be sued by the parents of the kids. I'm curious as to why developers are always assumed to be evil. If I'm a developer, the last thing I want is a reputation for building slums, people would stop buying from me. Its in my best interest to deliver a quality product (the development) to my customer.

    But... that's exactly what zoning laws do, in many cases. Establishing zoning for better traffic flow is precisely passing laws to satisfy the town's idea of sustainability (less gas consumption, less road wear, better traffic flow, less pollution, less wasted time).
    No, zoning laws are to protect peoples health and welfare, not pursue some people's idea of a utopian society. Anything that goes further than that is Social Engineering.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  17. #17
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Not if they trample upon the rights of property owners.
    In my scenario (based upon real-life occurrences), it is the property owners, among others, who give the "trampling" powers to the local government by electing the people who promise to "trample." They have the right to do that, I presume.

    Broad zoning laws protect all parties.
    "Broad" will always be subjective, of course.

    I'm curious as to why developers are always assumed to be evil. If I'm a developer, the last thing I want is a reputation for building slums, people would stop buying from me. Its in my best interest to deliver a quality product (the development) to my customer.
    Oh, I don't assume developers to be evil. I know good ones and bad ones. However, development naturally seeks the best ROI. You feel that the best ROI comes from quality. Not all developers feel that way. There are certainly developers who will build slums, if given the opportunity, or will build a lead plant next to a day-care or vice versa, if they think they have a willing buyer. However, good planning/zoning can prevent that and allow the good developers a chance at a better project on the same property.

    No, zoning laws are to protect peoples health and welfare, not pursue some people's idea of a utopian society. Anything that goes further than that is Social Engineering.
    I submit that a balanced approach to sustainability is directly tied to people's welfare.

  18. #18
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Not if they trample upon the rights of property owners.
    so a property ownr who owns or buys a farm has the "right" to convert that farm to residntial or industrial us (forcing added taxes and other problms on the agrarian neighbors) regardless of the will of the community?

    The landowner who purchases or owns property where an endangered species live - a species the people (through their elected representatives)determined they should protect) have th right to destroy that habitat at will?

    Government has a right, a duty even, to protect the health and welfare of its citizens.
    Planning for maintenance of the quality of water, air and lifestyle I would assume...and protecting many landowners from the actions of one or two?

    It does not have the right to micro-manage development.
    and of course you draw that curved line.

    Let's say I own a small farm. Government does not have the right to tell me that that land must remain a farm forever.
    No, but the community should be able to determine they want to be agriculturally/tourism based...and you building a subdivision would kill that off. Therefore, "the will of the many outwheighs the whim of the one" (in short, you knew it was a farm when you bought it)

    Great numbers of small farmers are being pressured by the (larger numbers of) new voters in residential developments (a 100 acre farm migt hold 300 voters in a subdivision) NOT to farm because it "smellls/looks bad" - these people have farmed all their lives and are put under stress/out ofbusiness BY PEOPLE THAT KNEW A FARM WAS THERE WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE LAND

    If there is a lead plant next door to my farm, or if government has zoned the land next door for an industrial use, government has a right to tell me that I cannot put a daycare or a residential neighborhood there.
    What about the individuals right to request a zoning change or variance?

    So your criteria are personal, drawing lines around IMMDIATE impact on individuals, forget the desires of a community or the health and lifestyle quality...let alone long term issues. Balanced...NOT

    Broad zoning laws protect all parties.
    In theory...but I've never known a developer who didn't ask for some kind of variance to suit their profit.

    If I owned a lead plant, I'd protest any attempt to put a daycare next door to me. Why? I don't want to be sued by the parents of the kids.
    personal, but then explain the groundwater contamination by factories from Love Canal to Woburn, MA....or why residential development is placed near "brownfield" areas tat contain active or historic contamination?

    why developers are always assumed to be evil.
    They aren't ...our land trust alliance has many developers as members...but there are ALOT that will do anything for a buck, regardless of te community's interest, public or tenant safety, or long term affect on health and lifestyle (not to mention ecology) balance

    If I'm a developer, the last thing I want is a reputation for building slums, people would stop buying from me. Its in my best interest to deliver a quality product (the development) to my customer.
    Take away theory, live in reality. As people have said here and every community sees...if there's profit in slums and delivering shoddy products (a great way to get repeat customers is if a cheap product dies) people WILL do it



    No, zoning laws are to protect peoples health and welfare, not pursue some people's idea of a utopian society.
    so protecting a farmers livelihood or the kids from poisons or an areas tourism base or other quality of life factors YOU DECIDED aren't important?

    All Hail Queen Destiny.....decider of all democratic processes!

  19. #19
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    In my scenario (based upon real-life occurrences), it is the property owners, among others, who give the "trampling" powers to the local government by electing the people who promise to "trample." They have the right to do that, I presume.
    The idea of majority rule does not mean the majority have the right to trample upon the rights of the minority. As an example, for years segregation of African-Americans was accomplished in the south through the use of "Jim Crow Laws". These laws, enacted by the majority, restricted the rights of African-Americans. The fact that these laws were adopted by the majority (ignoring for simplicity's sake the disenfranchisement of most minorities) did not legitimize these laws, nor make them constitutional. Majority vote does validate tyrannical rule.

    If I may, I offer my own little scenario to make myself clear. Let's say I own a small farm in Zenoville. Zenoville is a growing town, in large part because of its very intelligent, able, and studly leader, Mayor Jay Zeno. The citizen's of Zenoville want to keep their town, "livable" and protect their "open space" so they enact laws restricting my little farm to agricultural use. Zenoville continues to grow and prosper, re-electing Mayor Zeno to numerous terms. I am content to farm my little piece of land, supplementing my meager farm income by giving the mayor a few lap dances on the side. One day the Evil Developer, Melonie pays me a visit on my little farm. "Destiny" Melonie says, "this makes no sense. Here you are working yourself to death on your farm, making ends meet by giving lap dances to that leacherous mayor for a few twenties in your garter when this land you own is worth a fortune". Melonie goes on, "you've got the land, I've got the money and brains, lets team up and develop this land". So together, Melonie and I apply to the city to develop my little piece of land. "NO, the citizen's of Zenoville shout, we have decided that your land must remain vacant FOREVER. We like being able to drive by and see your cute little cows grazing in your field, that's one of the reasons we moved to Zenoville" So the town leaders of Zenoville, led by their studly mayor, Jay, vote down every request I present to develop my land, requiring me to continue farming it forever. That is not majority rule, that is majority tyranny. The town of Zenoville does not have to allow me every use of my land that I may desire (see comments about lead plant vs. daycare). However, to deny me any use and in effect require that my land remain vacant forever is to deny the right to use my property as I see fit and in a way that is to my best economical advantage. The legal term for open space that remains vacant forever is "Public Park". As Melonie has mentioned, the U.S. Constitution specifically forbids the government from taking private property without paying compensation. If the citizens of Zenoville want my land to remain "Open Space" they should fork over the cash and buy it.

    Like I have said before, I have no problem with people that want to save the spotted owl or make their communities more "sustainable" through open space. My problem with those policies is when they try to impose the burden of them onto the backs of private citizens through the use of over-regulation.

    "Broad" will always be subjective, of course.
    I used the term "broad" in types of use. Commercial, residential, industrial, broad uses such as those. I definitely did not mean it as "all-encompassing" where the government dictates every detail of what is and is not allowed.

    Oh, I don't assume developers to be evil. I know good ones and bad ones. However, development naturally seeks the best ROI. You feel that the best ROI comes from quality. Not all developers feel that way. There are certainly developers who will build slums, if given the opportunity, or will build a lead plant next to a day-care or vice versa, if they think they have a willing buyer. However, good planning/zoning can prevent that and allow the good developers a chance at a better project on the same property.
    The best ROI comes from an enhanced development. The cost of the land is a fixed cost. The revenue you make off the land is where the difference in profit margin is shown. Say a developer buys some land for $10,000 and divides it into 10 lots. His total costs, including land comes out to $60,000, or $6,000 per lot. If he sells the lots for $8,000, he makes a profit of 33%. However, if he can enhance the value of the lots slightly to say, $8,500 per lot, his profit goes up to %42, an increase of 9%. Notice that he did not need the government to force this upon him, its in his own best interest. The only limit to this equation is what the market will bear. That is where the problem comes in. Many well-meaning people think that they can regulate themselves to prosperity. They believe that they can impose any costs they desire on the developer and that he can simply pass those costs onto the ultimate consumer. That is false, the economic "sustainability" of the entire project is limited by the upper end of what people can afford to pay for one of the lots.

    I submit that a balanced approach to sustainability is directly tied to people's welfare.
    Perhaps we have a different definition of "welfare". I see government's role as keeping people from harm, not pursuing some Central Planner's vision of Utopia.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  20. #20
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    so a property ownr who owns or buys a farm has the "right" to convert that farm to residntial or industrial us (forcing added taxes and other problms on the agrarian neighbors) regardless of the will of the community?
    No, not to any use. However, the "community" does not have the right to require that a property owner's land remain vacant forever. See my comments on JZ's post above. You might want to take a peek at the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well.

    The landowner who purchases or owns property where an endangered species live - a species the people (through their elected representatives)determined they should protect) have th right to destroy that habitat at will?
    Anything worth "protecting" is worth paying for. Protecting endangered species is a very noble goal, one I agree with. However, as usual you look only at the motives, not the results. If the end result of Endangered Species Protection is to keep me from using my land, then that is wrong. If society wants to protect the species' habitat, then society should foot the bill, and buy my land from me. To impose that financial burden on a few property owners is wrong. That's why government has the power of emminent domain, to purchase from private owners what the community determines it needs. So why don't Environmentalists and other Animal Rights type step forward and make the case to the public that we should buy the land these endangered species need to survive? Simple, as usual, they don't trust people to make the "right" choice. They are afraid that given the option of either buying the land or letting the endangered species fend for itself, that many people would refuse to spend the money. While many environmentalists talk about "educating" people, in fact, they are scared to death that if people did make an "informed decision", that the decision would not be the one the environmentalists want.

    Planning for maintenance of the quality of water, air and lifestyle I would assume...and protecting many landowners from the actions of one or two?
    Your idea of "protection" is in fact, micro-management and in most cases is unconstitutional.

    and of course you draw that curved line.
    Nope. Unlike environmentalists, I don't demand the right to tell people what they can and can't do with their private property, except in very broad categories designed to protect the health and safety of the community.

    No, but the community should be able to determine they want to be agriculturally/tourism based...and you building a subdivision would kill that off. Therefore, "the will of the many outwheighs the whim of the one" (in short, you knew it was a farm when you bought it)
    No, they should not and do not. Again, read the constitution.

    Great numbers of small farmers are being pressured by the (larger numbers of) new voters in residential developments (a 100 acre farm migt hold 300 voters in a subdivision) NOT to farm because it "smellls/looks bad" - these people have farmed all their lives and are put under stress/out ofbusiness BY PEOPLE THAT KNEW A FARM WAS THERE WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE LAND
    I grew up in Texas, which has a pretty large farm/ranch industry and have never heard of a situation like you describe. I do know that in Texas you will often see cattle grazing in fields behind people's homes or next to shopping centers, apparently peacefully coexisting. I believe one reason is that there are tax breaks for using the land for "agricultural" purposes. I'm not saying the situation you describe never happens, just that I have no knowledge of it and so can't comment.

    What about the individuals right to request a zoning change or variance?

    So your criteria are personal, drawing lines around IMMDIATE impact on individuals, forget the desires of a community or the health and lifestyle quality...let alone long term issues. Balanced...NOT
    Not personal, community-based. I don't believe the ultimate wisdom of some Central Planner pursuing his or her dreams of a utopian society are the best system. As I said before, I believe that in most cases, people in their own communities can work these things out for themselves and unlike many environmentalists and other anti-growth advocates, I trust them to do so.

    In theory...but I've never known a developer who didn't ask for some kind of variance to suit their profit.
    If the property cannot be developed in accordance with the laws, then clearly, the laws are overly burdensome. When my husband and I married, we looked to purchase a home in a suburban city. Our preferred home, had a vacant field a block away. So we went down to city hall to find out what the property was zoned, so we would know what type of neighbors we would have in the future. The property was zoned for apartments. We decided we could live witht that and bought the house. That's how zoning protects both parties. We could purchase the house knowing what could be built there. Any future purchaser of the vacant land could buy it knowing that he could build an apartment complex there without us complaing to much effect. Anything different and it would be up to our elected representatives on the city council to make the decision based on what was best for the community as a whole.

    personal, but then explain the groundwater contamination by factories from Love Canal to Woburn, MA....or why residential development is placed near "brownfield" areas tat contain active or historic contamination?
    The fact that some poor decisions have been made does not discredit the process, only the decision-makers.

    They aren't ...our land trust alliance has many developers as members...but there are ALOT that will do anything for a buck, regardless of te community's interest, public or tenant safety, or long term affect on health and lifestyle (not to mention ecology) balance

    Take away theory, live in reality. As people have said here and every community sees...if there's profit in slums and delivering shoddy products (a great way to get repeat customers is if a cheap product dies) people WILL do it
    See comments to JZ on same subject.

    so protecting a farmers livelihood or the kids from poisons or an areas tourism base or other quality of life factors YOU DECIDED aren't important?
    Read what you quoted me as saying. The primary function of government is to protect people from harm.

    All Hail Queen Destiny.....decider of all democratic processes!
    Nope, the constitution decides that, though you seem to have a problem with the Fifth Amendment. I have no problem letting the democratic process work. Its the Environmentalists and other Do-Gooders that clog the courts when they don't like the outcome.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  21. #21
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    No, not to any use. However, the "community" does not have the right to require that a property owner's land remain vacant forever.
    You keep repeating "vacant forever" as if that's the common way zoning laws are written. Even agricultural land may (for most of the communities I've worked in) be developed in several ways including residential..the rules simply limit the DENSITY, TYPE, DESIGN and METHOD of change

    Anything worth "protecting" is worth paying for.
    and who can outbid a rich developer?

    . If the end result of Endangered Species Protection is to keep me from using my land, then that is wrong.
    you bought the land...you knew what (or should have) known what was there when you bought it. Don't cry to me if you chang your mind later

    If society wants to protect the species' habitat, then society should foot the bill, and buy my land from me.
    Didn't you suggest earlier that public money should NOT be used to preserve private land? How much tax $$ are you putting to this effort?

    So why don't Environmentalists and other Animal Rights type step forward and make the case to the public that we should buy the land these endangered species need to survive?
    We SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATIONISTS do..it's one of the many tools we use, and one the "CONSERVatives" want to eliminate...as public money "should not go to preserve private land" - the same people want to eliminate the abilities of PRIVATE land conservation as well...doesn't leave much room

    given the option of either buying the land or letting the endangered species fend for itself, that many people would refuse to spend the money.
    statistically, communities vote 50/50 on that one..some say yes some say no. It's being done

    Your idea of "protection" is in fact, micro-management and in most cases is unconstitutional.
    specifically what part of my BALANCE approach are you refering to

    except in very broad categories designed to protect the health and safety of the community.
    only when you decide it's to protect their health and safety....not when somone disagrees with you. Clean water is OK as long as no landowners who bought land on which clean water exists or is cleaned object to their land continuing to serve that function

    Again, read the constitution.
    you mean the document that provides for a representative government and the will of the people (through vote and other direct actions) to determine laws? Seems like "power of many over one" to me.

    I grew up in Texas, which has a pretty large farm/ranch industry and have never heard of a situation like you describe. I do know that in Texas you will often see cattle grazing in fields behind people's homes or next to shopping centers, apparently peacefully coexisting. I believe one reason is that there are tax breaks for using the land for "agricultural" purposes. I'm not saying the situation you describe never happens, just that I have no knowledge of it and so can't comment.
    In PA, farmers are sued (unless they are in specific "Ag Security Areas") for using their tractors too early, spreading manure (smells bad) etc.

    people in their own communities can work these things out for themselves
    but when they decide sustainable development and planning is the choice...guided by their elected representatives...you say a single landowner should be paid for disagreeing. Hmmm...how much am I due because Bush Administration limits my ability to do what I want?

    If the property cannot be developed in accordance with the laws, then clearly, the laws are overly burdensome.
    Or, the developer wants to do something the community has decided is not in its overall best interest...Most zoning variance requests are from developers and landowners trying to maximize PERSONAL bst intrest, rather than following the rules in place for the land they bought or own. Rules put in place by community members and elected leaders.

    The fact that some poor decisions have been made does not discredit the process, only the decision-makers.
    EXACTLY...yet you generalize about environmentalists and conservationists

    Yet, it does call into question whether what benefits a SINGLE LANDOWNER is really a good choice forthe community, and whether a single landowner has the RIGHT TO EXTORT the community if disagreements result, as Oregon seems to want.



    the constitution decides that, though you seem to have a problem with the Fifth Amendment.
    what part of th constitution allows the individual to force his community to pay when he wants to use his property (bought under the same laws) in a way not in accordanc with the community's law or policy>

  22. #22
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    While I very much appreciate the "studly" comment, Destiny, that overarching, monolithic control is not anything close to my own preferences, nor to the examples I cited, a number of which exceed my preferences.

    Diminishing returns: It's continually less rewarding to keep arguing balance when the counter-arguments are ever polarized. I leave the field to those who are enjoying the style of debate more than I. I leave it also with a modicum of satisfaction that the towns I enjoy frequenting in this area often do successfully display the type of balance I'm espousing.

    It's easy to argue against the straw men of totalltarian rule or unfettered mercantilism; it would be tougher to argue against lessons of success that exist today. But obviously, I haven't outlined those lessons of success persuasively.

  23. #23
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Social Engineering

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    You keep repeating "vacant forever" as if that's the common way zoning laws are written. Even agricultural land may (for most of the communities I've worked in) be developed in several ways including residential..the rules simply limit the DENSITY, TYPE, DESIGN and METHOD of change
    Type? Please. Show me in the constitution where determing the type of house constructed is a proper function of government. Did you even bother to read the Fifth Amendment? Again, I don't look at intent, but outcome. Few zoning laws are written to say, "This land must remain vacant forever", the government lawyers are too smart for that. However, many are written where the net effect is to cause the land to remain vacant forever. For example, let's say I own a small piece of land. In order to develop the property, I need to extend the water and sewer to the property. Let's put that cost at $400,000. The city values their "open space" so the city lowers the allowed density on my property or restricts my design for the property to where I can only get two buildable lots. That comes out to $200,000 per lot, not even including a profit to me for my trouble. Unless, these lots are in an extremely high income neighborhood, no one would be able to afford them. So the net effect, and I would say many times the main goal of all these regulations is to render the land vacant forever.

    and who can outbid a rich developer?
    That's the beauty of Emminent Domain, the government doesn't have to outbid anyone, they are only required to pay fair market value. The people, through their elected representatives decide saving the spotted owl's habitat is important. My land is prime spotted owl habitat. An independent appraiser is appointed to decide how much my land is worth. The government cuts me a check for that amount and the land is theirs, the spotted owl is saved, everybody wins. Why isn't this done? Again, Environmentalists are afriad to trust the people. They are afraid that taxpayers would refuse to pay to save the spotted owl.

    you bought the land...you knew what (or should have) known what was there when you bought it. Don't cry to me if you chang your mind later
    Oh please. Science has not yet even identified every species on the planet. Furthermore, are you willing to guarantee me that more species will not be added to list in the future? Remember this quote:
    Ten to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species were already threatened with extinction, according to the assessment, the biggest review of the planet's life support systems. You can't post in one thread that a huge number of the animals are in danger of becoming extinct, then in this one tell me that I should be able to predict which one.

    Didn't you suggest earlier that public money should NOT be used to preserve private land? How much tax $ are you putting to this effort?

    We SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATIONISTS do..it's one of the many tools we use, and one the "CONSERVatives" want to eliminate...as public money "should not go to preserve private land" - the same people want to eliminate the abilities of PRIVATE land conservation as well...doesn't leave much room
    No, I said that society has no right to impose the costs on a few citizens by denying them the use of their land in the name of habitat protection. For me personally, it would depend on the cost/benefit of the species and my own tastes. Bald Eagles: $200 million. Some snail that is distiguished from other species of snails by his overly large sex organ: Zero. The point is, we as a society would be making the decision. You're the one claiming how important "bio-diversity" is to the health of the planet. Why are you afraid of society quantifying it?

    you mean the document that provides for a representative government and the will of the people (through vote and other direct actions) to determine laws? Seems like "power of many over one" to me.
    No where does the constitution allow the majority, no matter how well intentioned, to trample the rights of the minority. That was the main reason the judicial branch was created.

    In PA, farmers are sued (unless they are in specific "Ag Security Areas") for using their tractors too early, spreading manure (smells bad) etc.
    Perhaps people in PA are just especially cranky?

    but when they decide sustainable development and planning is the choice...guided by their elected representatives...you say a single landowner should be paid for disagreeing. Hmmm...how much am I due because Bush Administration limits my ability to do what I want?
    I never said any such thing. Let's say that the community decides that to protect the community's health, a bigger sewage treatment plant is needed. A study determines that the best place for the plant is on a portion of my property and offers to buy some of it. "But I don't want a sewage plant next door" I cry. Too bad. The same principle applies in reverse. I'll say again, the legal term for "open space" that is never developed is "Public Park". If you really believed the value of "sustainable development" was so apparent and obvious, you wouldn't have a problem with this.

    Or, the developer wants to do something the community has decided is not in its overall best interest...Most zoning variance requests are from developers and landowners trying to maximize PERSONAL bst intrest, rather than following the rules in place for the land they bought or own. Rules put in place by community members and elected leaders.
    I once lived in a town that governed what color some of the people could paint their houses. Please. In the town next to it, my dad, who's a civil engineer, once spent hours debating with the city council where the dumpsters for an office building were going to be placed.

    what part of th constitution allows the individual to force his community to pay when he wants to use his property (bought under the same laws) in a way not in accordanc with the community's law or policy>
    Uh.....The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I'll get the specific Supreme Court decision and post if for you later, right now I got a kid to put to bed.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

Similar Threads

  1. Social Escorting?
    By Harleigh HellKat in forum Other Work
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-02-2010, 07:46 PM
  2. Social Security
    By Eric Stoner in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 08:09 PM
  3. Social Security
    By Luxxxe in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-17-2008, 07:53 PM
  4. Social Phobia/Social Anxiety Disorder
    By Sexygirl240 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 12:33 PM
  5. social anxiety
    By TigersMilk in forum Body Business
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-15-2005, 05:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •