Comments on: Bizzy’s AM Coffee Biz-Econ-Life Links (060606)

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:00:41 +0000

Lots of toddlers, fewer school-age kids in S.F.

Only an estimated 12 percent of San Francisco households earn enough to buy a median-price home, which costs more than $760,000.

Yes, I acknowledge it talks about back yards and grass too.

By: Kevin Irwin

Kevin Irwin — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:47:25 +0000

Families who can afford to live in those areas, do.

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:02:43 +0000

I hate the word sustainability and how it has been hijacked because it implies that if we don’t follow its dictates we won’t be able to “sustain” ourselves. BS.

The four criteria ignored are every bit as important to holistic “sustainabiliy” as the definitionally challenged version used by SL. Cincinnati is NOT “sustaining” itself because its schools suck, its taxes are way too high (they take 2.1% of earnings of everyone who works there, regardless of whether they live there), crime is rampant, and the housing stock is either nothing you want or obscenely expensive, depending on the area.

The SL people have a bias towards belief that urban planners can make decisions that are superior to the rest of us dummies. Instead of asking “how can we accommodate what people want?” they ask “how can we make people want what we want”?

In a spread-out, relatively non-centralized area like Metro Columbus, people want roads. The fact that their mass transit is weak is irrelevant. Build the bleeping roads.

Sure I’m overreacting a little, because the Columbus city fathers are all worried about what SL thinks. Who cares?

On the top of the list, Portland and SF are both places where families with kids can’t stay within because of housing prices.

By: Kevin Irwin

Kevin Irwin — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:00:50 +0000

Remember, not everyone is looking for the “Leave it to Beaver” lifestyle.

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:25 +0000

#2, I’m just having fun.

By: Kevin Irwin

Kevin Irwin — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:48:10 +0000

Additionally, you surely can’t dismiss all of the global warming research based on a single day in Belgium…

By: Kevin Irwin

Kevin Irwin — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:39:45 +0000

Tom, this is another example of you using your criteria as a measure instead of the study’s criteria. SustainLane is measuring sustainability, not the classic measure of livability, though in some categories the two are intrinsically linked. How can you say that Portland, SF, or Seattle are not desireable? If anything SF and Seattle (outside of Boston of course) are the two US cities that I would actually consider moving to.

Why does Columbus rank so low?

City Commuting - Columbus has no real noteworthy mass transit system. The COTA is mostly traveled by the elderly and the poor. The study shows that 83% of Columbus commuters drive alone to work every day.

Tap water quality - I can’t really speak to this as I have no background in Columbus’ water situation

Planning/Land Use - If you ever fly over Columbus, you’ll notice clumps of housing developments are dropped in and around 270 with thousands of vacant acreage in between. It’s not an efficient usage of land if you ask me.

Columbus’ good points

Metro Congestion - I don’t recall ever being stuck in traffic in Columbus and I highly doubt that people are stacked on top of each other like they are in my home state.

Housing Affordability - Columbus is cheap - case closed.