TJIC has a nice post on the arrogant paternalism inherent in urban planning.
The Party is making decisions about how we should live, and then, eventually, telling us about them.
The aim is to have 80 percent of new housing and new jobs in cities
and larger municipal centers such as Framingham, Peabody, Norwood, and
Marlborough. That would enable more people to walk or use mass transit
and thereby reduce traffic and pollution, according to the plan.
So, of the million possible variables, the ones they've chosen to
optimize are the minimization of the average distance one has to drive
to get to work.
Things they have implicitly then de-prioritized:
- open space per family
- privacy per family
- floor space per family
- minimal overall commute time per individual
- noise abatement
I liked this bit:
The problem is, the statists don't really care about green space per
se. They care about government owned (or at least government
controlled) green space. Which is better? 20 acres of land lumped into
a government owned wetland sanctuary that no one ever visits, or 20
houses, each on 1 acre lots, covered with gardens, yards, trees, and
tree-houses? The government employee doesn't get to meddle in the
individual lots, so he's always going to say that the government owned
patch is better.