Trevor,
I appreciate your zeal to preserve the scenic quality of hwy 14.
Even your comments about the new art installation at Bates Wilson’s place seemed unjustified, as if you just like to complain about things for the sake of complaint (that was my impression).
Why does wanting the public to access nature that isn't unnecessarily dotted with the human presence complaining?
I’m sure you have your reasons (of which I’ve read and considered), but I’m having trouble sinking my teeth into them as they seem trivial to me.
need for sacred places
need for a respite from human presence
economy
rural as opposed to suburban is the purpose for the scenic byway
Above you say, “ land development is the fundamental force driving climate change”
But in actuality, it’s overpopulation that is the root cause.
But do have proof that you are right and I am wrong?
People are breeding like bunnies without any consideration of the long term effects of climate change and resource management.
While this could be true, does it make my claim untrue. People could be breeding like bunnies, etc. at the same time that development remains the fundamental cause of climate change.
One theory is that the suburban development that is enabling more room and more privacy is the vehicle for the development of nuclear families. Otherwise, you have more people living in tight spaces or with parents, thus inhibiting marriage and procreation. That could be one of many reasons, among various places, for high birth rate. In Third World places that have poor governance or social safety nets, people breed to ensure that surviving children are there to help them in old age.
THAT needs all the attention, but no one wants to talk about that. In fact, culturally, it’s taboo.
In fact, people have been talking about it for a long time. Paul Erlich, famously, since the 60's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
But do have proof that you are right and I am wrong?
People are breeding like bunnies without any consideration of the long term effects of climate change and resource management.
While this could be true, does it make my claim untrue. People could be breeding like bunnies, etc. at the same time that development remains the fundamental cause of climate change.
One theory is that the suburban development that is enabling more room and more privacy is the vehicle for the development of nuclear families. Otherwise, you have more people living in tight spaces or with parents, thus inhibiting marriage and procreation. That could be one of many reasons, among various places, for high birth rate. In Third World places that have poor governance or social safety nets, people breed to ensure that surviving children are there to help them in old age.
THAT needs all the attention, but no one wants to talk about that. In fact, culturally, it’s taboo.
In fact, people have been talking about it for a long time. Paul Erlich, famously, since the 60's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
In a different way, Al Bartlett addresses the subject. As far as I know, Bartlett makes more of a mathematical case than a polemical one. Not sure. I've watched a video here and there and seen some blog posts on him.
https://www.albartlett.org/
Additionally, you quote zoning laws to justify your stance against Louis’ project. But we have to consider that the zoning laws put into place never considered a housing crisis. Those zoning laws need to change in order to provide housing for the people in our community.
I have a long history of advocating for housing that zoning enabled and could have effected but for stupidity and greed of decision makers and developers (who turn out, de facto, to be the major decision makers).
https://www.albartlett.org/
Additionally, you quote zoning laws to justify your stance against Louis’ project. But we have to consider that the zoning laws put into place never considered a housing crisis. Those zoning laws need to change in order to provide housing for the people in our community.
I have a long history of advocating for housing that zoning enabled and could have effected but for stupidity and greed of decision makers and developers (who turn out, de facto, to be the major decision makers).
I’m not a fan of what Louis is doing there. I even asked him if he would be willing to consider building those units for affordable housing, but he was firmly against it (and for some good reasons). It is my opinion that his units there will not in any way junk up the town or ruin anyone’s experience in nature as they pass by.
There are some of us--a minority opposed by a very easily manipulated and uninformed "majority" IMO--whose experience of nature it would ruin. At an MLA meeting where French sought support a couple years ago, the nays and yeahs were nearly split down the middle.
There are some of us--a minority opposed by a very easily manipulated and uninformed "majority" IMO--whose experience of nature it would ruin. At an MLA meeting where French sought support a couple years ago, the nays and yeahs were nearly split down the middle.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t get behind you in preventing his project. I have affordable housing to build in order to provide those pushed out by gentrification to be able to stay in the town they love and where they are loved.
As you say yourself, French doesn't share your anti gentrification views, but I do. Only, as I've said, there's more than one way to address gentrification, in the way that we can walk and chew gum simultaneously.
As you say yourself, French doesn't share your anti gentrification views, but I do. Only, as I've said, there's more than one way to address gentrification, in the way that we can walk and chew gum simultaneously.
Hope you can see where I’m coming from...
I do (while I think you so far don't see where *I'm* coming from). :-)
I do (while I think you so far don't see where *I'm* coming from). :-)
Cheers,
Rodney
On Mar 22, 2020, at 5:39 AM, e. <trevoroche@aol.com> wrote:
Hi Rod,Your name flashed up on my computer screen yesterday, but when I looked for a message, I found none. If you didn't send a message yesterday, no problem. My article below portends to the north end of town. I'm trying to get clear the lay of the land at the south end. Cheers.MADRID, LAND USE, CLIMATE CHANGE, VIEWS, THE COLLECTIVE, AND THE TURQUOISE TRAILBy Trevor BurrowesAt the northern edge of Madrid, there's a parcel of land on a hillside, with two small sheds at the bottom. It is a county-zoned lot, so is not subject to the guidelines governing Madrid's zoning plan. County rural zoning only allows one main house and one smaller second unit for every 40 acres of land or less. This parcel of land is only three acres big, and so a previous claim by the owner that it was a "hardship" not to have the right to instal five small houses (in addition to a larger main house) on the property was a stretch. If the zoning allows one house per 40 acres, how do you justify six houses per three acres?The owner is talented, and has tasteful and relevant ideas for building design in the context of an old mining town. For that and other reasons the proposed buildings would function as a de facto extension of the planning area of the village of Madrid. But is a de facto extension of Madrid northwards in the best interest of the village or of the Turquoise Trail? That, however, is less of a legal than a philosophical issue at this point. Many issues surrounding an outcome would include water, tourism, planning, sense of place, safety, etc.. (Safety is one of the most pressing: the land is located on a curvy stretch that has recently seen one fatal accident). And those are issue Madrid should be discussing among its citizens. Are we to lose our surprise village where you turn a corner on the high desert highway, and come up on a tiny stretch of shangri-la?THE TURQUOISE TRAILSCENIC CHARACTER: A scenic route is more about land than buildings. Scenic views are being continually lost, through-traffic doubles and triples, an unnecessary highway interchange gets built without a word of public concern. Large government facilities creep down from the city, light pollution escalates. Development's storm drains, roads, septic systems, paving, increased industrial stuff take fossil fuels to mine, manufacture, transport and install. The system of growth through building runs exclusively on fossil fuels. That appears to be widely overlooked.UNRECOGNISED CLIMATE DRIVERSThe situation is bleak. People who should know better use their voices for spreading falsehoods about climate drivers that keep the public distracted.Getting rid of regional grassland--to facilitate development in our case-- is said to release as much carbon into the atmosphere as clearing an equal amount of forest. None of our human caused global warming was independent of buildings on the land, even if they merely generated chainsaws or bulldozers to cut down forests and dig up grassland. But building goes on as though it could have no possible adverse consequences.Land development is the main driver for our economic system. Economic growth depends on land development. Economic growth must continue forever (to avoid collapse), so land development must continue forever. But infinite land development on a finite planet is impossible. It seems reasonable to conclude that land development is the fundamental force driving climate change, and that blaming the latter exclusively on fossil fuels abuse is blaming only a symptom of basically flawed ideas of civilization and the planning supporting it.THE DOT AND GROWTH
A powerful ally of progress is the state Department of Transportation (DOT), which constructs and manages state highways such as ours. Since the religion of growth pervades all academic institutions, DOT officials are apparently trained to foster growth. Growth, as I said, means development. Since the DOT has done everything in its power to facilitate growth through its program for 14, it's no surprise that two southern counties adjoining Highway 14 have plans to build in excess of 50 thousand units of housing each. Why is it so hard to see that were these development to go through, that would put thousands more commuters on our roads than at present, and that this could only be considered due to DOT policy?RECOMMENDATIONSThe lot at the north end of Madrid can be an example for planning and development along the Madrid to SF stretch of the Turquoise Trail. When Madrid comes together over a cause, it is a very powerful force. A successful campaign to stave off gravel mining at La Bajada Mesa was run by a Madrid local. Another local was successful in stopping dangerous through traffic by gravel and cement trucks. If Madrid comes together over that north end lot, it will make a decisive difference to the planning and design elsewhere along the highway. Those who care about the visionary solution to the lot will set the direction for the landscape of the entire region. The following are mechanisms for ensuring a win/win solution to the north lot. Some of these are within the current planning programs for the county:LAND SWAPS: The county already permits land swaps, and many swaps have been made within county. County staff surely know how to do them. In Madrid there is land owned by organizations and individuals that could be used for land swaps, allowing the owner of the north lot to build legally, and less destructively, elsewhere.TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR): A TDR can protect open space on a lot by selling the right to develop it to developer entities elsewhere. To my mind, it isn't as intuitive as a land swap, so I would need a meeting with county planning staff to iron it out. But TDR's are in common use all over the country.WHY ARE VIEWS IMPORTANT?
If we needed to stop the march of climate changing effects, it's reasonable to suggest that a viewshed left the way it is confers a measure of protection against the growth of warming indicators. The views the way they are will have a measurable area of continuous landscape functioning as a carbon sink while being aligned with heat island protection, wildlife corridors, checks on urbanization, etc. It stacks a combination of benefits ranging between the spiritual, economic and ecological.AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSmall, hidden housing behind buildings that are now visible, using existing roads, could supply additional income for property owners, and affordable low income housing. (Market housing might best be located in Santa Fe City through land swap and TDR mechanisms.) Such housing could reinforce cost saving and ecological objectives along 14.PRIORITIES ABOVE CLIMATE CHANGEIt isn't climate change that could take us down first; it is more likely to be pandemics that disrupt our just-in-time, globally networked economic system, where the pandemic combines with disruption, deprivation, panic to bring our system down. Climate change is working at a slower pace, and we could have time to alter our system such as to stop exacerbating climate change and becoming more resilient to it. Protecting viewsheds through more thoughtful and selective development that can ensue from the north lot development issue would be one means toward that end.RERFERENCESWe need grid "inertia," I'm hearing. Renewables would seem to offer potential refinements to make the existing grid work in less harmful ways. It then would be the icing on the energy cake, not the cake itself.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment