Comments on an Op-Ed piece

Paul McMorrow, writing in the Globe the other day had this provocative opening "after several decades as the country's dominant land-use pattern, the sprawling suburbs are entering their swan song." The rest of the op-ed piece goes on to decry the federal budget cuts to rail transport. Putting aside the issue of whether you can actually "enter" a song, the editorial is an interesting promotion of "smart growth" full of quotes like "it's no accident that large-scale development flocks to transit corridors, and that housing prices fall as commuting times rise." Just what smart growthers think we need: "large scale development" and higher housing prices although, of course, they and their developer friends will force communities to build 40B housing so they can pretend to help the disadvantaged while lining their own pockets.

Mr. McMorrow points out there is a right wing conspiracy to kill mass transit because conservatives see it as an attempt to collectivize the American Spirit.  The right clearly sees that saving the automobile while cutting billions from passenger trains will play very well with the NASCAR crowd. Those are the folks who will have to have their steering wheels pried from their cold dead hands even if gas goes to $8 a gallon. More recently, however,  smart growthers have seen a challenge coming from academia in the form of something called "landscape urbanism"which traces its origins back to Frederick Law Olmsted. Seeing a threat to their access to the public treasury, smart growthers have reacted to landscape urbanism with name calling and derision-just what you might expect from an intellectually bankrupt entrenched bureaucracy. As usual what we need is some combination of the insights of both sides and less of the dogmatic idealogy.

One of the key insights of landscape urbanism is that suburbs aren't "sprawl," but a natural outgrowth of the failure of cities in the 20th century. Suburbs can be good or bad based on how they are planned or where they are located. Even Mr. McMorrow notes that suburbs in "denser, more transit heavy real estate markets like greater Boston have weathered the housing bust much better than far-flung subdivisions in Arizona and California." There is clearly a difference between suburbs located near old, dense, and well established cities and ones built around cities that themselves were low density and "sprawly."

What we need to assess in Easton is how well our planning process has steered development and what alternatives we have beyond the "large scale development" that Mr. McMorrow says will follow the arrival of the T. McMorrow believes that $4 a gallon gas will have us all lining up to ride the train conveniently ignoring the transition that is already underway to high efficiency hybrid cars. I recognize the need for a public transportation option, but trains are great for hauling freight not people unless the population density is high (and even there it needs a subsidy). A flexible and forward looking bus system that might even link current commuter rail stops is the way to go. Put me down with Bubba-I like my car and love my truck. Now if I had just kept that moped from the '70s!

Along with the usual who-knows-what, tomorrow we'll be taking a look at Greystone Way-"Suburban Paradise or Smart Growth Hell." Later in the week we'll take a look at the Queset Commercial District Study a smart growth idea that might just benefit the town. Lighter fare might include a piece on Carolina Wrens-the happy side of global warming, the ground breaking of my fabulous radish crop, and the nine lives of Zahi Hawass, my favorite Egyptologist.