The war against suburbia

The attack on suburbia comes from without, and curiously, from within - from people who have made the choice to live here and now want to change it.  It is those who don't believe in our lifestyle that are our "betters" who are affecting changes to our town without the awareness of the public about what is happening.  Our way of life is being stolen from under us through master plans and code changes that most know nothing about.  The city isn't ours anymore - it's being manipulated by those who don't respect our lifestyle and who have immense control over how the city transitions into the future.  Whether we like it or not.

The Central Planners do not believe in personal or community autonomy, individual property rights, liberty or even a democratic, less regulated form of government.  Whatever the reason, from misapplied environmentalism to envy to power to greed, they have the upper hand and are using it against us.

Below are excerpts of a long piece on the Newgeography website.  It is a wonderful explanation of is happening in the war on suburbia, and gives some startling facts that contradict "conventional wisdom" of the day.  I highly recommend this article to everyone.  Read it and use the facts to refute the untruths you hear every day.  Fighting back - saving suburbia for generations to come - is a noble cause.

The War on Suburbia
Newgeography
By Joel Kotkin  |  1/21/10

Contrary to much of the current media hype, most Americans continue to prefer suburban living. Indeed for four decades, according to numerous surveys, the portion of the population that prefers to live in a big city has consistently been in the 10 to 20 percent range, while roughly 50 percent or more opt for suburbs or exurbs. The reasons? The simple desire for privacy, quiet, safety, good schools, and closer-knit communities. The single-family house, detested by many urbanists, also exercises a considerable pull. Surveys by the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders find that some 83 percent of potential buyers prefer this kind of dwelling over a townhouse or apartment.

In other words, suburbs have expanded because people like them. A 2008 Pew study revealed that suburbanites displayed the highest degree of satisfaction with where they lived compared to those who lived in cities, small towns, and the countryside. This contradicts another of the great urban legends of the 20th century—espoused by urbanists, planning professors, and pundits and portrayed in Hollywood movies—that suburbanites are alienated, autonomous individuals, while city dwellers have a deep sense of belonging and connection to their neighborhoods. Indeed on virtually every measurement—from jobs and environment to families—suburban residents express a stronger sense of identity and civic involvement with their communities than those living in cities. One recent University of California at Irvine study found that density does not, as is often assumed, increase social contact between neighbors or raise overall social involvement. For every 10 percent reduction in density, the chances of people talking to their neighbors increases by 10 percent, and their likelihood of belonging to a local club by 15 percent.

Ultimately, the war against suburbia reflects a radical new vision of American life which, in the name of community and green values, would reverse the democratizing of the landscape that has characterized much of the past 50 years. It would replace a political economy based on individual aspiration and association in small communities, with a more highly organized, bureaucratic, and hierarchical form of social organization.

In some ways we could say forced densification could augur in a kind of new feudalism, where questions of land ownership and decision making would be shifted away from citizens, neighbors, or markets, and left in the hands of self-appointed “betters.” This seems strange for an administration—and a party—whose raison d’être ostensibly has been to widen opportunities rather than constrict them.