I can hardly believe the specious arguments I see here every day. If a person really wants to have a healthier lifestyle living in the suburbs, they will drive to a park, or hiking trails, or ride their bike around their neighborhood ... they can jog, walk up and down the street with a neighbor (get to know your neighbors people - if you want to)

Sprawl - oh there I said the evil word - is economic liberty. People do not want to be stacked up in a sardine can high rise, and have to wait an extra 10 minutes on the front and tail end of every trip for mass transit. They want their cars because they like the freedom of mobility.

In short, stop trying to make everyone else live the way you think they should, otherwise you are going to feel rather silly when you make an argument to them to let you do the same.

Wes Wagner NW Meridian

Why must we address the issue through a social governmental solution? Why can't people choose for their own to solve their own problems?

If living in a district like SE Hawthorn is prefereable, people will rent and buy housing there - if the housing becomes too short of supply, people will develop neighborhoods designed like it to appeal to latent demand.

I used to live downtown, and when my job was there and I could walk 18 blocks to work every day, I loved it. When the tax system became too oppressive that I couldn't find work that paid what I should, my job left town, and so did I.

To be fair - the presumption that there is a public health crisis, implies that we have some economic liability as part of some social contract to pay for the costs of poor health. It cannot be positively argued rhetorically that point is true, so you must either ask that it be granted as a concession - in which case the planning may make sense. I do not agree with the collective obligation.

I believe individuals are culpable and responsible for their own decisions.

Wes Wagner

Wes, as much as people have been cultured to want suburbs, and as much as the "free market" (suburbia is in fact heavily subsidized) reifies that preference, the reality is that what people want does not mean they will get it, or get to keep it. As a small-L libertarian, I empathize with your call for letting people choose where they live. However, just because people choose where they live does not mean it's any good. What is popular is not always what is best.

Now I'm certainly not saying I know what is best, or that government does, or that either government or myself should impose that onto those who choose suburbia. Indeed I rarely find government to be the answer. But it is just as silly to think that what people want to be best.

PS, suburbia is a way of life which can ONLY be possible by way of cheap, abundant energy. Much to the chagrin of suburbia, we live in a closed system, and energy is finite. Thus, the way of life people have been choosing in America cannot last for very long. In fact, peak oil looks like it is about to make that reality quite tangible: see www.oiltruth.com for more.

So ... the reason that I see all those slender beautiful people in the Pearl is because they walk to Whole Foods to buy their groceries? I would have guessed it was due to great genes, 24 Hour Fitness and selective plastic surgery, but what do I know. Back to the topic - like others have said, social engineering and growth management are easy to talk about but almost impossible to implement given our freedom of choice and the quiltwork of adjoining municipal governments. Sidewalks should be mandatory, but if one city requires them many people just buy a house in the next town over so they can save the $2000 that the sidewalks would have cost. Short sighted, but that is what happens. Have you checked out the giant new subdivisions in Sherwood lately? Newberg? Dundee?

Well in the two wrongs don't make a right category - maybe we should stop using tax money to build roads and infrastructure for suburban developers, and also stop giving tax abatements to people trying to build downtown high rises on the backs of already existing loyal residents. Those tax abatements and economic development programs are paid by someone.

While we are at it lets repeal oil subsidies and agriculture subsidies so people actually have to pay the real economic cost of consumption directly so they will behave in a more responsible manner when it comes to use decisions and waste.

I could go on a long time, but won't - to some extent you either believe that government is the answer or people are the answer. Personally I have never seen the government solve any problems, but I have seen people do it - so I tend to disfavor giving more resources and responsibility to an organization that has continually failed.

The last thing we need is social engineering in our private health decisions - which is the slippery slope socialized health care and intelligent exercise based city design leads us down. If the government is paying your doctor bills there is no life choice they will not feel entitled to control. Maybe like poor Winston from 1984 we will have to find a corner to hide away from the viewscreens if we want to light up a doobie.

-Wes Wagner

At first glance this would seem to be correct, but I think our problem is more cultural, not infrastructural (is that a word?). We're increasingly a consuming people, rather than a producing people. Think of our increase in credit card debt, the increase in average portion sizes, the increase in indulging in treats, the increasing reliance on convenience foods and fast food, the increase in media intake (television, video games, Internet, text messaging, I-pod, Sirius satellite, etc.) and the concurrent decresae in willingness to experience any discomfort, such as getting off one's fanny and doing something. It's no mystery why we're all getting fat and sick, and I don't think it would change just because we had sidewalks. A lot of people point to New York as an example of urban life with less obesity. I think that is purely a result of the fact that New Yorkers have no choice. The rest of America does, and aside from a few conscientous folks who prioritize their health, we're generally choosing to do as little as possible because we can.

I think the answer is in making a healthy, active lifestyle fun. For example, we have had many struggles trying to get our kids to play outside this time of year because they don't want to be cold and would rather sit in the living room eating popcorn and playing video games. But we just got them paintball guns and now they want to be out running around and being active in the woods nearby as much as possible, no matter how cold it is. In the summer, it's the freedom of their bicycles that gets them out of the house. My husband and I stay fit by going out dancing (vigorously) a couple of days a week and hunting as often as we can. In the summer we go roller blading with the kids. And now, of course, we play paintball with them, too. That's fun exercise. That will get you off the couch. Sidewalks wouldn't make any difference at all for us.

i don't think the point that's being made is that the government is responsible for individuals making "healthy choices" when it comes to diet and exercise, that would be intrusive.

BUT, when "the government" does make decisions on what to do with public dollars, those decisions should promote, and never harm, public health and welfare. if they're looking at spending transportation dollars, for example, they can make sure to include bike lanes so that citizens find it safe to ride their bicycles. (healthy and environmentally friendly transportation) When they're planning growth of a city, (cities don't plan themselves) making sure that there is affordable "mixed use" space does have positive public health benefits.

promoting the growth of suburbs is not a wise decision from a public health perspective. it has nothing to do with government telling people how to live their lives.

"promoting the growth of suburbs is not a wise decision from a public health perspective." I think I agree with that, but what is the alternative? Assume population growth of 4-5% per year into our area. What do we do with all the people other than continue to build suburbs? Rich young professionals and empty nesters are snapping up high rise condos in Portland as fast as they are built, but what do you propose for middle and low income families and those who don't want to live in Portland? "Affordable" condo units are largely a fiction and even when they are built they are not suitable for many families with multiple kids, dogs, etc. I support the construction of bike paths, sidewalks, local commercial centers, etc., but I think that continued suburban growth (sprawl) is inevitable. When I was in the 6th grade in the mid-60s the geography book we were using had a map which projected that someday there would be a wide swath of uninterrupted urban development from Vancouver BC to San Diego. Unfortunately, nothing I have seen over the past 40 years has caused me to question the eventual accuracy of that projection. Maybe this is where the bird flu would come in handy?

Just to clear up some BS:

1. Sprawl predates the automobile. One major sprawl spurt was the streetcar!!

2. Cul-de-sacs are much safer than grid streets. There is no through traffic past your house or past kids playing in the circle. Strangers and criminals stand out as someone to keep an eye on. One cul-de-sac was opened up by adding a bike/foot path to a neighboring shopping center. The burglery rate want from ZERO to sixty times the national average.

3. There is a simnple solution to obesity: eat less. It is much easier to cut consumption. Just look at how far you must walk to burn off one sweet desert.

4. The recent hype about suburb dwellers being more obese is just that - hype: Take NewYork's Chinatown out of the data & the difference disappears. But such details make no difference to the car haters.

5. Suburb dwellers drive about the same as city dwellers and have slightly shorter commute times. Remember that most jobs are not longer in the central city so most commutes are suburb to suburb.

6. Density only decreases driving per capata when they get very high, and then the driving does not decrease much, leading to more congestion.

Thanks JK

Kari wrote """""""""" "Need proof? East Portland has more people, living at a higher density, than Washington County. And yet, complaints of traffic pale in comparison to those in Washington County (where pollsters report it's the #1 political issue" """"""""""

As I see it the worst planning outcomes are from the most recent, with the most planning with extra the extra layer Metro.

In fact if one wanders around Washington County the worst, is the most recent, in places like Murrayhill where a sea of asphalt, concrete and roofs grew from Metro planning and direction. Without regard for anything at all except stopping expansion. Forced high density which forced URBAN sprawl upon the suburban communities has been a lousy trade for the better planned and more spacious communities we could have preserved and created. But heck, Metro is happy. They just voted unanimously to give the Round in Beaverton another $2 million for more subsidized high density development.

It sounds silly, but Metro is evil.

I always see a large call for bike lanes, but do the bike riders want to pay for licenses and tags for their street bikes and bear the proportional burden for their smaller lane of asphalt? Sure cars are subsidized, but a portion of the road expense is not. I am sure the bicyclists would cry murder if they were asked to pay $300 per year for a "street plate" to help finance all the additional bike lanes.

-Wes Wagner

Wes:

I thought you wanted everyone to "stop trying to make everyone else live the way you think they should".

Bike lanes afford me another option for transportation. Without them, biking is less safe, and in some cases, prohibitively so. You take bike lanes away from me, and I can't help but suspect you are "trying to make [me] live the way you think [I] should", that is by driving.

By the way, libertarian free-market arguements only make sense in this context if we get the government out of building transportation infrustructure altogether, which I doubt is going to happen anytime soon (or is even feasible).

while i sympathize with those who may “not want to live in Portland,” just because someone (or many someones) wants something, doesn’t make it good public policy. supporting suburban growth is bad environmental policy in a lot of ways, and it’s bad health policy in a lot of ways. clinging to the idea that “everyone” is going to have a big house with a big lawn is kind of silly. (especially since there’s never been a time when “everyone” lived like that.) there’s no constitutional right to a lawn. living in an urban center requires different kinds of housing. if the suburbs aren’t sustainable, (they’re not) then we shouldn’t build them.

but back to the original topic of obesity: i think it's really important to avoid simplistic statements like "sprawl causes obesity." Inactivity is very closely linked to obesity. If you're driving an hour to and from work, that's two hours a day, five or so days a week where you're not being physically active. Then, many people can add in time at work to their daily physically inactive time, as well as time doing errands, shopping, etc... Living close to where you work, maybe close enough to walk or ride your bike, is a great way to integrate physical activity into your daily life. Most people, i've found, find it easier to maintain a routine of physical activity if they can integrate it into their daily life. This is where people can make the “personal choices” to minimize their chances being obese.

But there’s also a public policy component where we can design spaces to allow for these kind of activities, or we can just build lots more roads. Building more roads may help relive some short term congestion for cars, but it's going to cause more congestion in your arteries in the long run. (building roads also means you have to maintain them, and that's expensive)

The growth in American obesity is relatively recent, and not nearly enough research has been done to start being able to find direct causational links. However, there are enough studies to start to put the picture together.

Here's one that ties obesity rates to time spent in a car. Another points to sprawl as a possible contributor. Another looks at poverty rates and food prices as predictors of obesity.

JK, want to cite some of your sources?

"You take bike lanes away from me, and I can't help but suspect you are 'trying to make [me] live the way you think [I] should', that is by driving."

That logic has no formal connection - I am arguing that people who do not ride bikes should not be forced to pay for bike lanes, per say. In the same manner would it not be fair that people who ride bikes not be forced to pay for car lanes out of the Oregon general fund? (as we know not all roads come from gas taxes, a large amount of it is general fund money - collected from everyone, regardless of whether they own a car or not)

Are you saying that bikes (and bike lanes) do not have a viable enough economic value to be able to be self sufficient in funding bike lanes and need socialized subsidization?

I don't call that forcing you to live in a particular manner - I just name it for what it is - that you might feel entitled to special priviledge because you believe you have the poitical lobbying power to take it from the public treasury. There is far too much of that going around.

-Wes Wagner

I'm sure if I were a downtown bike courier, I would be in much better physical condition. That doesn't equate to a happier life or better standard of living in my book.

It's also worth noting that lawn maintenance and gardening is a (seasonally) active pursuit, unless you contract it out. To suggest that society has any say in whether I prefer to live downtown or suburbs, or how I commute (bike, car, or transit) is to invite creeping Socialism into our lives. That is unacceptable.

Public policy should incorporate the diversity of choices available to our citizenry: it shouldn't be anti-car, or anti-suburbs, or anti-obesity. Some people will always be fat, some people will always drive their car; others will always be skinny, and eschew travel by car.

If the City of Portland wants to make a difference in my life, how about devoting the same resources and energy to a grand sidewalk contstruction progam as they have devoted to condominium development. If it were safer to walk in the suburbs (SW Portland, in my case), the grocery store walks would be much more frequent.

I have to take on JK's assertions: Just to clear up some BS:

1. Sprawl predates the automobile. One major sprawl spurt was the streetcar!! Take a look at Portland's old streetcar neighborhoods. Yes, they developed, but did not sprawl. If you look at essentially pre-World War II development, which was largely inside of 82nd on the east side, you see compact lots with a lot of nice single-family houses, but all with in walking range of the streetcar line and most necessities, such as groceries and drugstores and even movie theatres. When car-oriented planning started prevailing, the sprawl became much greater.

2. Cul-de-sacs are much safer than grid streets. There is no through traffic past your house or past kids playing in the circle. Strangers and criminals stand out as someone to keep an eye on. One cul-de-sac was opened up by adding a bike/foot path to a neighboring shopping center. The burglery rate want from ZERO to sixty times the national average. I would like to know the source of this last assertion. If you look at the crime rate statistics of the inner east side of Portland, you'll find they are usually better than the rest of the east side.

3. There is a simnple solution to obesity: eat less. It is much easier to cut consumption. Just look at how far you must walk to burn off one sweet desert. It is NOT easier to cut consumption. That's why people who go on diets never stay on them. But let's think about moderation in all things. A little more walking or biking and fewer calories ingested.

4. The recent hype about suburb dwellers being more obese is just that - hype: Take NewYork's Chinatown out of the data & the difference disappears. But such details make no difference to the car haters. Again, cite some studies, JK. I live out in Dundee and work in inner southeast Portland. When I'm walking along Hawthorne or Belmont, I see healthy people of all ages. When I go to Fred Meyer in Newberg, I see a lot of obese people. There may be a host of factors, but living in a city where walking and biking makes is more practical than driving certainly provides a decent amount of exercise. Ask Mel Kohn, whose title escapes me, but he's the state's equivalent of surgeon general.

5. Suburb dwellers drive about the same as city dwellers and have slightly shorter commute times. Remember that most jobs are not longer in the central city so most commutes are suburb to suburb. If this is true, it's probably because our metro area hasn't sprawled so large as to make suburban commutes unbearably long.
I have to confess to being astounded by people I meet who live out in Troutdale or Vancouver and commute to Washington County every day because the cost of housing is lower where they live. If they would compute the actual cost of driving, which nowadays is at least 50 cents per mile, the savings in housing are negated by the increase in transportation costs. I'm pretty dubious that suburb dwellers drive less than city dwellers, though. Huge numbers of city dwellers don't drive at all.

6. Density only decreases driving per capata when they get very high, and then the driving does not decrease much, leading to more congestion. Okay, then answer this: if you drive out to North Plains on a Saturday morning and then head back to Portland that afternoon, you will invariably run into a horrendous traffic jam no Highway 26, as if it were rush hour--and this is at around 1 - 2 p.m. every Saturday afternoon. You can drive all over Portland at the same time and never hit this kind of traffic gridlock. And don't talk to me about the commute hours on 26. I would shoot myself or somebody else if I had to drive thay high way every day at rush hour.

So, finally, if the suburbs and exurbs are what people really want, why is it that the most expensive real estate in the metro area is in the densest areas? Northwest, Pearl, Goose Hollow and now even the inner east side. Prices in Buckman have risen astronomically. The market seems to have spoken.

<

By the way, lest people notice the apparent contradiction between my politics and my own life, I commute from Dundee twice a week and stay in a small studio the rest of the week that is an easy bike ride to my business. The extra rent I pay is easily offset by fewer miles traveled and greater serenity.

BlueNote said: ""promoting the growth of suburbs is not a wise decision from a public health perspective." I think I agree with that, but what is the alternative? Assume population growth of 4-5% per year into our area. What do we do with all the people other than continue to build suburbs?"

There's nothing wrong with growth in the suburbs. What's wrong is the way they are developed. We should ENCOURAGE sustainable growth in the suburbs. The more choices we give people the better. Many people don't want to live in Portland, but want to live in a good (read urban) neighborhood in Hillsboro or Gresham. We should embrace this market.

I noticed a few days ago that I've lost some weight. I'm a Portland native that has been living in urban Seoul, South Korea for the past 3 months. As most Americans, my parents moved to the suburbs (Vancouver) when I was 12, where I've been dying to get back to the city ever since.

I did the unforgivable a week ago and shaved my goatee and was surprised with the result. I look fine, which was not the result 5 or 6 months ago when I gave in to the same temptation. I noticed that I looked different then - a little rounder in the cheeks, contrasting with my pointy nose - I didn't like it so I immediately started growing it back. I started to notice I was getting a bit of a gut too. I could see it through my shirt in the mirror. As a recent college grad who was deathly skinny his entire life I thought, this can't be happening to me.

So 5 months later I'm finally living the urban dream I've been talking for years (read Suburban Nation, it's required reading for anyone remotely interested in this). My wife and I have no car, no need or desire for one. All of our needs are within walking distance of our apartment or various subway stations. When we are making dinner and we need a tomato or some bread, I don't get in the car and drive 15 minutes to some soulless parking lot where a grocery store is hiding, I just walk out the front door and I'm back in less than 5 minutes depending on the line at the store or if I stopped to talk to somebody I know. All this just by using my legs, no fossil fuels necessary to get toilet paper anymore.

So this time when I shaved I was surprised to find no extra cheeks hanging onto my face. Then I realized why my wedding ring has been bothering me lately. It doesn't fit. It's probably half a size too loose now. Also gone is the pudge under my shirt. All this from making no noticeable changes (ok I moved to another country). I haven't started exercising. My diet is relatively the same, although I probably eat fast food a little less . I was actually disappointed when I found out that our apartment was less than a block away from work, because I didn't think it was enough walking to make any difference physically. I was wrong. Walking half a block to all my needs. That's all it took. It's true sometimes we walk further when we go out. We'll walk all over some neighborhoods, but you don't notice it as exercise, just out having a good time with friends.

88% of Americans drive every time they leave the house. Couple that with horrendous eating habits and it's no wonder over 60% of us are overweight. It's astounding how little walking it takes to make a dent in your gut. JUST HALF A BLOCK! (My wife actually had to get all her pants taken in.) Now we were never very overweight or unhealthy, but this has been the result of just three months of walking. Imagine the impact it would have over a lifetime. Wake up Americans!

I want to make it clear that you don't need to move to New York, Seoul, Korea, or even NW Portland to experience good urbanism. You can find this lifestyle in hundreds of small towns across America (including many in Oregon) that haven't been ravaged by the suburbs. It's simply a more sustainable way to build our towns and cities. I should note that this is a lifestyle choice, HOWEVER, the government - federal and state, should stop subsidizing this unsustainable development - highways, sewers, loans, etc.

Wes:

That logic has no formal connection - I am arguing that people who do not ride bikes should not be forced to pay for bike lanes, per say. In the same manner would it not be fair that people who ride bikes not be forced to pay for car lanes out of the Oregon general fund? (as we know not all roads come from gas taxes, a large amount of it is general fund money - collected from everyone, regardless of whether they own a car or not)

I think requiring the non-cyclists to pay for bike lanes and requring the non-motorists to pay for car lanes are both fair. Even if I didn't drive (I happen to use a private automobile, a bicycle, and public transit), I would benefit from car lanes. For example, when I buy things from the store, they likely came there by truck. I think our modern economy would not be possible without the substantial public investment we've put into car lanes.

And even if you don't bike, you benefit from bike lanes. When I bike, I become healthier, which is good for the economy as it makes me a more productive worker. It reduces congestion, which makes the driver's commute easier. It does not generate air pollution. Bike lanes make the region more attractive to tourists.

But, frankly, having choice of transporation is a virtue in itself. Just as there are trips which are more appropriate for automobiles, there are trips that are more appropriate for bikes. I consider having the choice to bike part of what makes a city a nice place to live. Having options is a good thing.

I don't think you can apply a free-market libertarian model to transportation, either. Even if roads were completely funded by gasoline taxes or other user fees, the distribution of transportation (including road) funding will be uneven. Consider, for example, the infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. I think Russel Sadler made a good point here a few months ago that the so-called "bridge to nowhere" could be considered important to ensuring economic development in Alaska. However, if we divided transportation funding on a per-capita basis, or even on the basis of who paid the most in gasoline taxes, Alaska probably would not have enough transportation to meet its needs. I think that would be bad for everyone.

Let's face it: the way the system is structured, the government will be favoring and disfavoring certain methods of transportation, because we rely on the government to build and maintain our transportation infrustructure. Frankly, I don't see how a purely free-market approach could result in an adequate infrustructure. I would challenge you to name a capitalist society on earth in which the government did not play a large role in creating the transportation infrustructure.

So, given that, we probably want the government's decisions to produce a maximal social benefit. I think that is Leslie's point.

My apologies to Russell for messing up his name.

CLP - you have some good points, I can agree with you that non road users really use roads which is why the tax per vehicle, per mile, per gallon or whatever should be levied to fully fund the roads - that way everyone pays their equal share and has an equivelent interest in the system being efficient.

The idea that we should pay money to build a bridge Alaska can't afford is econmically confounding. If the economic value of developing the island was high enough, the bridge would be tenable. Alaska is merely asking other people to pay the economic cost so they can gain an economic benefit. This money does not come from nowhere - it could have been used by people in Alabama to help send their children to college had their taxes been lower.

Given time the value of flat land in Alaska would have caught up with the cost of private or local public development. Using federal funds to build a bridge that is not yet economically viable is socialism of the worst kind - not only do you have the unjustifiable taking of property from one individual for the benefit of another - but you have spent the resources poorly too (there are clearly more worthwhile pursuits).

-Wes Wagner NW Meridian

t.a. barnhart

"good quality of life"

Your version of a good quality of life. Just like you would not want the religious fascists on the right telling you how you can and cannot live - you should engender respect that others may not desire to live the way you intend them to.

I live far out because I like greenspace, enough land to grow my own garden, and I like sitting in my car alone for 20 minutes a day - it gives me time to think about some things that I am often too busy to do (which I used to do while walking to work - re: previous post). I like having only 3 neighbors and I know each of them - well except the people who bought the house behind me who have not moved in yet.

I also appreciate the fact that some people like to live in a built up inner urban core - I used to do it, and at the time it had its plusses and minuses too.

The major point of contention here seems to be: Are you determined to force other people to live the way you want to, or are you going to be permissive of their individual liberty?

Do you have the right to do the former, and what injustices will be levied against you when someone who does not agree with you obtains power and uses the same justification you did?

Wes Wagner NW Meridian