Randal O'Toole on Urban Planning (Cato University) (2 of 4)

[Cyrus992]

I barely see the liberty that is received from auto-dominated sprawl

Dont listen and STOP Randal O Toole! He seems like a fraud. He and Wendell Cox are part of the lobbyist groups that created this WWII type growth in the first place to CONTROL us.

They falsely act as libertarians to support the oil, cement, big box, asphalt, etc.. companies because walkable ideas destroy their revenues!

Notice how O Toole does not support a "free market" New Urbanism like I do

[Cyrus992]

How in the world you are getting freedom in auto-dominated sprawl?

The house you choose is limited by codes and restrictions where is isolated from the daily needs of the household.

Business cannot choose to be in a marketable mixed of retail and office

People limited transportation choices and are forced to pay car payments, registration, DMV, maintenance, gas, insurance, land to store the cars, and traffic tickets.

There very little options for social needs.

[Cyrus992]

Exactly, what is about auto-dominated sprawl that benefits O'Toole?

His special interest group that benefits from auto-dominated sprawl. He poses himself as a libertarian to get some attention when he support a development that controlled by building codes and land use segregation.

His Houston example is a joke, but mixed-use and diverse planning is profitable and marketable to developers, and residents.

Same can be mentioned about Wendell Cox

[FooattackFilms]

Can anyone verify the assertions he makes at 6:57 ? This is contrary to what I have seen.

[DKWtube]

His arguments are strawman to the max.

[DelilahZoe]

1) Factually WRONG on so many fronts.

For instance, comprehensive plans are usually out 15-20 years, not 50! And most other plans are written for FIVE years, and updated ANNUALLY.

Second, if cars were so cheap, why doesn't every single person over 16 have one? you know exactly why.

2)Is Mexico City or New Delhi, India, two cities without planning, your idea of a great place to live? That's what's it like when a city is built as a free-for-all. It SUCKS.

[PRGibbons81]

@DelilahZoe

1 Both Mexico and India engaged in nation wide planning.

2 Even short term planning gets it wrong. Besides, most often they manipulate groups of individuals and extrapolate from the groups what the legislature or city council wants - not what they people really want. Also note that planned are almost always more expensive, planners seem to be honest about that.

3) Check out Las Vegas. Built from the desert by no plan. Just a bunch of people with competition ideas.

[PRGibbons81]

@DelilahZoe

Cars would be cheaper if A) government didn't require so many regulations in crash testing, safety, smog, mileage etc.

B) we didn't have tariffs (taxes on imports)

and C) we didn't have import restrictions keeping competition out.

The combination of our tariffs, import restrictions and regulations are going to make the worlds cheapest car (Tata Nano: $2,500) cost over $8,000 in Europe and maybe more for the United States.

[Intransitman]

@PRGibbons81 Do you want to drive a dangerous product?

[PRGibbons81]

@Intransitman

No, do you? Do I trust the government to ensure products are safe? No. But I can be sure that the government regulations will drive up the cost? Absolutely.

The difference may be between having a car and having no car at all. The safety benefit may even be negligible.

[Intransitman]

Seat belts.

[PRGibbons81]

@Intransitman

So seat belts are the reason the Tato Nano price is increasing by 300%?

[Intransitman]

Seat belts are an example of regulation, things like regulation & even zoning can be a double edge sword.

[PRGibbons81]

@Intransitman

True, but if you're going to complain that cars are too expensive for the poor, don't keep increasing regulations that make cars more expensive.

If housing is too expensive for the poor, don't keep making housing regulations or zong restrictions that drive up prices. Etc, etc.

[Cyrus992]

What I am opposed to is government planning. Smart Growth and New Urbanism polices are fine AS LONG AS THEY ARE DONE IN A FREE MARKET!!

Ideas like Transit, Mixed Use, and Public Spaces are nice and I like them too, but these should sell and make profit if people want them, not be ruled over by authorities.

Also people should have rights over property expansions and should not face land restrictions, open space laws, etc.. to exploit their freedom!

[DelilahZoe]

@Cyrus992 In your eyes, the free market is king. What if every road you will drove were a TOLL ROAD. How annoying would that be? Wouldn't that suck? And if you want to BUILD on a property in the middle of NOWHERE, don't call the City's Fire and Police to come protect you. We don't service outside of our district. BUY YOUR OWN FIRE DEPT. and POLICE!

[Cyrus992]

DelilahZoe:

The private toll road FYI would make the road pleasant and "less annoying" top get as much as profit and money as they can. After all convenience will make those roads prosper, not our messed up freeways runned by the public that puts us in congestion to death!!!

No matter how poor the public highways are.. they will still stay in business..LOTS AT OUR TRASH PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!

[215810]

where is the rest of his speach.? part 3 and 4

[soundmoneyfan]

cato has been pissing me off lately. not this video, but i'm just venting. did anyone see the cato talking head that gave Bernanke a C+ for his response to the crisis??? what kind of BS is that, how can any libertarian say that??

[whennen]

Ben Bernanke should have gotten an F.

[phippsed]

To be perfectly honest I have no idea why zoning laws exist in the first place. They seem like a brilliant way of raising the cost of housing but they don't seem to do much else. It seems like people wouldn't create housing or businesses in a place that doesnst make sense for the community because that would work against their interests. After all if your business was located in a place that didn't serve the community well it would fail. Right?

[ryno99]

You wouldnt put a dump next to a residential neighborhood. This is the basis of zoning laws. Lately they have become political tools open to corruption. Turn that lot zoned residential to commercial and increase a developers value

[phippsed]

Zoning laws go way, way, way beyond that. Some cities actually establish what type of housing can be built and where it can be built (houses, condos, apartments). These laws also limit the types of renovations people can make to their own property! The reason I think that zoning laws shouldn't exist is that they are obviously going to be abused as they now are. On the whole we would be better off without them. I guess I wasn't clear about what I meant.

[DelilahZoe]

@phippsed Zoning laws were originally invented to reverse the crowded, unsanitary conditions of New York City pre-zoning in the early 20th century. Basically, they prevent tenement housing. Do you live in a single family home? Do you want a 12 story apartment building looming over you and casting a shadow ? Most people don't. That's the reasoning behind the density zones.

[Intransitman]

@phippsed Though there are other types of regulations, such as the minimum number of parking spaces you can have on you're property.

[Intransitman]

@ryno99 New Urbanists don't like zoning, because it spreads thing further apart.

[DelilahZoe]

@phippsed Zoning is a way of protecting your property value -- what if your neighbors decided to install a crematorium? or a garbage incinerator? Zoning, an important planning tool, prevents that.

[moldyorangepeel]

6:50 woo woo!

[moldyorangepeel]

648

[ls1z28chris]

Dat's only in da mo'nin'! You suppos' be up cookin' bre'fst by then...!

[soundmoneyfan]

yea' i got dem on my car

[moldyorangepeel]

5:25 for exasperated sigh

[vvfeldman]

this is become one of my favorite videos

[sniper6081]

This was a good video. I learned a lot from it.

[DelilahZoe]

@sniper6081 Its full of misinformation. Why not hear the OTHER side?

[sniper6081]

The side that requires more government? I've heard it a million times before. It's nothing new.

[Intransitman]

@sniper6081 O'Toole wants government to favour automobiles.

[PRGibbons81]

@Intransitman

Wrong. O'Toole wants government to favor what the people voluntarily choose for themselves.

[Intransitman]

Then why force to limit options.

[PRGibbons81]

@Intransitman

? This makes no sense. Government subsidies for public transportation don't create real options because they take away options from other people in order to fund it.

Want rail, pay for it. If there is enough money out there to make it work, people will build it. You simply want to take money from other people, reducing their options (to buy what they want in life) so you can enjoy things you want at a lower cost.

[Intransitman]

That's hypocritical on your part. Streets aren't judged like that.

[PRGibbons81]

@Intransitman

Streets aren't judged like what?

[Intransitman]

@sniper6081 This video is called "obfuscation". If you actually do listen to what he says, there are moments where he's bashing suburbia.

[sniper6081]

Sure.

[Intransitman]

Indeed he is.

[ls1z28chris]

I'm waiting for that book...

[vainamoinen17]

I think trains would be cheaper If they had more people using them, just think of all the time that the track is empty. And more people would use trains if there wasn't this massive government subsidy for cars which is of course taxes paying for roads.

[sniper6081]

He just said in the video that the more people use the trains the more expensive it gets.

[Intransitman]

@sniper6081 What O'Toole says is bullshit, the more that use it, the cost goes down.

[obmax1212]

Did you miss the part where they cost significantly more per passenger mile than cars? They require an immense amount of energy to operate, thousands of hours of maintenance, salaries for it's employees. The more people that use it, the more expensive it becomes.

[Intransitman]

@obmax1212 What he said doesn't add up, by that point you're turning a profit.

[Intransitman]

@vainamoinen17 Well O'Toole is a big oil/auto industry/highway lobbyist, so you know what the answer will be before he even opens his mouth. What he said was bogus, though most people are just apathetic.

[PRGibbons81]

@Intransitman

That isn't an arguement. But the fact is, O'Toole is right, we are an auto mobile nation. We like our mobility and frankly, rail stinks. Phoenix Metro just estimated they will lose $28 million a year on their light rail - and that is with what appears to be an inflated estimation of the riders.

[Intransitman]

That was ass backwards.

[PRGibbons81]

@Intransitman

Nonsense. O'Toole doesn't ask government to favor anything but whatever the people acting in the market have already decided for themselves.

IE, hands off.

[Intransitman]

Being paid by big oil & auto makers to work against options like transit, is market/social engineering.

[PRGibbons81]

That isn't a valid counter arguement. I could just as easily say you're a pawn of special interest construction firms and local unions but that wouldn't be valid either. We wouldn't get anywhere if all we did was point fingers.

And no, letting the free market operate isn't social engineering. Forcing policies upon people to redirect behavior is social engineering.

[Intransitman]

Though forcing people is what the people who pay O'Toole do.

[PRGibbons81]

@Intransitman

They force you to do what? Drive a car?