Obviously they would have to be native-led - but are the reservations not, as one might put it - open for development, treaty port style? I've read in passing that the First Nations have been pro-development in some of the parts of Canada whether they have land.
Hi, Nolan. I enjoyed your book about how planning is 1) a good and important discipline that has 2) been adversely impacted because it’s captured by special interests. So it’s somewhat surprising to see you write a piece advocating for 1) terrible exurban planning 2) so developers can take advantage of free real estate. It’s not coming across as satire(?) so it’s just sort of baffling.
“We should bulldoze 1000-year-old juniper trees in a waterless desert dark-sky sanctuary to build a commuter suburb so the market will prompt regional 3-story walk-up developers to provide abundant housing” is maybe a less compelling argument for market-based solutions to the housing crisis than it seemed when you typed it. At this rate we’re like 2 months away from YIMBY’s earnestly going to the mat to turn farmland into Levittowns but with ADUs and hourly bus service.
That seems kinda bananas to me, except perhaps in a "modest proposal" way. Why not also do Death Valley? Shouldn't we be in a mode where we try to capitalize as much as possible on our existing infrastructure investments, considering water, electricity, and transportation? Carrizo Plain has none of those. The only thing it has is ready access to the San Andreas fault, a feature nobody wants.
Anyway the manner in which BLM acquired management of Carrizo was by private gift, so I assume that the people who raised all that money put covenants on it that prevent this weird proposal.
The point is to use a proposal like this to get people to realize that upzoning in cities, using USPS land for housing, and putting workforce housing on forest edges near resort/luxury towns is better than building new cities.
"... or a Native American reservation."
Obviously they would have to be native-led - but are the reservations not, as one might put it - open for development, treaty port style? I've read in passing that the First Nations have been pro-development in some of the parts of Canada whether they have land.
Hi, Nolan. I enjoyed your book about how planning is 1) a good and important discipline that has 2) been adversely impacted because it’s captured by special interests. So it’s somewhat surprising to see you write a piece advocating for 1) terrible exurban planning 2) so developers can take advantage of free real estate. It’s not coming across as satire(?) so it’s just sort of baffling.
“We should bulldoze 1000-year-old juniper trees in a waterless desert dark-sky sanctuary to build a commuter suburb so the market will prompt regional 3-story walk-up developers to provide abundant housing” is maybe a less compelling argument for market-based solutions to the housing crisis than it seemed when you typed it. At this rate we’re like 2 months away from YIMBY’s earnestly going to the mat to turn farmland into Levittowns but with ADUs and hourly bus service.
You can't be seriously suggesting that Interior should try to lease the Carrizo Plain, a national monument, to developers.
They should sell the flat parts to developers
That seems kinda bananas to me, except perhaps in a "modest proposal" way. Why not also do Death Valley? Shouldn't we be in a mode where we try to capitalize as much as possible on our existing infrastructure investments, considering water, electricity, and transportation? Carrizo Plain has none of those. The only thing it has is ready access to the San Andreas fault, a feature nobody wants.
Anyway the manner in which BLM acquired management of Carrizo was by private gift, so I assume that the people who raised all that money put covenants on it that prevent this weird proposal.
The point is to use a proposal like this to get people to realize that upzoning in cities, using USPS land for housing, and putting workforce housing on forest edges near resort/luxury towns is better than building new cities.