First they came for my SUV...

S33 · Post by **S33** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Big E wrote:http://eomahaforums.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=3

Streets, isn't it in direct violation of Eomaha terms of service to create multiple accounts?

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:58 pm

I've always been on his side of the argument. I've just stopped arguing with people about it.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:15 pm

The only time arguing occurs is when the anti-car rhetoric reaches insulting levels and people's personal lifestyle choices are attacked - as if anyone in Omaha has ever had the option to live otherwise.

Either way, there is little point to even debate. There seems to be a cash-flow issue in all levels of government so it's not like anything's going to change anytime soon infrastructure wise.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:45 pm

I was just going to post this same article. After being disappointed at how poorly-planned most of the postwar development here in Omaha is, I'm encouraged by news such as this, even if it is pretty toothless.

S33 wrote:Either way, there is little point to even debate. There seems to be a cash-flow issue in all levels of government so it's not like anything's going to change anytime soon infrastructure wise.

Yes, although more carefully-planned and efficient (and yes, maybe even more compact!) development will have lower life-cycle costs, due to lower maintenance. Back in Illinois, a study conducted found that per-capita maintenance costs for recent suburban-style land development were significantly higher than for older towns and cities, largely due to more miles of water, gas, sewer, electric, communication, roads, curbs, etc per resident. As older low-density suburban housing depreciates (relative to established post-war and new fringe development), the eroding tax base will only exacerbate the problem.

I'm not arguing that it's a one-sided massive problem, but it's worth considering. Just look at the short-term debt that the city has to take on when it annexes SIDs on the edge of town.

Ultimately, I think that America has a big attention-span problem, just like our citizens. It's hard to spend more money up-front, even if it saves money in the long term, because the only time frame that matters is until the next election (or recall, which makes it even worse).

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:36 pm

No, we're merely paying the taxes to fund their evil urban development plans.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:49 am

I am all for a dramatic change away from urban sprawl, which I have come around to view as incredibly wasteful after traveling to cities that have managed to become world class by shunning such concepts. MTC and Aksarben Village are two significant steps in the right direction. I hope they will be followed by more such projects in the vital heart of our city.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:12 am

nativeomahan wrote:I am all for a dramatic change away from urban sprawl, which I have come around to view as incredibly wasteful after traveling to cities that have managed to become world class by shunning such concepts. MTC and Aksarben Village are two significant steps in the right direction. I hope they will be followed by more such projects in the vital heart of our city.

Amen! It will be very interesting to see what happens here in Midtown in the next 10 years. My wife and I are excited about the possibilities, especially since we're buying a house here now.

Omaha Forums