BREAKING: Obama Says Building Sprawl Stops Now!
From Green Car Congress:
Responding to a question from a city councilwoman about transportation and infrastructure in the stimulus bill during a town hall forum in Ft. Myers, Florida, President Obama said that the days of just building sprawl are over.
- You might also digg: New Study Says Cellulosic Ethanol Could Replace 30% of Gasoline by 2030
- Subscribe to Gas 2.0 by Email
From a transcript provided by Transportation for America:
Not only do we need to rebuild our roads, our bridges, our ports, our levies, our dams, but we also have to plan for the future. This is the same example of turning crisis into opportunity…Now, look, this is America. We always had the best infrastructure. We were always willing to invest in the future. Governor Crist mentioned Abraham Lincoln. In the middle of the Civil War, in the midst of all this danger and peril, what did he do? He helped move the intercontinental railroad. He helped start land grant colleges. He understood that even when you’re in the middle of crisis, you’ve got to keep your eye on the future. So transportation is not just fixing our old transportation systems but its also imaging new transportation systems.
That’s why I’d like to see high speed rail where it can be constructed. That’s why I would like to invest in mass transit because potentially that’s energy efficient and I think people are alot more open now to thinking regionally in terms of how we plan our transportation infrastructure. The days where we’re just building sprawl forever, those days are over. I think that Republicans, Democrats, everybody recognizes that that’s not a smart way to build communities. So we should be using this money to help spur this kind of innovative thinking when it comes to transportation. That will make a big difference.
We don’t necessarily need to put “more” money into ending urban sprawl, we just need to add strings to the money going out. No city or state will receive certain government funds when audits reveal they do not follow their own comprehensive plan. Seems reasonable.
“This is how we …”
So Jane, you going to forcibly move people back to be piled in high rises?
Have you been to a city lately? I live in Chicago, where Obama comes from. It is a crap-hole compared to the suburbs. And you and Obama want to force me to live here instead of a nicer place?
Once I have my first kid I am outta here. For now it’s ok.
And it’s nice to see Obama is being honest that he wants to stifle new industry and construction. The economy is in a shambles and we need to stimulate it, but put thousands of new restrictions on it first.
Good luck with that Mr Obama. The United States is a rural country for the most part, duh.
Mr. Obama is smokin’ the spleaf again. Where would the President get the authority to do anything about urban sprawl? Not only is it not a Federal issue, it’s not even a State issue, building permits are a little more local than that. What with this being a free country and the land being privately owned and all, I’m sure that the president’s handlers are explaining all that to him now (BHO is learning a lot about US government now that he is President, hands on is the best way to learn).
Edward - You seem very knowledgable, could you please quote us which regulations were de-enacted (and when) that lead to the meltdown? Barney Frank tried those excuses early on, I think you are the only one who bought it. When something bad happens and the Dem’s don’t squeel to high heaven for an investigation, that’s their way of saying “Our Bad”, the Dem’s control both houses of Congress, so when it that investigation starting?
His statement about sprawl, and what that is, and how you stop it, and any sort of detail, makes me think that perhaps its time to stop saying slogans and actually talk about something directly.
There is no doubt government can prevent people from living where they choose to live. All Hail Obama who totally gets the Leadership Principle.
Ed said
—-I’m sorry but you’re misinformed. The banks didn’t have to be forced to give out subprime mortgages, it was profitable for them to do so. They gave loans to anything with a pulse, then securitized them and sold them off to other banks and investors —
No, Ed. You are mis informed. Banks were forced by legal action to make subprime mortgages.
============
The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers–a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan
There is so much assumption in these opinions it is hard to know where to start.
The funniest is the idea that building more rail systems is some step forward. If history is any guide they will be depending on massive subsidies from the government. And the number of people does not guarantee that this will not be the case. The NYC transit authority has millions of riders a year. They would cease operations if it was not for subsidies from the state government.
This talk of building more rail systems is a bunch of hooey.
Go ahead and build a light rail system. That’s nothing compared to the PORK in the stimulus act. $800 billion plus interest. 80% of it is worthless crap. Read it yourself for proof. It is also the beginning of socialism and moving toward total communism. America you have been scammed. USSA (United Socialist States of America)
@Edward
I’m sorry but you’re more misinformed than Doug.
Freddie and Fannie WERE forced to take bad loans (ask ACORN). They found a vehicle (mortgage backed securities) to make money on them after being forced to take them. That is the second phase of the fraud.
The third phase of the fraud was the AAA credit ratings applied to these bundled securities by the so-called analysts so they could be sold on the international market. This is where the SEC failed to provide effective oversight. They were junk status from the beginning.
Reasonable people made no less than 3 attempts at drafting legislation to reign in Freddie and Fannie and at least reduce the downside risk. Those attempts were blocked by certain folks in congress, NOT republicans (Chris Dodd or Barney Frank).
“The real cause was lack of oversight by the SEC and the last two decades of deregulation (under republican administrations) that allowed banks to gamble with America’s wealth the way they have.”
How exactly do you calculate that we’ve had two decades of republican administrations? I could have sworn Clinton was President until 2000 (8 years ago by my math). But then again, maybe I’m the one that’s misinformed.
Deregulation is not the problem. Bad regulation is the problem. Our fantastic government should have completely deregulated Fannie and Freddie instead of half-regulating them and forcing them to take on sub-prime mortgages. They would have never made such completely idiotic decisions if allowed to operate in the free market without government tinkering. Government, especially liberal government, just can’t resist engaging in social engineering. Forcing Fannie and Freddie to take bad loans so that more poor folks can purchase homes is absolutely the root cause of this disaster. Once the fix was in, all the other bad actors got in on the action.
Government is almost always the problem and almost never the solution. More government control will always result in more disaster. Always.