Sunday, January 23, 2005

Some fine posts on planning - and a puzzle

Davids Sucher and Wharton have put their respective noses to the grindstone, cranking out some lucid and thought-provoking posts that are required reading.

David Sucher (scheduled for an interview on Booktown Feb. 7) has outdone himself this month; be sure to read these:
From David Wharton ( a Republican ), a series of posts from "Smart Growth Will Be Driven by Greed and Envy" through Is "Smart Growth" Just for Liberals?

From his post on historic preservation and real estate values:
[Donovan Rypkema:]"In most cases properties in local historic districts appreciate at rates greater than: a) the local market as a whole, and b) similar neighborhoods that are not designated"
[Wharton: (emphases added)]
...
Lots of free-marketers -- and I'm one -- are regulation-phobic, and plenty of people in Greensboro have complained about historic district designation trampling their property rights. But there's another way of thinking about it.

The local historic district program offers me an economic choice that I wouldn't have if the program didn't exist: namely, the ability to trade some of my property rights for increased capital appreciation. If I don't like it, I can move.
Jan. 25: From here:
How much time a person spent driving had a greater impact on whether a person was obese than other factors such as income, education, gender or ethnicity.

------------------

The puzzle:
Earlier today we introduced one of Booktown's hosts to Petals Around the Rose (*).
(hint for those playing it on the website: color doesn't matter.)
When introducing it to a group, expect great - and independent - variation in interest and aptitude.

We wish to thank Mr. Wharton (Ph.D.) for our new motto:
Custodientes custodes

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...

Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.

* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.

If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.

New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)

Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.