>In the past thirty years, the Thoreau Institute has critiqued well over one hundred forest plans, park plans, transportation plans, and urban plans. We have consistently found that the plans are flawed, and when implemented they produce disastrous results.
>The problem is with the idea of planning itself. Our new web log, The Antiplanner, promotes the repeal of federal and state planning laws and the closure of state and local planning departments.
I'll bring this up in my next engineering meeting, planning is the problem!
"No planning" is definitely an extreme stance, but probably more a rhetorical position as a counterbalanced to decades of accrued well-intentioned but misguided planning cruft.
Great. Here's my rhetorical position: we need to octuple the size of the planning department. We don't have anywhere near enough planning. We should create an additional planning-planning department to make plans for the planning department.
But I'll consider a compromise where we merely double the planning department budget.
Well, after a planned (hah) rapid transit line in my city got killed by NIMBYs, I wouldn't disagree with the cruft part. Too many stakeholders and opinions, not enough doing.
I'd count the environmental reviews and community approval measures that are used by NIMBYs to torpedo projects broadly in with planning. One of the reasons that this guy advocates for buses (in addition to being cheap and effective), is that they aren't vulnerable to the same types of legal attacks that big construction projects are.
>In the past thirty years, the Thoreau Institute has critiqued well over one hundred forest plans, park plans, transportation plans, and urban plans. We have consistently found that the plans are flawed, and when implemented they produce disastrous results.
>The problem is with the idea of planning itself. Our new web log, The Antiplanner, promotes the repeal of federal and state planning laws and the closure of state and local planning departments.
I'll bring this up in my next engineering meeting, planning is the problem!
"No planning" is definitely an extreme stance, but probably more a rhetorical position as a counterbalanced to decades of accrued well-intentioned but misguided planning cruft.
Great. Here's my rhetorical position: we need to octuple the size of the planning department. We don't have anywhere near enough planning. We should create an additional planning-planning department to make plans for the planning department.
But I'll consider a compromise where we merely double the planning department budget.
I like this game!
Well, after a planned (hah) rapid transit line in my city got killed by NIMBYs, I wouldn't disagree with the cruft part. Too many stakeholders and opinions, not enough doing.
I'd count the environmental reviews and community approval measures that are used by NIMBYs to torpedo projects broadly in with planning. One of the reasons that this guy advocates for buses (in addition to being cheap and effective), is that they aren't vulnerable to the same types of legal attacks that big construction projects are.
> Antiplanner
There should be an app for that.