When I think North Dakota, I think sprawl
Friday, May 30th, 2008 By Mike MaurerThe North Dakota Policy Council has a bit of fun with anti-sprawl planning in North Dakota . "Why, in a state that is 99 percent rural, has sprawl become such an overriding problem?" Yeah, I hear people are leaving the state because of the traffic, many of them moving to California and New York for the low taxes.
Last summer I drove with a good friend from Vancouver to Columbus; three days of our trip covered the first 600 miles or so, seeing British Columbia, Glacier Nat’l Park, etc. The last 20 hours or so covered 1900 miles, during which we saw ND’s cousin, SD, and you couldn’t get us through the state fast enough.
If you want to control sprawl, there’s an easy way to do it, and you’ll make taxpayers happy, too. Quit building roads. Have developers get together with investors to build the roads they want, and you’ll be amazed at how carefully they’ll start planning. If Pennsylvania is selling its roads (and Akron is selling its sewers ), investors can certainly build roads to their subdivisions.
Wonder what the Ohio Department of Transportation would think of that idea . . .
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Hey now, my grandma lives in North Dakota. Don’t make me pull out that Ohio + bottled water jokes.
The whole problem of “sprawl” is silly enough let alone in North Dakota. The core problem is that most definitions of it that are offered are too subjective.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 am
Whatever the definition, I think the best answer is for places such as the Nature Conservancy to buy the land they wish to preserve.
But having private investors build roads is a good second.
(I’m afraid to ask – what is it about Ohioans and bottled water?)