News

In the early days of the movement, environmental protection was perhaps seen as an end all its own: Protect a species, keep development from happening, save the ____. But many advocates who came from an environmental background have realized that environmentalism isn’t an ideal existing in a vacuum. If you want to preserve that bit of sensitive land or keep development from encroaching on some wilderness, the logical thing to do is to allow more development somewhere else — either greater density in the city or underutilized land elsewhere.

“We have decided that it’s important that we don’t build here, this land is important to preserve,” must be somehow followed up with “But here are the places where we want more buildings, more people, and more jobs.”

Lately, more people — environmentalists included — are grasping that living somewhere that allows you to drive less, walk more, and take some transit to points located closer together — like a city —cuts your emissions, fuel consumption, and carbon footprint, reducing the development pressure on open land far from the core of the city.

But what happens when every bit of development in the city or metro area is fought tooth and nail by the neighbors who would rather nothing change and development go elsewhere? Read Kaid’s thoughts, with a second post promised tomorrow.