In what way do walkable neighborhoods not pass environmental review?
> but if you're against the disenfranchisement of people.
Nobody is taking away their right to vote, so it isn't "disenfranchising" someone to put in a second icecream shop in their neighborhood when they only wanted one.
> San Francisco, local neighbourhoods discussed whether or not two ice-cream stores in the neighbourhood were too many ice-cream stores
SF seems to have a public feedback and planning problem that dysfunctionally favors nimbyism over regional needs and they end up shooting themselves in the foot with it over and over.
Without any snark, what's the reason? I'm assuming it's either made up or exagerated NIMBY nonsense, but what environmental argument could there possibly be against light commercials in residential areas?
Environmentalists usually are pro-sprawl because they mistakenly think that if they’re near trees they’re good for the environment. It’s why everything from the Sierra Club in the US down to environmentalists associated with socialist groups opposes infill housing and renewable energy.
So yes, mostly the NIMBY shit you refer to. Though apparently the other chap lives in a place where they managed to solve that so we will see soon enough how they did when he says where.
Portland has been putting in effort making things more walkable, bikeable and putting in medium density developments that are in walkeable areas. There's plenty to improve but clear progress towards that direction.
In another comment you claim that environmentalists are usually pro sprawl. That...very much does not match my experience. How did you form this opinion?
Most serious environmentalists I know support urban densification, not sprawl because densification increases efficiency, decreases polution and decreases habitat destruction.
In what way do walkable neighborhoods not pass environmental review?
> but if you're against the disenfranchisement of people.
Nobody is taking away their right to vote, so it isn't "disenfranchising" someone to put in a second icecream shop in their neighborhood when they only wanted one.
> San Francisco, local neighbourhoods discussed whether or not two ice-cream stores in the neighbourhood were too many ice-cream stores
SF seems to have a public feedback and planning problem that dysfunctionally favors nimbyism over regional needs and they end up shooting themselves in the foot with it over and over.