ROW Clearance; This is awsome!

[Duke87]

I never understood the fuss over dead bodies. Why does anyone care what happens to them? They're dead, they don't have any feelings anymore.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

It's a matter of respect.

[J N Winkler]

Respect is certainly part of the reason.  Another part is that if the cemetery is sufficiently old, or possesses enough historical or cultural importance to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historical Places, it is a Section 4(f) property and thus subject to the hierarchy of avoid-mitigate-take.

Cemeteries (and other places containing human remains) are not automatically covered by 4(f), however, so a cemetery does not necessarily have to be an obstacle to road improvement.  Generally, graves in the way of a proposed improvement will be moved (i.e., the bodies will be exhumed and reburied, and the grave markers will be relocated).  Quite frankly I am surprised this was not done when the original Central Expressway was built in the mid-1940's (?).  Given that the remains discovered during the reconstruction were moved to a Freedmen's Cemetery, could racial discrimination have been part of it?

[brownpelican]

It's a matter of respect.

Exactly.
Post Merge: January 04, 2012, 02:33:28 AM

Given that the remains discovered during the reconstruction were moved to a Freedmen's Cemetery, could racial discrimination have been part of it?

I'm pretty sure it was.

[codyg1985]

I love seeing property being taken from a few individuals for the greater good of the general public.
Much too often the governemnt pussies out and lets selfish individuals stand in the way of the greater good.

Yeah, that two extra miles is such a huge burden.  Fuck those poor people and their park.

Ok, I guess two extra miles really isn't that bad. Didn't realize that the extra milage was that short. But it still seems crazy to have such an important highway blocked by a park, leaving that stub that they spent alot of money on for nothing ... my point is that progress just has to happen, and sometimes big changes have to happen to move foward and do what needs to be done for the greater good

It's important to remember that Overton Park was/is public land, not private.  The Overton Park routing was chosen in large part because the land acquisition costs were less than they would have been if a routing through tracts of private property had been chosen.  In a broad sense, the Overton Park Supreme Court case addressed the question of whether the governmental authorities that chose to route I-40 through Overton Park had acted in the interests of the "greater good", i.e. preservation of irreplaceable park valued by many members (not "a few individuals") of the local populace vs. routing of new interstate that would be used by both the local populace and the entire U.S.  The Supreme Court's decision led to an outcome of preservation of the public's park and an I-40 routing only two miles longer than the one that would have destroyed the park.  Seems to me like the "greater good" won out, AND progress proceeded ("big change") with an I-40 routing in the Memphis area.

There was talk of building a tunnel under Overton Park for I-40, but it begs the question: if the Overton leg of I-40 would have been built, would it have required widening now? And, if so, how would it have been widened? It would be expensive to widen, and if not widened it would be considered a bottleneck despite the current bypass routing.

[Grzrd]

There was talk of building a tunnel under Overton Park for I-40, but it begs the question: if the Overton leg of I-40 would have been built, would it have required widening now? And, if so, how would it have been widened? It would be expensive to widen, and if not widened it would be considered a bottleneck despite the current bypass routing.

Here's the pertinent 4(f) language regarding parks (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/4fpolicy.asp):

"...the Secretary shall not approve any program or project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under section 204 of this title) which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use. In carrying out the national policy declared in this section the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior and appropriate State and local officials, is authorized to conduct studies as to the most feasible Federal-aid routes for the movement of motor vehicular traffic through or around national parks so as to best serve the needs of the traveling public while preserving the natural beauty of these areas."

Great point regarding the eventual need to widen the tunnels.  The FHWA apparently disapproved of at least two tunnel proposals along the same routing through Overton Park (http://www.overtonparkforever.org/2011/03/forty-years-ago.html), but I doubt they foresaw the widening problem.  It seems like the tunnel(s) would not have changed the use of the land from a park to an interstate, so it seems like the tunnel(s) would have complied with prong (1) of the test.  I guess the FHWA determined that TDOT, et al did not perform "all possible planning to minimize harm to such park" and used prong (2) to kill the proposals.  Plus, they were probably being ulta-cautious because they figured Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court would slam them again for sticking to the Overton Park routing, particularly with I-240 constantly growing into an alternative that would create zero harm to the park.

[ClarkE]

There was talk of building a tunnel under Overton Park for I-40, but it begs the question: if the Overton leg of I-40 would have been built, would it have required widening now? And, if so, how would it have been widened? It would be expensive to widen, and if not widened it would be considered a bottleneck despite the current bypass routing.

This is the same problem that will happen in Louisville at the I-64 tunnels under Cherokee Park. The route into downtown already backs up nearly to I-264 at rush hour, and while a new Ohio River Bridge will reduce some backup, having a six lane highway would help a lot.

[TXtoNJ]

Respect is certainly part of the reason.  Another part is that if the cemetery is sufficiently old, or possesses enough historical or cultural importance to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historical Places, it is a Section 4(f) property and thus subject to the hierarchy of avoid-mitigate-take.

Cemeteries (and other places containing human remains) are not automatically covered by 4(f), however, so a cemetery does not necessarily have to be an obstacle to road improvement.  Generally, graves in the way of a proposed improvement will be moved (i.e., the bodies will be exhumed and reburied, and the grave markers will be relocated).  Quite frankly I am surprised this was not done when the original Central Expressway was built in the mid-1940's (?).  Given that the remains discovered during the reconstruction were moved to a Freedmen's Cemetery, could racial discrimination have been part of it?

Yes. This was Texas during the 1940s. From what I can remember, the community deeply opposed the alignment, but planners didn't care, because black voices simply didn't count in those days. After all, who was going to let a bunch of people who couldn't vote get in the way of rich white folks having a faster commute?

The original poster seems to have some major assumptions about the inevitability and desirability of so-called "progress." While I agree that many suburban residents are far too uptight about property values, it is understandable considering how much wealth is stored within them. Meanwhile, it's no secret that highways can make areas worse if built in certain ways. For example, I-676 in Camden, New Jersey, which heavily exacerbated the decline of civic unity in a time of deindustrialization and demographic shift.

Furthermore, those s****y old buildings referred to are what gives a city a sense of continuity and historical place. Destroying them can contribute to the destruction of a city's identity, and the identity of those who live within them.

[vdeane]

That is why I would outlaw the use of property as an investment.  You should only own a home if you want to use it as a home or rent it indefinitely.  You should not buy a home with intent of using it as a stepping stone to more wealth.

Had people acted this way, we would not have had the housing bubble.  We would not be in a recession today.  We would have fewer NIMBYs.  The world would be a better place.

Ditto for stocks.

[agentsteel53]

You should not buy a home with intent of using it as a stepping stone to more wealth.

Had people acted this way, we would not have had the housing bubble.

no, the reason why we had a housing bubble is because people bought shit they couldn't afford.

[Brian556]

no, the reason why we had a housing bubble is because people bought shit they couldn't afford.

Foolish and irresponsible behavior by an individual will inevitibly bring him harm. So many people acted this way that it brought down the world's economy.

If people acted responsibly, none of this would have happened.

It's not just the bank's fault for making risky loans. Alot of the fault lies with the greedy boneheads that "  bought shit they couldn't afford." Appearently they cannot do basic math.

[english si]

Don't forget that the Feds, through things like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged the banks to give sub-prime loans.

However the collapse of sub prime loans caused the bust, what caused the bubble was that cheap credit was plentiful, thanks in part to sub-prime policies (in Ireland, which didn't have Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the ECB-set low interest rates meant that you could borrow money at a real rate of -1%) - this upped the demand, especially as sub-prime buyers could buy houses, which massively upped the price of homes. Likewise the business of buying a house, doing up a house and then selling it on lowered the supply of liveable housing (as a certain %age of houses were being done up, rather than lived in) as well as increasing the quality, and thus the worth, of the houses.

So deanej and agentsteel53 are both right at what caused the bubble, but agentsteel also gives the reason why it was a bubble and burst, rather than just that houses got more expensive.

[agentsteel53]

sub-prime buyers could buy houses

except they couldn't.  if you cannot make every payment until the end of the term of the loan, don't buy the item!

[realjd]

That is why I would outlaw the use of property as an investment.  You should only own a home if you want to use it as a home or rent it indefinitely.  You should not buy a home with intent of using it as a stepping stone to more wealth.

Had people acted this way, we would not have had the housing bubble.  We would not be in a recession today.  We would have fewer NIMBYs.  The world would be a better place.

Ditto for stocks.

No, the economy was brought down by banks issuing stupid things like reverse amortization, interest only, and balloon mortgages to poor people for mansions that they couldn't afford on a traditional fixed 30 year mortgage. they then bundled these crappy loans into what should have been safe securities. When the poor people inevitably defaulted, the "safe" investments collapsed. The housing bubble and resulting collapse had nothing to do with it.

[agentsteel53]

No, the economy was brought down by banks issuing stupid things like reverse amortization, interest only, and balloon mortgages to poor people for mansions that they couldn't afford on a traditional fixed 30 year mortgage.

no, the problem isn't stupid products.  it's stupid people who buy them.

[english si]

sub-prime buyers could buy houses

except they couldn't.  if you cannot make every payment until the end of the term of the loan, don't buy the item!

They did buy the houses, they couldn't afford to pay the mortgage (the bank doesn't own the house until you pay back the loan - the house is collateral on the loan used to buy it), so the bank took their houses as payment for the loan. Of course, they shouldn't have bought the houses, as they couldn't afford the mortgage payments.

no, the problem isn't stupid products.  it's stupid people who buy them.

Which makes the bailing out of the stupid investors in such stupid products as Greek Government Bonds even more silly as it just encourages mal-investment.

[flowmotion]

no, the problem isn't stupid products.  it's stupid people who buy them.

There was tons of fraudulent activity, both in how the loans were originated and in how they were resold to investors. Actually, a lot of (street) smart buyers made out like bandits at the expense of various pension funds etc.

Back on topic, does anyone really like to live in those dense suburban areas which are criss-crossed with massive six-lane streets? I always found those places extremely tedious to drive around. The photo in the OP shows an area with large trees and nice fences -- it probably looked much nicer before they started paving everything.

[realjd]

No, the economy was brought down by banks issuing stupid things like reverse amortization, interest only, and balloon mortgages to poor people for mansions that they couldn't afford on a traditional fixed 30 year mortgage.

no, the problem isn't stupid products.  it's stupid people who buy them.

People will be stupid. That's a fact of life and there is no fixing it. The banks should have known better than to sell self destructive mortgages to stupid people.

[realjd]

Back on topic, does anyone really like to live in those dense suburban areas which are criss-crossed with massive six-lane streets? I always found those places extremely tedious to drive around. The photo in the OP shows an area with large trees and nice fences -- it probably looked much nicer before they started paving everything.

I'm very happy in the suburbs. I live 10 minutes from work by car or 20 minutes by bike. I have a giant nature preserve with a trailhead on my street within walking distance of my house. I have easy access by car to the country, to the beach, and to numerous restaurants and ample shopping. If I lived out in the sticks, it would be annoying doing things like grocery shopping due to the distance from the store. If I lived in the city, I'd be too far from nature and wouldn't have things like a swimming pool or a fire pit in my back yard. The suburbs are a good compromise and lead to a very good quality of life for me given my interests.

I do wish I had a good craft beer bar within walking distance!

[citrus]

Back on topic, does anyone really like to live in those dense suburban areas which are criss-crossed with massive six-lane streets?

I live in one of those areas. I live here because it's cheap and I can walk to my office (albeit not a pleasant walk), whereas parking would be $80+ per month. But that's about the only thing I like. There are tons of places to go within a mile or two, but most of them suck, and walking to most of them involves extremely indirect paths and dangerous street crossings. Driving around here is slow because traffic lights take forever to cycle, and there are lots of them. Pretty much everything I'm interested in is at least a 20 minute drive. I'm moving to San Francisco in June, and I'm quite happy about that.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

No, the economy was brought down by banks issuing stupid things like reverse amortization, interest only, and balloon mortgages to poor people for mansions that they couldn't afford on a traditional fixed 30 year mortgage.

no, the problem isn't stupid products.  it's stupid people who buy them.

People will be stupid. That's a fact of life and there is no fixing it. The banks should have known better than to sell self destructive mortgages to stupid people.

No, Greedy banks should have known better than to sell self destructive mortgages to people who don't pay attention to math.

[InterstateNG]

Take it to the Off-Topic forum.

[vtk]

In the picture, it looks like the original fence line was far enough from the road to support a lesser widening.  My guess would be that, when the houses were built, planning documents indicated that road would someday be widened to 4 lanes. Now it's being widened to 6 lanes, reflecting greater actual traffic growth in the area.

[wytout]

There is a difference between NIMBYism and eminent domain.  True NIMBYs aren't losing their property per se, they just don't want progress near their property.  To that I say, tough shit!

But when it comes to losing property and getting almost nothing for it in return that's not NIMBYism, that's a hard dry fucking by the government.  Not that we shouldn't all be used to THAT by now.

I wonder how much these poor people's property taxes will decrease now with the loss of land... probably not enough to notice a difference in the monthly mortgage payment.

I do plenty for the greater good, esp right in my own community where it counts, but don't expect me to give you my front yard, when I bought it, paid for it, and continue pay for it every month in the form of taxes.