http://wbztv.com/video/?id=69623@wbz.dayport.com

http://www.orgov.org/beachbill.html

It's called coastal erosion and it's why people aren't supposed to construct large dwellings on sandy shores. When you understimate the power of Nature to reclaim that which has been taken from her, well she reminds you why that's a bad idea. Following the heavy wind and rain we had yesterday, a house on Plum Island in Newbury began falling into the water. By morning, so much land had eroded that the owner had no choice but watch as a demolition crew knocked the rest of the house down. If you follow the link, or read the transcript, you'll see the owner of the house express her frustrations with the Town of Newbury's inability to do more to protect her house. If you're like me, you'll be shouting at the computer screen, "Um HELLO! You built your house on the beach. What did you expect to happen when waves started lapping against your deck? I mean, did you NEVER build a sandcastle as a kid and then watch as the rising tide washed it away?!"

In any event, it seems to me that scenes like this have become more prevalent in recent months thanks to hurricanes, floods, etc. And for many whose homes have been or are at risk of being washed away, it begs the question to rebuild or not to rebuild. In my mind, however, these disasters seem to create an opportunity for local/state/federal planning officials to reevaluate the use of certain types of land/areas. Perhaps, as more and more Plum Island homes get swept away, the Town of Newbury will be forced to reconsider some of its zoning policies. And perhaps something like the Oregon Beach Bill will come out of this.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

I've been meaning to sound off on this one for some time now so here goes...

$7 tolls WTF?! I don't even know where to begin.

Yes, it unfairly targets Eastie! And yes, it will create even heavier traffic along the already congested strip of 16 that runs through Everett (EJ violations abound!!!!). But what's really got my blood boiling is the fact that I DON'T WANT TO PAY $7 TO LEAVE THIS SIDE OF BOSTON. And you know what? I shouldn't have to!

Listen, don't get me wrong. I'm a loyal MBTA subject, er rider. I quite enjoy riding the Blue Line in and out of Boston. And heck, if time permits when I do happen to be driving, I do my best to avoid the tunnels altogether. But as a resident of Winthrop, a neighbor of East Boston, when push comes to shove, if I find myself needing to hit the highways chances are I'm passing through a tunnel to do it. And I'm sorry, but I just don't think I should have to reach into my pocket to fork over $7 bucks to get through the Sumner or Williams, $2 to get to the Pike, and oh, let's say another $4 to get off the Pike should I opt to visit some friends in CT.

The very real possibility that  MTA tolls may double and SOON has got me beyond peeved! It wasn't so long ago, within the last year actually, that MTA raised the Williams and Sumner tolls by $0.50 - from $3 to $3.50. I remember being taken aback by the increase, but unable to do much about it, I begrudgingly began handing over my two extra quarters per trip. Like most on this shore, I quietly accepted that if I wanted to get out of town, I had no choice. And besides, what's $0.50? It certainly didn't hurt that at the time I was a gainfully employed young professional, but regardless, even if I were not a grad student, a $7 toll seems exorbitant, unreasonable, unfair!!!

And it's merely a proposed means of paying down the agency's ridiculously high debt and to to pay for maintenance - both of which are absolutely necessary, but at what cost? I'd probably feel a little better about the whole thing if the money were going to expand the blue line, create more stops and make the cities and towns on the North Shore more readily accessible by public transit. But that's not where the money is intended to go. Instead it's merely going to keep an aging system on life support. It's just a bad idea all around.

Certainly, I want East Boston to thrive. Anyone who's joined me at Satarpio's (SantAHpeeos) knows why. And like most I think the last thing Everett needs is more traffic-induced air and noise pollution. But if neither of these arguments appeal to people, then let me just throw this out there. I, Eugenia, and all my fellow North Shore peeps SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GO BROKE TO LITERALLY GET FROM ONE SIDE OF TOWN TO THE OTHER QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY.

There has to be a better way to finance routine maintenance than toll increases. Increased gas tax anyone? Or, better yet, start making Eastie residents pay $3.50 like the rest of us instead of just a few cents.  Do something, anything, but DON'T RAISE MY TUNNEL TOLLS PLEASE!

There's a firestorm brewing surrounding the Mass Turnpike Authority's latest revenue-generating proposal.

The MTA wants to significantly increase tolls in the tunnels that connect East Boston to the rest of the city.  Understandably, this has set many Eastie residents, business owners, property owners and representatives into a panic.

MA House Speaker Sal DeMasi has offered an alternative proposal: Hike the state-wide gas tax instead.

I can understand the potential argument that it would be unfair to tax all MA drivers to cover MTA's debt.  But would it be fair for the MTA to single out a neighborhood that's on realatively unsteady economic footing as it is?  (Here's the 2000 Census data for East Boston).

For the record, this very unscientific poll finds overwhelming support for raising the gas tax instead of the tunnel tolls.

First-year UEPer Kendall Webster forwarded this email from a friend of hers (slightly edited; this is a family blog):

oh man, i just watched this movie

A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash

and now i'm kinda bugging out. i think i'm going to look into moving to new zealand anyway, even with obama as president. i read all these books, like "the end of oil" "resource wars" "the hydrogen economy" and a bunch more like them two years ago, and i became convinced it was just a matter of time before [stuff] started to collapse. now i'm seeing the current economic disaster as the beginning of the real collapse, and i'm still really not ready. i've got the boat, and the food, and the gas, but not enough food, and no weapons, and not enough training/ practice on the boat which isn't even in the water right now. my old plan was to have sold the house and gotten out of here, but i got so caught up in trying to make ends meet and work and all, then the election... it kinda got pushed aside and i was feeling good about america again. now i think it's too late and we're [in loads of trouble] no matter what.

sorry for that big spout off. i'm spending the day tomorrow shopping for some [freaking] guns and buying more food. you must think i'm nuts.

Yesterday a small group of us UEPers piled in a van and drove over to Amherst for a symposium called "Regional Green Infrastructure and Landscape Urbanism: New Directions for Planning."  It was a collaboration between the Tufts, Harvard, MIT and UMass Amherst planning programs.  I think we all really enjoyed the talks by Peter Lowitt and UMass profs Elisabeth Hamin and Jack Ahern.  Also, the appetizers were fantastic.

After the talks, UEP prof Justin Hollander asked the audience to consider the implications of the current economic troubles on the prospects of green infrastructure in the near future. This is something that I've seen a lot of chatter about lately.  There seem to be two general schools of thought on this.  One says that a bad economy will make it harder for us to make policy and planning decisions that are good for the envorinment; this is what recent articles in Time and the Wall Street Journal seem to suggest. 

The other school says that the stumbling economy -- the rising price of oil over the long term, the credit crunch, and all the rest -- present a great opportunity to remodel our economy and come out with something a lot healthier for all of us; this is suggested in pieces by The Architect's Newspaper and AlterNet.  It's also strongly advocated by people like Van Jones, who spoke at Tufts this past Earth Day, and Bill McKibben, who I saw speak in Jamaica Plain shortly thereafter.

Both in their talks and in response to Justin's question, Peter Lowitt and Jack Ahern argued that green infrastructure such as green roofs and the use of watersheds to treat waste water often actually save money -- the trick is that you usually have to look long-term, which is not always easy for people (or municipalities) to do.  Which is obviously encouraging, but it poses another question: So, why aren't these things done more often?

It made me think of the book I'm reading in my spare time (Ha!  "Spare time" -- more like "random minutes on the train when I don't feel like working through my zillion pages of weekly class readings") -- George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant!  It's been sitting on my bookshelf since it came out just before the '04 elections, and I finally pulled it out because I'm starting to realize just how much the frustrations we run into in the world of planning and policy might be due (at least in part) to failures of language, framing, and connecting issues to common values. 

I'm sure a lot of you have a lot more expertise on this stuff than I do.  But it seems to me it's probably something that we need to get better at.

(Oh, by the way...Obama to create an Office of Urban Policy!)

A gradual shift leftward, perhaps?

Indeed, much of Obama’s very strong victory is rooted in these cutting edge demographic trends, which Democrats are now turning to their advantage.  Immigrants, minorities, young people, college graduates and metro residents, both in cities and suburbs, are all part of the mix, helping to expand Democratic support in America’s rising areas.

Or rather, what can cities expect from President Obama?

A day after the election, Planetizen has a look.  Their conclusion:

In the end, as Planetizen blogger and land use law professor Michael Lewyn reminds us, the hands-on work of urban planning, zoning and development are firmly in the hands of local government and therefore won't be directly impacted by a new president. But if the evidence is to be believed, an Obama presidency will be much more hands-on in making decisions about urban policy, particularly when it comes to significant investments in infrastructure for energy and transportation.

Sorry to be repeating themes lately, but the election has obviously been dominating popular discourse of late, and this is the obvious way to tie it in here.  Plus, speaking for myself -- on top of last night's big event, this has been an especially hectic couple of weeks schoolwise, so I really haven't had a chance to branch out much.  But expect things here to get mixed up again soon.

City Limits goes quite a bit more in depth than the Philly Daily News did a couple weeks ago regarding the respective urban agendas of the two major presidential candidates.

I don't think I need to remind anyone reading this to VOTE, do I?

Two more days, folks.