Home

Blog

S. 1619, The Livable Communities Act of 2009 (16 comments ↓ | 5 wiki edits: view article ↓)

  • This item is from the 111th Congress (2009-2010) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
  • This bill, or a similar bill, was reintroduced in the current Congress as S. 1455, The Recovery Enhancement for Addiction Treatment Act.

S. 1619 would establish the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, to establish the Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities, to establish a comprehensive planning grant program, to establish a sustainability challenge grant program.

(read more ↓)

From the Blog

WashingtonWatch.com Digest – September 20, 2010

This is the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for the week of September 20, 2010. Subscribe here. email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On the Blog: Congress Fails Government Management—and Nobody Notices! With....

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Margo

August 27, 2009, 2:13pm (report abuse)

The planning principles included in this bill are exactly where we need to be heading as a nation. Planners across the nation are really excited about this national livability discussion. The benefits to this approach are so multi-faceted and far-reaching that we can't not do it. Thanks.

Danbury

October 21, 2009, 6:00pm (report abuse)

Hmmmm can you say "Agenda 21"?

FireDragon

November 19, 2009, 1:24pm (report abuse)

You are exactly right, Danbury! How can people think this is a good thing? Thanks but no thanks!

mal

November 20, 2009, 9:07pm (report abuse)

Agenda 21 is exactly right. You people need to wake up & realize what is really going on.

margo

December 2, 2009, 3:33pm (report abuse)

I know exactly what is going on, and it is certainly not sinister. Good grief. We can't keep growing in the same unsustainable manner that we have been over the past 50 years - municipalities and tax payers can't afford to do so. We have to look at developing more compact, walkable, transit-oriented communities. It makes good fiscal sense. It's not about anti-growth or whatever you're espousing. It's about good growth that considers external factors, such as gas prices/availability.

margo

December 2, 2009, 3:36pm (report abuse)

I might also point out that none of this is being or will be forced upon anyone. This bill would establish a competitive grant program for regions and local municipalities...

cicerone

August 4, 2010, 3:27pm (report abuse)

"Sustainable Communities" are like roach motels... you go in, but you don't come out. Otherwise known a gulags or concentration camps. It is amazing how many gullible and naive people there are and that they would willingly accept a grim compound and complete loss of freedom as an acceptable circumstance.

Duke

September 9, 2010, 11:29am (report abuse)

Can't the government just stay out of our lives? They are all about power.

Swordfish

September 9, 2010, 12:41pm (report abuse)

This would be the last nail in the coffin of personal property rights.

Your property could be rendered worthless, because of use restrictions, by an unseen board of demigods somewhere in the Ethernet and you would have no recourse because we allowed it to happen.

It is already happening all to often all around the country let's not allow this control to be moved to a Federal level.

It's already hard enough to fight City Hall.

No Name Jones

September 9, 2010, 4:14pm (report abuse)

We are giving up on our freedoms and we are to accept full govt. control is liken to a factory manager that micro-manages every aspect of our working day. So those that believe this is a good thing may you folks be first in line, thank you.

Lori

September 12, 2010, 5:56pm (report abuse)

I lived in a high density area with lots of mass transit running every 15 minutes. Shopping areas were 1 hour away each way from home in 7 different directions; and well managed stores with better selection & better trained personnel were in the burbs, where 1 needed a car. These were mutually exclusive.

Reply to Duke

September 17, 2010, 12:10am (report abuse)

Well all politicians are like that and it's really the people's fault since they piss and moan when things go wrong and always expect someone to "fix it" but then have all these "ifs ands or buts" that they have to abide by. What you end up with is a hodgepodge of attempts to fix problems and all you're left with is a damned mess. There is no fixing it, it only grows, it's like a cancerous tumor, unless it's starved, it's going to continue to grow until it kills its host..

Guest

September 20, 2010, 8:52pm (report abuse)

I bet margo hasn't read the bill. This is bad for America.

Caterina

September 23, 2010, 12:03pm (report abuse)

If this type of community is truly attractive to some, then I say the market will support such. We do not need government requirements or grants alleging to foster the idea. Let private industry and the free market speak. If it's truly a 'plus', then developers and investors will climb on the band wagon, it does not need to be tax payer funded or government mandated.

Pamela

September 28, 2010, 9:54am (report abuse)

If Margo actually read the CBO analysis, she would find that although they claim at the outset that there would be no cost to localities, the same CBO analysis later says that costs would be recouped through sales and real estate taxes. Talking out of both sides of their mouths...as usual.

Matt

September 28, 2010, 2:05pm (report abuse)

over 60% of us live in urban environments. This percentage is going to increase. This act provides the tools to shape these urban environments in an efficient way. Or we can have endless suburbia with Costcos the size of texas. (has anyone seen ideocracy?)

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)