Bill Brown Ford May Be Number One

[FordBuyer]

California has managed to nearly double our population since 1970 without increasing our water use, largely through conservation. And, with this current water shortage, the call for a mandatory 8% reduction was met with a 15% reduction (at least in San Diego). So, I see an ability and willingness to reduce water use, especially during drought years.

 

San Diego's first desalination plant - which will be the largest in the western hemisphere - is ready to break ground, with the second being studied.

 

I'll readily admit that we could support the current population in southern California with a lot less water than we currently use. If everyone filled their yards with native plants, and got rid of the back-yard swimming pools, residential water usage would probably drop by 50%.

 

But 80% of California's water is used by commercial agriculture. I have heard many complain that the worst abuse of water resources is by Central Valley and Imperial Valley farmers, who often produce low-value, water intensive crops using inefficient irrigation methods - I don't know the specific crops they're referring to, but I'd guess lettuce is high on their list. A lot of farms have switched to tree nuts and grapes, because they're both high value and low water use. I certainly am not about to argue that agriculture doesn't use amounts of water that would be unsustainable without our massive system of aqueducts, but it is a good source of income to the state, and I think worth the cost to maintain, even if not entirely in its current form.

 

So, you're not likely to see an exodus of Californians due to any water shortage - you'll just see more lawns replanted with low-water grasses and native shrubbery, and more farms planted with less water-intensive crops. We've coped with droughts before, we'll cope with this one.

 

 

Guess you didn't see "60 Minutes" last Sunday and their story on the CA water crisis. The big resevoir in L.A. region is looking quite low. Your governor is talking about spending over $40 billion to build a new aqueduct when they are facing a $20 billion deficit and worse as the years project out. Las Vegas and AZ face the same problems. The drought is going on year four with no end in sight. I really don't think CA water problems can support an increasing population at all. MI is losing population and that is fine with me.

[FordBuyer]

Typical human response to conservation: "I'm all in favor of it, as long as I don't doesn't cost me anything, and I don't have to change what I do."

 

You're better off dumping all your money into desalinization. There's a source of water that will take a considerable amount of time to thoroughly wreck and destroy.

 

Pardon my cynicism, but at the same time, tell me that I'm wrong about the abuse of natural resources....... Especially in the desert southwest.

 

Humans seem to insist on living in areas that can't support large scale population masses and then want the rest of Nation to bail them out when ecological disaster strikes. So we spend billions to rebuild New Orleans only to wait for another massive hurricane to hit them and wipe them out again. Who is going to pay for the next disaster there when U.S. Treasury is bankrupt. Ditto for areas of CA and FL that are wiped out periodically. I guess the Nation paid for bailing out GM and MI in general, but you sure hear the whining over that bail out.

[RichardJensen]

California has managed to nearly double our population since 1970 without increasing our water use

I would be more impressed with that statistic if California wasn't already, basically, using every drop of water available to it in 1970.

[Noah Harbinger]

Guess you didn't see "60 Minutes" last Sunday and their story on the CA water crisis. The big resevoir in L.A. region is looking quite low. Your governor is talking about spending over $40 billion to build a new aqueduct when they are facing a $20 billion deficit and worse as the years project out. Las Vegas and AZ face the same problems. The drought is going on year four with no end in sight. I really don't think CA water problems can support an increasing population at all. MI is losing population and that is fine with me.

 

60 minutes - scare journalism at its finest. People wonder why I don't watch TV? That segment was just lame.

 

$5- to $10 billion is the estimated cost of the peripheral canal, in addition to the $10 billion bond measure to improve storage during wet years. The entire cost of the peripheral canal will be borne by the water agencies proportionally to the water they use - not the general fund.

 

It's expensive, but it's much more affordable than doing nothing. People forget that the cost of doing nothing is NOT zero. The agriculture supported by a stable water supply will provide greater income to the general fund than the debt service on the bonds.

[Noah Harbinger]

I would be more impressed with that statistic if California wasn't already, basically, using every drop of water available to it in 1970.

 

So the Richard Jensen School of Economics says "I don't care how much you received, I only care how much you spent"?

 

It's ignorant and condescending to imply that California hasn't worked hard to receive as much value as it has from our water supply. We do a heck of a lot more with a heck of a lot less than the rest of the country. Sure, it has been out of necessity, rather than choice - but that doesn't diminish the accomplishment.

[pictor]

So the Richard Jensen School of Economics says "I don't care how much you received, I only care how much you spent"?

 

It's ignorant and condescending to imply that California hasn't worked hard to receive as much value as it has from our water supply. We do a heck of a lot more with a heck of a lot less than the rest of the country. Sure, it has been out of necessity, rather than choice - but that doesn't diminish the accomplishment.

 

Building large metro areas without adequate water supplies to support continued growth is not practical and should not be encouraged. In the same vein people should not build on barrier beaches, flood plains or river delta. The problem with water is that humans have little control on where it's going to end up. I am a great believer in the law of unintended consequences; by trying to fix one problem you create sometimes bigger and more intractable ones.

[Noah Harbinger]

I am a great believer in the law of unintended consequences; by trying to fix one problem you create sometimes bigger and more intractable ones.

 

In other words, "we should stop trying and go back to living in trees". Great philosophy there.

[ANTAUS]

I can chime in on city politics/government...Not sure how it is in other states, but in FL you are not granted a building permit unless there is sufficient water to the properties/subdivisions, In fact, some cities/towns are restricted from building higher density or more housing units unless that city has an allocation of water available for it, so they must either tap into other utility neighbors. Also, certain "water management districts", are hunting for "partners" to tap in, and look for alternative places for water.

 

If your in, incorporated areas of your county, your "size" of permitable plot/parcel must be no smaller than an acre and will require well/septic...So you cant have some zero lot line home development out in the country because the water management district will not allow it and many of counties are discouraging from even 1 acre parcels, rather 10+ as a minimum.

 

And all this must go for review TECEA at the state level for approval where each city/town must submit Future Land Use Comprehensive map for their approval every few years, just to make sure cities are growing/developing, properly... So you can't build a high intensity 50 story skyscraper on a 2 lane road and schools 30 miles away.

 

And really, all this stems from mistakes of the past (prior to the 60s here in FL) where you had "developers" literally selling swamp land to northerners and they were platting roads after roads, selling lots after lots that were not sustainable. On the mistake that made this a requirement was Lehigh Acres in SW FL, where they had no clue where to stick roads, canals, lots would flood, streets ended and went no where, no commercial parcels platted, they forgot about parks and schools, no nearby highways. A total collapse.

[Marginal Economist]

This thread took an unexpected yet interesting turn. I'm not a hydrologist, but I've stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

[RichardJensen]

So the Richard Jensen School of Economics says "I don't care how much you received, I only care how much you spent"?

Bingo. Your position was "California hasn't increased its water consumption" and my rejoinder was, "they couldn't."

 

Nothing like making a virtue out of necessity.

 

You think I'm picking on California.

 

But that's just because I'm talking about water.

 

Ask me what I think of the sodbusters that settled this part of the country and burned out the soil, the wholesale replacement of bison with animals that are poorly suited to this climate, confinement hog/chicken farming, or chemical intensive factory farming. Or, back to water, the apparent belief that Kentucky bluegrass is a constitutionally guaranteed right, such that tens of millions of dollars will be spent building a pipeline to meet peak demand for a city--which peak demand occurs on summer afternoons, and not because kids are running through sprinklers. Or making lemonade to sell on street corners.

 

You think I'm calling Californians wasteful.

 

I'm calling PEOPLE wasteful. You name ONE THING that people have properly stewarded. Californians are neither better, nor worse than anyone else. But they do deserve some notice for the scale of their consumption and the piousness that some of them have about it. As though shutting the door now that the horse is out is some sort of meritorious achievement.

 

(of course there is no shortage of hypocrisy among farmers who rail against the government for interfering in their land management while they clamor for disaster relief)

Edited January 2, 2010 by RichardJensen

[aneekr]

What makes Bill Brown Ford's achievement all the more impressive is that the dealership's new car sales department is closed Saturday AND Sunday, and closes at 6PM Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

 

I know that several states in addition to Michigan have statutes that disallow motor vehicle sales on Sunday, but why is Bill Brown Ford closed Saturday as well? Are automobile salesmen in the Detroit area really that lazy?

[RichardJensen]

Friend of mine asked me if 'car dealers' would be open today. I said, "the ones that had a bad December will be."

 

I would guess Bill Brown is closed Saturdays because they can be closed on Saturdays.

[theoldwizard]

I know that several states in addition to Michigan have statutes that disallow motor vehicle sales on Sunday, but why is Bill Brown Ford closed Saturday as well?

TRADITION !

 

Been that way in DEEETROIT since I was a kid. There are a few dealers open on the weekend, but very few ! There are probably 20 some dealers (all makes) within a 10 mile radius of my home, but I could not name one that is open every Saturday for sales or service.

[theoldwizard]

BTW, Richard, who is you Internet Provider in your cave and if you dislike people so much why are you on the Internet ?

[pictor]

In other words, "we should stop trying and go back to living in trees". Great philosophy there.

 

My belief in the law has more to do with government mandated solutions. From anti poverty program to land management policy, things never work quite as one would expect. Small example, on the island Maine where we have a summer house,(all rock, can't wash away for millions of years) the residence were concerned that rich non islanders would by up several small cottages and build a towering edifice on thier bit of paradise. So they changed the zoning to preclude the building of a structure over certain size and height and limited the bathrooms to two. The next house built looked like a box car tipped on its end, rather than the mansion, we have now have shanties. This was not the response the islanders expected.

[ANTAUS]

I've seen that fail as well. There's an older "historic" area near me where most of the homes were originally "slave shacks" for the rich owners nearby, and a railroad is the one that divides it go figure. Those shacks were construction between 1905-1940, cute little bungalow type and the city had to enact a size limit (2200sq.ft.) and height limit. Many have gone in and redone the bungalows even if there's still some socio-economic issues in that area, because of location. I do know 3 McMansions were built which is why the law was enacted. In their case, it has worked though, their only issue might be parking be cause they are skinny lots but on-street parking is allowed.

[RichardJensen]

BTW, Richard, who is you Internet Provider in your cave and if you dislike people so much why are you on the Internet ?

There's no point in railing against 'progress': You might as well avail yourself of the benefits it provides because you certainly can't do anything about the drawbacks.

[FordBuyer]

TRADITION !

 

Been that way in DEEETROIT since I was a kid. There are a few dealers open on the weekend, but very few ! There are probably 20 some dealers (all makes) within a 10 mile radius of my home, but I could not name one that is open every Saturday for sales or service.

 

There are more and more dealers opening on Saturday from 10-3. Around me, Metropolitan Lincoln Mercury, North Brothers Ford, and Hines Park Lincoln Mercury to name a few. Two are in Garden City and one in Plymouth. In the outer suburbs, just about all Ford and Lincoln Mercury dealers are open on Saturday. I doubt if Bill Brown or Blackwell Ford will ever be open on Saturday. The owners have always promised their staff weekends off. Kind of nostalgic when you think about it as at least someone values time off with family and friends and quit chasing the almighty dollar.

[FordBuyer]

There's no point in railing against 'progress': You might as well avail yourself of the benefits it provides because you certainly can't do anything about the drawbacks.

 

I for one would like to see less urban spawl and more growth in older, established areas that have been abandoned for the most part. Portland, OR has at least tried to stem the continuing growth into rural areas. In my view, developers should be responsible for all the infrastructure requirements needed to build out into previous rural ares. Older, more established areas often are ignored that already have the infrastructure in place. For example, Metro Detroit is full of abandoned buildings with empty parking lots ignored by developers who seek vacant land to build from scratch instead. It's a total waste of resources and often the tax payers are stuck with the infrastructure costs. America in general must be the most wasteful society the world has ever seen. Detroit is the prime example. Metro Detroit is a big "donut" with Detroit the hole. And we wonder why we continue to slide down economically.

[Noah Harbinger]

My belief in the law has more to do with government mandated solutions. From anti poverty program to land management policy, things never work quite as one would expect. Small example, on the island Maine where we have a summer house,(all rock, can't wash away for millions of years) the residence were concerned that rich non islanders would by up several small cottages and build a towering edifice on thier bit of paradise. So they changed the zoning to preclude the building of a structure over certain size and height and limited the bathrooms to two. The next house built looked like a box car tipped on its end, rather than the mansion, we have now have shanties. This was not the response the islanders expected.

 

I can see one such unintended consequence with mandatory water cuts: anyone smart will use more water during the non-drought years, to make it easier to save water during the drought years. (I just got lucky: The previous roommates used to have the sprinklers set to water the lawns every day for 15 minutes.)

[ANTAUS]

I for one would like to see less urban spawl and more growth in older, established areas that have been abandoned for the most part. Portland, OR has at least tried to stem the continuing growth into rural areas. In my view, developers should be responsible for all the infrastructure requirements needed to build out into previous rural ares. Older, more established areas often are ignored that already have the infrastructure in place. For example, Metro Detroit is full of abandoned buildings with empty parking lots ignored by developers who seek vacant land to build from scratch instead. It's a total waste of resources and often the tax payers are stuck with the infrastructure costs. America in general must be the most wasteful society the world has ever seen. Detroit is the prime example. Metro Detroit is a big "donut" with Detroit the hole. And we wonder why we continue to slide down economically.

 

 

Not sure in other states, but here in FL you do have the developers responsible for the infrastructure of a "P.U.D", Plan Unit Development particularly if it's rural. They issue a C.D.D. which is a Community Development District and essentially it's a bond that the county establishes. Then the developer can go butt naked with all the infrastructure they want (there's no oversight), then CDD taxes are levied upon the future homeowners that buy into the subdivision/Master Planned community. It can be anywhere from a few hundred dollars, to a few thousands, added, to your already existing taxes, whether it's a county, or city that levies them (one of the 2) and of course the school board and water management district gets their cut To add.

 

As for pre-existing infrastructure in current urban errands in decline, I've always said that when gas hits $4 a gallon, THOSE areas will start under going a renaissance. Well, granted you have the companies/businesses in its nearby downtown that can sustain them. Honestly, people are getting tired of commuting out to the suburbs, but it takes cities and it takes money and correct planning to bring quality to their downtown sectors.

[7Mary3]

And, pardon me if I grossly misstep on the California geography....

 

But Galpin Ford looks like it's close to I-5, which serves the more conservative, more rural, and I would assume more Ford and truck oriented San Joaquin Valley; and that those who live their might be willing to drive as far as Galpin Ford to buy a car, provided they wouldn't have to drive any farther into LA....???

 

Galpin is in the middle of L.A.'s suburban sprawl! I-5 also runs through the San Fernando Valley, downtown L.A., Orange County, San Diego County, ect.. Galpin is right at Roscoe Bl. and the 405 freeway in Van Nuys, right down the street from the giant Budwieser Brewery where all the beachwood aging takes place.....

[jasonj80]

There are more and more dealers opening on Saturday from 10-3. Around me, Metropolitan Lincoln Mercury, North Brothers Ford, and Hines Park Lincoln Mercury to name a few. Two are in Garden City and one in Plymouth. In the outer suburbs, just about all Ford and Lincoln Mercury dealers are open on Saturday. I doubt if Bill Brown or Blackwell Ford will ever be open on Saturday. The owners have always promised their staff weekends off. Kind of nostalgic when you think about it as at least someone values time off with family and friends and quit chasing the almighty dollar.

 

 

I would have to say that over the past 3-5 years more and more Ford Dealers are open on Saturday around Detroit now there are more open dealers than closed -- It was an unwritten rule that no one would be open on Saturday all the time as to not steal sales from one another when the dealers were locally owned. It was also only the Tri-County dealers (Metro Detroit Ford Dealers), dealers outside that area (Suburban Ford Dealers) have been open on Saturday for years as well as in other parts of the state. As more of the dealers were purchased by National Dealer Chains and people migrated farther away from the city Metro Detroit Ford dealers didn't care for that unwritten laws as they were losing sales. I have noticed though that some imports stores are starting to be open till 9 Monday - Saturday. I have a feeling it is only a matter of time that one Ford dealer will do that and the rest will be forced to follow.

 

The state is also looking at changing the laws for Sunday Sales. Boarder town dealers are pushing for the change as they feel they are losing sales as they are not open.

[pictor]

Not sure in other states, but here in FL you do have the developers responsible for the infrastructure of a "P.U.D", Plan Unit Development particularly if it's rural. They issue a C.D.D. which is a Community Development District and essentially it's a bond that the county establishes. Then the developer can go butt naked with all the infrastructure they want (there's no oversight), then CDD taxes are levied upon the future homeowners that buy into the subdivision/Master Planned community. It can be anywhere from a few hundred dollars, to a few thousands, added, to your already existing taxes, whether it's a county, or city that levies them (one of the 2) and of course the school board and water management district gets their cut To add.

 

As for pre-existing infrastructure in current urban errands in decline, I've always said that when gas hits $4 a gallon, THOSE areas will start under going a renaissance. Well, granted you have the companies/businesses in its nearby downtown that can sustain them. Honestly, people are getting tired of commuting out to the suburbs, but it takes cities and it takes money and correct planning to bring quality to their downtown sectors.

 

I agree with you on this since that is exactly what we planing to do this year. After 23 years in the burbs of Boston, we have had enough.We are looking to replace the drive everywhere experience with the walk or mass transit approach. Boston for the most part has weathered this economic downturn reasonably well and my industry (Biotech) has actually had some growth and looking forward to finding job that I can take the "T" to or even better walk to. I think some cities will be better situated for this kind development due to thier development patterns. Compact, dense cities with good public transport should flourish, sprawling spread out cities will have to develop better means for getting people around.

[FordBuyer]

I agree with you on this since that is exactly what we planing to do this year. After 23 years in the burbs of Boston, we have had enough.We are looking to replace the drive everywhere experience with the walk or mass transit approach. Boston for the most part has weathered this economic downturn reasonably well and my industry (Biotech) has actually had some growth and looking forward to finding job that I can take the "T" to or even better walk to. I think some cities will be better situated for this kind development due to thier development patterns. Compact, dense cities with good public transport should flourish, sprawling spread out cities will have to develop better means for getting people around.

 

Social Scientist, writer, observor, architectual historian Howard Kuntsler calls Boston the most livable of all American cities. He rates Atlanta and Las Vegas as two of the worst. He rates Paris as the best in Europe.

 

If you look at small town America and towns like Plymouth, MI that I live in, they were designed in the 19th Century with big park in middle of downtown with commercial buidlings surrounding it. They were built for pedestrians and are very walkable. They invite you to get out of your vehicle and walk around. They are still viable today and many are very livable and people want to live there in that property values have hung in there fairly well.

 

New towns that have sprung up in latter part of 20th Century still don't get it. For example, Novi, MI has a big mall called 12 Oaks Mall with something like 150 stores and surrounding malls with another 100 or so stores and mega parking lots for cars. Terrible traffic comes with it. Many of the smaller malls around have died and For Lease signs all over. Empty parking lots.

 

So Novi City Council has a brain fart and decides to build a small downtown like Plymouth and Northville which are very successful and designed in the 19th Century. The new Novi downtown is about 15 years old and sits largely empty and unloved. It just didn't work out. Nothing about it says get out of vehicle and walk around. It's not qauint or very livable. A failure.

 

Novi, MI is full of abandoned strip malls and old convention center with miles and miles of empty, asphalt parking lots. It's also full of $500,000 McMansions with three car garages and SUV's in driveways. And it's very dependant upon cheap gas to have a future. Now it has a mostly empty downtown that never developed.

 

Hopefully 21st Century master planning will be different.