Explain again how sprawl is better?

Marta Mossburg's recent column ("Governor, don't tell us where to live," Nov. 9 ) ties itself up in illogical knots. She bemoans the idea that a rational planning process to reduce runaway urban sprawl would result in more tightly spaced communities, and then goes on to complain that "even massive transit subsidies will not change the fact that the vast majority of people will continue to rely on cars."

I'm not sure how a vast exodus to rural Maryland would do anything to increase the efficiency of mass transit. I chose to live closer to my work, and on those days when I encounter the suburban gridlock that is the inevitable result of the utopia that Ms. Mossburg envisions, I especially appreciate that it only takes me 15 minutes to get to work.

Ms. Mossburg also makes reference to Lord Christopher Monckton and the Carroll County Commissioners in the same sentence. It is a tossup as to which of these two is the bigger joke, a discredited hack or a body that insists on opening meetings with prayers that invoke Jesus. Of course, the commissioners don't believe in climate change or public transportation, so the urban sprawl agenda they champion and its attendant gridlock "only makes air pollution worse because the slower speeds of cars in highly populous areas intensify air pollution."

But Carroll County residents need not worry, because their commissioners don't believe that their pollution contributes to nonexistent global warming, which Lord Monckton used to believe in before he did not.

Tim Eastman, Baltimore

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
Comments
Loading