Apple and "Smart Growth"

In a recent article, ok blog post, in Better Cities and Towns, the author, Kaid Benfield, takes Apple to task for violating the "most basic tenants of smart growth and walkability" because apparently they're too cool and oh-so-hip, http://bit.ly/ynUBpz.>

Look, I'm no Apple fan-boy or apologist, but Benfield's post is so riddled with over-statements, (at best) half-truths and premised upon assumptive rhetoric that I had to come to their defense...I'm sure Apple is just waiting for me weigh-in. Heck, maybe they'll throw in an iPad 3 third gen iPad.

Suburbs get blamed for everything these days, from poor health, to traffic problems, to ruining "community". I'm not buying it; never have and doubt I ever will. I've been around urban centers for most of my life, and guess where I've encountered poor health, poor educational systems, traffic problems and "community-less" communities most frequently. Yep. The City. The City. But, I digress. Well not really, because that's where Benfield begins his diatribe. To rescue us from suburban plight (isn't that what he really wants?), Benfield argues for employing so-called "smart growth" techniques including, presumably, transit, walkways and little, if any, parking. I'm presuming here, but then if he's entitled, I'm entitled.

It continues to amaze me how "smart-growth" advocates have no problem telling people (or businesses) how they should use private land, as if they are in the position to speak for the public! Apple owns the land and is already bound by certain codes and regulations, at least at the local and state level and would need to comply accordingly. Is Benfield justified to tell a land-owner how best to use his hard-earned land? Again, Apple is already regulated on the land, but should they then be told how to use the land? A reasonable person would answer, "No". But, Benfield would certainly object, since he resorts to rhetoric which I think shows his true colors - "this (the design and building) is for the one percent." Oh, boo hoo.

Finally, Steve Jobs included the following in his vision for the new campus:

- Achieve 80% landscaping by undergrounding parking

- Vast increase in number of trees

- Primary energy source as natural gas

- Fitness center for employees as well as large cafeteria

- Decrease in surface parking of some 90%

- Concern to be shown for employee safety

- Buses runing on boifuel to serve the new campus

In my mind these things, while interesting and innovative, do not make or break the issue for me. They are not a "green badge of honor"...for me. Regardless, I support and applaud Apple's right as a property owner to develop their land as they see fit - within the proper guidelines and Codes, of course. And, if someone doesn't like the "private" decision of a "private" company, then they should return their iPhones and iPads as Benfield suggests. Or better, just send 'em my way.