America's First Eco-City: Doomed From the Start

An anonymous reader writes "Despite backing from the Clinton Climate Initiative, and a $111 million investment from Subway Restaurant mogul Fred DeLuca, a planned city for Central Florida called 'Destiny' was doomed from the start, according to memos retrieved from Florida's Department of Community Affairs. According to state officials, despite a great deal of hype about Destiny, Florida, becoming the first fully sustainable city in the U.S., plans to build the city were rejected almost immediately due to concerns over 'possible urban sprawl, energy inefficient land use patterns, the endangerment of natural resources, and the undermining of agriculture.'"

In otherwords

[Anonymous Coward]

The batshit insane goverment there killed it because it involved environmentalism.

Magical libertarian thinking knows no bounds.

Regulation Death

[bagboy]

The problem with trying any renewable/conservation experiment in a "real-world" scenario is that almost every angle is now covered by regulation. Green Groups/EPA/Agriculture/Neighborhood Groups/etc, etc. It's getting to the point that the only real way to test theories in a real world scenario is to buy a big Island, build your infrastructure and pay a bunch of people to move there. I think Blofeld may be able to help fund this though.

Re:The only truly sustainable development is none

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single thing has an effect on the environment. Should we rip out our volcanoes for their carbon emissions? And kill every fish that shits in the ocean? And what about that whole earth rotation thingy, you know, the one that made the temperature go from 80 degrees every day to 20. We should stop that, because it changes the environment. Oh, and if you killed yourself, you'd decay and change the environment. You'd breed deadly bacteria that could hurt an innocent wolf that tried to eat your corpse.

The goal, believe it or not, is not to preserve the environment in its current state. The goal is to alter the way that we live so that our impact on the environment is one such that our planet will be able to sustain us indefinitely. This doesn't mean nothing will ever change. There are these things called evolution, and plate tectonics, and a whole host of other things that cause our planet to change. Our goal isn't to preserve everything, but to ensure our continued survival with the limited resources we have. So the voluntary human extinction movement seems to be the very opposite of achieving that goal.

Re:Planning experiment

[khallow]

The documentary in question may have given them an unfair shake, but I doubt there would be a thriving Brasilia, if it weren't for the substantial resources of Brazil propping it up. I think that's a caveat that attaches itself to a lot of these projects - they work, but only if they have a large economy to leech off of.

Re:Undermining of Agriculture ....

[Rockoon]

A lot of things get killed when they get in the way of this industry.

It seems to me that the green movement only sees things one way. When environmental concerns are used to stop industry, thats stopping evil industry. But then when those same environmental concerns are used to stop their own poorly planned out project, its suddenly industry thats the bad guy again.

Then they try to vilify specific right wing groups by name, such as libertarians and the tea party. Proof is on the same page as this post.

Re:Undermining of Agriculture ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll raise you a Scotsmen and call on your Strawman.

Re:In otherwords

[Monoman]

True but Disney also has a high "tax" rate it collects from it's citizens ... err customers.

Re:In otherwords

[darthdavid]

I don't know the details on this Catholic town trying to ban porn and condoms but honestly I can see arguments either way for whether or not that sort of law/ordinance should be legal to make. On the one hand, this is a planned community with a specific purpose so it only makes sense that that should (within reason) be able to set up any sort of laws they want. If you don't like it, don't move there. On the other hand, letting towns make these sorts of rules could set a bad precedent. What happens if that sort of law gets passed in a much larger town that grew up organically (and thus is full of people who are already established there and didn't sign up to live according to the rules of some group they have no affiliation with?).

Honestly, I don't much care for these sorts of special interest communities anyway. Isolating yourself from society so you can live in your own little echo chamber and never have to hear someone who disagrees with you rarely ends well.

Re:In otherwords

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, i got a better idea:
if you don't want condoms (or fill-in-the-blank), DON'T BUY THEM...
*WHY* do you want to enforce EVERYONE ELSE *not* buying them ?
(that is a rhetorical question, by-the-by, i *know* why you don't -and it has nothing to do with 'diversity')

just like stupid teevee shit (which is most of it): while i DESPISE most unreal 'reality' shows, i do not want to deny others their guilty pleasures, just as i don't want them denying me mine for *THEIR* messed up priorities...
its real simple: i simply don't watch them, not decree no one else may either...

i guess you are okay with texass/etc doing end-runs around the law to effectively ban abortion providers, as well, amirite ? 'cause, you know, they can drive a hundred hours to get somewhere that does, so its not really banned...
*snort*
(by the way, this will have ZERO effect for the well-to-do, it will only hurt the poor, as intended...)

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof