Fare Thee Well, M1EK...

Ah, a sad day has come in my blogging life. I've decided I will no longer allow a commenter to keep an entry here on any of my future blog entries. I really hate to do it. I tried to be understanding and I certainly believe in free speech for all. But unfortunately, that same concept seems to be lost for my now former blog friend, M1EK.

You see I was pretty much ok with his seemingly ill-informed and usually fact devoid rants attached to a few of my posts. I was willing to give some of my blog space to let him air his grievances and attempt to make his points. I really do enjoy seeing other people's points of view as I try to learn where they are coming from and how they formed their opinions. But there were two reasons why I decided I will no longer allow any of M1EK's comments to remain here.

The first reason was that you can't have meaningful debates with someone if they will not back up their assertions with fact. In 2 of M1EK's comments here, his condescendingly bold assertions were utterly devoid of any fact I could find. Yes, M1EK, I did *a lot* of research into your property value claim (the same lame "my Clarksville condo" rant I've now seen on no less than 2 other blogs). Over the last few weeks I've read numerous density articles, affordable housing scenarios, case studies (Portland, Seattle and New York), blogs and comment threads and even the city's development plans (like the City Auditors, I wasn't impressed). I even went so far to talk to 2 MBA's (one in real estate). I couldn't find a *single* sentence or person that supported your "trickle down" assertion (building luxury condos leads to increased supply which leads to more affordable housing citywide). The overwhelming theme I gleaned from those articles and my research is that there is no direct link between building downtown luxury condos and the lowering of property values from previously higher priced properties in outlying areas. In fact, I saw more examples of the opposite; the building of luxury condos downtown increased the housing prices nearby and displaced traditional residential neighborhoods. As shown by this article and from here:

"Gentrification usually increases the property value of an area. This is a positive development for city officials (by raising tax revenue, which is often dependent on property values), the middle class, as well as existing resident owner-occupiers. Unfortunately this same rise in property value can be devastating to those in lower income groups, when children of such residents find they can no longer afford to live in certain neighborhoods. As a result, there tend to be very strongly opposed views on gentrification, with some seeing it leading to healthier, more vibrant cities, and others seeing it as destroying poor communities. Both views would seem to be correct."

It's almost like you pulled that purely anecdotal story out of an unnamed orifice. But anyway, that's really not relevant as my blog post had little to do with property values but with livability and our city manager's quote that their development plans are aimed to make Austin the "most livable" in the country (which my post pointed to 4 indicies that showed Austin was actually accomplishing the opposite). You didn't counter the facts I linked to.

The second reason is a bit more personal. I'm a big enough man to take criticism for taking a stand on an issue and then opening up the comments to anyone who wants to say their peace, agree or disagree. I'm not intimidated by those people whose opinions differ from mine. In fact, I applaud those that have a differing world view. It's what makes this whole whacky place worth living. But unfortunately, you don't seem to hold those same beliefs. Earlier this week, I read a blog post of yours about bicycle helmets and that you are against them and don't want to see mandatory helmet laws. As a very active commuting cyclist (and on/off competitive cyclist over the last 20 yrs so I felt I had something to add), I thought I'd leave a comment on your blog where, in a strange twist of fate, I actually agreed with your main point (there shouldn't be mandatory helmet laws for adults in which I actually bolstered your point by raising the issue that mandatory helmet laws have a detrimental effect on cycling participation; a good way to truly make cycling safer is to separate the cyclists from cars using real bike lanes and if no one is cycling, it becomes harder to gain the ears of those in positions to actually do something worthwhile about cycling safety. Your post didn't cover this angle but I see from the comments you did post, all you were looking for were cheerleaders and not informed debate). I hit submit and voila, it's off to the moderation folder. Now, I have no problem with moderated comments for limiting comment spam or for keeping offensive language and the like off the blog. But my comment contained no spam, no offensive language and actually supported your point. But you still didn't see fit to publish the comment. Its almost like you didn't publish the comment for personal reasons... Hmm...

Now, that's fine. That's your right. If you want to make it personal because we disagree on the "trickle down theory" of hi-rise luxury condos and livability in Austin, so be it. So in response, I'll no longer allow your comments to stay on any of my posts from now on (turnabout is fair play, eh?). Oh, I'm not going to be a wuss like some people I know so I won't be turning on moderated comments or turning off comments completely. I'm not going to ban your ip or do anything like that. You'll still have little windows of opportunity to blurt out your rants but the next time I log on, I'll remove them. I'm no longer willing to allow you to take up comment space and puff up your perceived blogger ego using my blog site. Unlike you, M1EK, I believe in diversity of opinion; I just don't care about yours anymore.

So fare thee well, my old friend. Can't say I was glad to know you...

Correction: I caught a misspelled word and updated it (I used "piece" when I should have used "peace.").