« September 2007 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
a list of links from Iraq
Iraq Blogcount
Lewyn Addresses America
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
No to Hometown Democracy

My latest Folio Weekly piece at

http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/43/


Posted by lewyn at 12:47 PM EDT
something I wish I'd written

Regarding danger to the planet from global warming:

 Puhleeze.  Global warming will at worst be a minor inconvenience to the
planet.  The planet has done just fine since everyone was a bacterium, and oxygen was a toxin.  Killing off a few billion of us will hardly be a blip.
Of course, billions of dead people will put a serious crimp in our plans.

(from a listserv I'm on).


Posted by lewyn at 12:31 PM EDT
Friday, 24 August 2007
a miracle

Was on a full JTA bus and actually had to stand for the first time since moving to Jacksonville a year ago!  

I was visiting the Museum of Southern History on the Westside, and at 4ish took the P4 bus back to downtown, and it was clogged with people coming from the far Westside (apparently to change buses downtown, since most people did not leave the bus till then).


Posted by lewyn at 10:06 AM EDT
Thursday, 16 August 2007
Links to my last few Folio Weekly pieces

An article calling for zoning deregulation:

http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/40/

An article explaining how Jacksonville's zoning code yields sprawl (basically going over the same terrain that my scholarship addresses but in less technical terms):

http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/38/

An article describing life without a car in Jacksonville:

http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/36/

An article criticizing proposed highway expansion:

http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/33/

 


Posted by lewyn at 12:54 PM EDT
My scholarly article on how government makes Jacksonville auto-dependent

is available at

http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/39/


Posted by lewyn at 12:53 PM EDT
what I learned about speed bumps

JTA wants to shift service from Baypine Road (the street where my employer, Florida Coastal School of Law is located) to Baymeadows Way nearby, despite the fact that Florida Coastal has 1400 students.

Why?  Because the speed bumps slow the commutes of bus riders coming in from downtown.

Lesson- don't have speed bumps on any streets where people might want to ride the bus (i.e. streets with offices and jobs).


Posted by lewyn at 12:50 PM EDT
A new kind of blog

From now on, this blog will be focused on Jacksonville (my new hometown) since I now know enough to coherently discuss life here.  To reflect this, the blog has a new title ("Lewyn Addresses Jacksonville").

Please note the Jacksonville-related links on the bottom left.


Posted by lewyn at 12:47 PM EDT
Updated: Thursday, 16 August 2007 12:50 PM EDT
Thursday, 9 August 2007
My American dream

Defenders of sprawl like to claim that they are for "The American Dream."

But this is MY American Dream:

 http://youtube.com/watch?v=OzzflJTn_wE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sTOfV9oaPrM


Posted by lewyn at 11:54 AM EDT
CNU blog post on riverfront access
http://www.cnu.org/node/1367

Posted by lewyn at 11:34 AM EDT
Friday, 20 July 2007
why you can't trust the Left to support smart growth
(cross posted to CNU Salons blog at cnu.org) 

 

 

At CNU XV, Barney Frank argued that smart growth supporters should support liberal Democrats, because Republican support for tax cuts and military spending leaves no room for smart-growth oriented programs such as public transit, HOPE VI, etc. I think this story provides some ammunition on both sides of the argument:

But see the following story from the LA Times (full story at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget20jul20,0,5439437.story )

"State lawmakers appeared to be closing in on a spending plan late Thursday that would divert roughly $1 billion away from mass transit, forcing Los Angeles to put off plans for extending parts of the Expo light rail line and widening some freeways.

***

Democrats said they agreed to the big cut to transit funding in an effort to avoid having to take money away from schools and healthcare programs. Republicans justified the cut by noting that state transportation funding will continue to increase overall."

What grabbed me was the last paragraph: the Democrats wanted to cut transportation to fund public education and health.

This is why I don't think left-wingers are necessarily better than right-wingers on urbanism issues: just as the Right will always pick tax cuts and wars over smart growth-type programs when money is tight, the Left will always pick public education and health care.

Of course, if you think public education is a better use of money than tax cuts, you will probably vote for liberals anyhow: but you shouldn't be doing it because of their superior commitment to urbanism.  

For what its worth, I do think there are differences among candidates- but I think the issue cuts across left/right lines.  From what I've learned of the candidates, some are more oriented towards transit and urbanism than others: Richardson on the Democratic side has said some good things, and Romney on the Republican side has a good record.  Bloomberg is very pro-transit but isn't likely to win as an independent.

I don't know enough about the candidates to know if any are really hostile to smart growth.  However, I suspect most of the candidates just don't care much about these issues one way or the other.  For example, I don't know of any evidence that these issues take up a single brain cell in the brains of Fred Thompson or John Edwards. 

Obama and Giuliani SHOULD be good because they live in cities: but your zip code doesn't necessarily dictate your thought processes on these kind of issues.  


Posted by lewyn at 10:10 AM EDT
Updated: Friday, 20 July 2007 10:16 AM EDT
Monday, 11 June 2007
my 15 seconds of local fame

I was the subject of an editorial in the Jacksonville paper today.  

 

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061107/opi_175705775.shtml


Posted by lewyn at 9:25 PM EDT
Monday, 21 May 2007
CNU: what I learned

The posts below discuss some of what I learned at the CNU (Congress for New Urbanism, www.cnu.org) conference in Philadelphia.

One interesting panel dealt with the question of how to keep streets skinny and walkable while satisfying fire departments. Dan Burden noted that fire marshals generally prefer 20 feet of space to accommodate fire trucks; he suggested accommodating them through midblock curb extensions; thus, a street can be 20 feet wide for motorists, but fire trucks can find extra space in the middle of the block so they can unload bulky fire equipment. John Anderson was less optimistic, suggesting that New Urbanists may need statewide fire code reforms in order to force public works departments to accept narrower streets.


Posted by lewyn at 10:27 AM EDT
Still more from CNU: downtown expressways

On Saturday morning at CNU, there was a great panel on expressways, focusing on the removal of riverfront expressways that cut off downtowns from rivers.

Ingrid Reed spoke about her experience in Trenton, where she was able to challenge the status quo on two grounds. First, removing the expressway would create jobs, housing and prosperity, by freeing up riverfront land for commercial and residential development. By contrast, today riverfront land is cut off from downtown by the expressway, essentially blighting such land. Second, Trenton suffers from minimal traffic congestion, so the arguments against removing the expressway are weaker than they would be in a bigger, more congested city.

Cary Moon spoke about her experience in Seattle, where the city is trying to decide whether to build a new expressway to substitute for one damaged in a 2001 earthquake. Again, the argument against a new highway is based on downtown development: a riverfront connected with downtown is a prosperous riverfront bustling with parks, people and businesses, a riverfront cut off from downtown is Blight-O-Rama. Moreover, the experience of San Francisco (where earthquake-damaged expressways were removed without drastically harmful results) shows that highway removal need not result in gridlock.

Moon pointed out that the anti-highway case is stronger in Seattle than in other cities, because even if the city plans to build a new expressway, it will have a one-year transition between the end of the old road and the birth of the new: so Seattleites will already have had a year to adjust to a status quo without a riverfront expressway. Moreover, Seattle has another expressway running through its very narrow downtown.

Moon argued that the downtown expressway was not necessary to facilitate freight traffic, because only 4% of the expressway traffic was freight; most of the traffic was just local trips seeing a shortcut through downtown. Moreover, recreating the pre-expressway street grid might actually reduce congestion, because drivers idle in traffic waiting to get on and off congestion instead of being able to use the new streets that would emerge from the ruins of the highway. She also suggested building freight-only lanes for freight traffic and bus rapid transit to soak up commute traffic.

The ultimate result: in a recent referendum, voters voted against two expressway proposals (one above ground and one that is 1/3 underground)- partially because of anti-highway efforts, but partially because supporters of each freeway alternative eviscerated each other's proposals.

Norm Marshall (of smartmobility.com) disucussed the use and misuse of traffic models. Often, state DOTs use misleading interpretations of models to justify more roads. For example, the Washington DOT stated that downtown Seattle traffic would grow from 110,000 vehicles today to 130,000 in 2030. But buried in an appendix to a DOT report are statements suggesting the contrary.

Even when DOT claims about traffic are not completely false, their data projects are flawed in a variety of ways. Their pretensions of precision overlook the possible adjustments that could take place when a freeway is torn down or not built: in addition to changing routes or using public transit, drivers could take trips at different times of day or forego them entirely. Also, freeways (or their absence) create land use changes that increase or decrease vehicle trips- for example, by facilitating downtown development (if a freeway is torn down) or sprawl (if a new freeway is built). Even if a model could accurately forecast such adjustments, transportation models can't possibly forecast broader social changes such as energy prices or social changes such as telecommuting.

Marshall's bottom line: models might be useful to test different scenarios- but any model that pretends to tell you how many cars will be in downtown Seattle in 2030 is just a pile of rubbish.

Jeff Tumlin asserted that freeways export real estate value from cities to suburbs; their absence maximizes cities' property value. He used Vancouver as an example of life without freeways: while downtown vehicle trips increased in every other Canadian city since 1995, such trips decreased in Vancouver- even while total trips (including walking/transit/bike trips) increased by 22%!

Tumlin suggested that within a downtown, freeways may actually reduce capacity, because preexisting downtown streets are destroyed to build the freeway. In short, a freeway downtown is like a pig in a parlor- the right thing in the wrong place.


Posted by lewyn at 10:26 AM EDT
Still more from CNU: cities and suburbs

This afternoon, Andres Duany spoke about the relationship between cities and suburbs. He began by noting that contrary to popular myth, New Urbanists are quite involved in urban development; the only reason people think otherwise is that NU development fits into cities rather than sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb.

But most of his speech addressed how suburbs outcompete cities, and how cities can learn from suburbs. He focused on the following:

1. Amenities. The suburbs' major amenity is spare land: larger back yards, etc. In the mid-20th century, cities tried to compete by echoing the suburbs, with lower density, more parking, more greenspace, etc. This strategy failed miserably- why have a half suburb when you can have the whole thing? Instead, cities should focus on their chief amenity, the public realm. A healthy city has a better public realm, better streets, than suburbs. This is the one area in which suburbs cannot compete with downtowns. Density is necessary for this, but it is NOT sufficient- high density sprawl with no streetlife cannot compete with low density suburbia, which is why so many older suburbs are fading.

How do you get healthy streetlife? Mixed use. Without mixed use you have lunch-only restaurants in downtowns that die after dark.

Bring in activities used every day. Focus on (and subsidize if necessary) activities used regularly, NOT activities used once in a while. Yes to movies and restaurants used every day. No to football stadia used 8 times a year, or festivals that occur once a year.

2. Comfort- Cities must not only be safe, they must feel safe. It is not even enough to be as safe as 1950 Detroit, with less street crime than today but still plenty of beggars, trash, graffiti etc. Cities must feel as safe as suburbs do today. How does this work? Start with a few blocks; create more surveillance, both with cameras and by individual municipal officials. (On the other hand, in marginal neighborhoods where this is least practical, appeal to the risk-oblivious).

3. Schools- If you want families, you have to have schools which appeal to suburbia. If not, forget about families and appeal to singles and empty nesters. (Duany didn't speak about how to fix schools- wisely, given the complexity of the topic).

4. Predictability- Investors like predictability; suburbs provide predictability by ensuring that if you comply with their master plan, you can build instantly. To be fair, large suburban developments do require developers to run a political gauntlet. But smaller developments are permitted virtually instantly, because there is a master plan that allows development as of right. By contrast, in cities even smaller developments require NIMBY-fighting and lawyers. A strong plan is the remedy for this - cities should create comprehensive plans that allow development as of right and thus ensure that developers don't have to worry about rezoning, NIMBYism etc. In other words, given the ubiquity of zoning, planning actually means MORE property rights, not fewer, in an urban environment.

5. Retail- A lot of New Urbanists deplore out of town chains. But out of town chains often have better product selection and more appealing packaging, lighting etc. than "mom and pop" stores. A business district without national chains can't compete with suburbia. (It is not clear whether Duany thinks this is equally true of "Big Box" retail such as Wal-Mart).

6. Private governments- Suburbs have private governments (homeowners' associations, etc.) that are smaller, and thus more responsive, than city governments. If cities can duplicate this they will be more appealing.

The good news: just as traditional urbanism is infecting the suburbs, good government is infecting cities through business improvement districts that function as private governments.


Posted by lewyn at 10:26 AM EDT
Still more from CNU: the NIMBY veto

At a panel of developers, someone pointed out that several cities had neighborhood planning boards, and that they were "institutionalized NIMBYism."* I knew that Washington and Atlanta have neighborhood planning units, but I had always wondered what their function was. Now I know.

This illustrates a broader problem in planning theory: to what extent should neighbors have disproportionate impact in planning policy? The dominant American practice has been that neighbors should have an almost absolute veto. But this practice (institutionalized in the neighborhood planning boards) can and should be attacked from both the environmentalist left and the libertarian right. Libertarians should oppose the NIMBY veto on development because it means more regulation and thus more infringement on property rights. Environmentalists should oppose the NIMBY veto because it typically means less infill and lower density, thus leading to more sprawl development in outer suburbs with fewer neighbors to object.

The difficult question, for me is: what institutional mechanisms can we create that eliminate the NIMBY veto instead of magnifying the voice of NIMBYism?

*NIMBY= Not In My Back Yard


Posted by lewyn at 10:24 AM EDT
Still more from CNU

The CNU panel on comprehensive plans contained two very different perspectives: one on planning for a not-yet-built-out semirural area, and the other on planning for a big city.

Two panelists spoke on the latter, Matt Raimi (who discussed a mature Los Angeles suburb) and Steven Hammond (who discussed Sacramento). Both focused on mapping out existing neighborhood patterns and using visuals to show possible change. They emphasized that in a mature community, comprehensive plans will essentially reflect the status quo (a depressing possibility in many communities!). Raimi noted that his communities didn't react negatively to density as long as the city doesn't increase density in exisitng residential areas. Although Hammond was less blunt, he pointed out that the Sacramento plan will create numerous "neighborhood types" reflecting the status quo.

Given the planning system's bias in favor of the status quo, how can a plan promote more compact growth? Hammond emphasized (1) identifying "new" (that is, undeveloped) land within the city, and (2) allowing mixed use and higher intensity on streets that are already built for commerce and mixed use. (I wonder if such change would be enough to accommodate market demand for new housing, or whether people would still be forced into suburbia by housing shortages...)

More unusual was Marcela Camblor's presentation on planning in a 28-square mile area at the northern fringe in St. Lucie County- kind of the northern fringe of South Florida (since St Lucie is the county just north of suburbanized Palm Beach County). A few years ago, the county was stuck in an impossible situation due to the stupidity of prior generations of planners: the area in question was outside the urban service boundary, and was zoned for agriculture. So surely the comprehensive plan would be similarly phrased, right? WRONG! Instead, the comp plan provided for "business as usual" sprawl with one acre lots- a fact that incensed existing residents, who moved there precisely to get away from suburbia and to find a rural area.

So how could planners accommodate the collective desire for ruralness? Changing the comp plan to conform to existing zoning was out of the question for legal reasons; apparently, the county had already given developers reason to rely on the concept of SOMETHING being built, which means developers could challenge a "no build" comp plan in court. (I think the county's lawyers could have given a fascinating talk on the legal issues involved).

So the planners chose a smart growth plan as a remedy-allow developers to build, but only in "towns" and "villages" (500 acre parcels, with 60-75% of the land used for open space, and no maximum densities in the rest of the parcel). Camblor asserted that under this plan "sprawl is illegal"- no more 1 acre lots, just building within the towns and villages.

But how could such a plan respect developers' property rights? The plan provides for transferable development rights; if you don't own 500 acres of land, you can sell your right to develop smaller parcels to someone else who can aggregate those rights to build a town or village.

One concern: would this really be able to accommodate all market demand for housing? If density was truly unregulated, the plan might work. But the plan also contains height limits, which is kind of a hidden density regulatoin.


Posted by lewyn at 10:24 AM EDT
More from CNU

At CNU, I listened to Witold Rybczynski's keynote speech, which discussed his new book on real estate development (Last Harvest). A few interesting points:

1. He said: "For my generation, housing was architecture and architecture was housing." No wonder mixed use was taboo- if retail isn't "architecture", you're not going to push to put it near the houses!

2. He said that "We use words like 'sprawl' precisely to dehumanize the process." What is more dehumanizing (and less accurate) is sprawl advocates' use of generalities about "the American people" and "the American dream" to describe new sprawl development. How often have you heard the claim: "The people want sprawl! The people want the outer suburbs!" But when sprawl advocates say "The people" they really mean "The people who are now moving to the newest suburbs."

But those "people" are a small segment of the total population; most people are staying put at any given time. For example, when I lived in Buffalo, the newest "hot" outer suburbs, Clarence, Lancaster, and Orchard Park, had less than 10% of the region's population. About 30% still lived in the city of Buffalo, and at least that many lived in the first-ring suburbs adjoining the city (Amherst, Tonawanda, Cheektowaga, Lackawanna, and West Seneca). Are they not "people"? Are only new movers to new suburbs human beings?

And even these "people" don't necessarily want to live in sprawl. They may live in sprawl because they can't afford older suburbs (unlikely in a cheap region like Buffalo, but common in more prosperous regions). Or they may live in sprawl because their older suburb or city neighborhood is decaying (more likely in declining regions like Buffalo, less common in more prosperous regions).

3. He said that both NU and sprawl development are easier in the South than in the Northeast because people are more optimistic about the future, and thus about development. Is it really true that development is easier in the South? Or is development easier in smaller regions with more open land closer in? And is NIMBYism really less common in the South? I'm not sure - interesting avenue for further research, though.

4. He said that buyers in the project he researched (a greenfield NU project) were driven by "community" - that only the most social people were interested in living in this kind of project, and that people who thought they had enough friends were more interested in conventional big-lot suburbia. Is it community that drives people to NU or walkability? I would speculate that Rybczynksi is right in describing greenfield NU with not very much within walking distance, less right in describing more urban development. But that's just an educated guess.


Posted by lewyn at 10:23 AM EDT
CNU conference

I just got back from the Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org) conference in Philadelphia.

At one of the small group sessions, I heard a wonderful phrase describing what's going on in Philadelphia and some other cities: "BosTroit"- like Boston downtown (i.e. walkable, prosperous) and like Detroit in most of the outer neighborhoods between downtown and suburbia (i.e. poor, losing population).

For example, Philadelphia has a very strong downtown (like Boston) but is not quite as prosperous in the rest of the city, except for neighborhoods like Chestnut Hill just a mile or two from the city limits- thus, it is a "BosTroit" city.

By contrast, Buffalo exemplifies another postwar model: a weak downtown, and a city that gradually gets more and more prosperous (at least in one direction) the further from downtown you get.

Jacksonville seems to mix the two: before gentrification, it looked like Buffalo.  But the intown neighborhoods have been improving for a decade or two, and the downtown is beginning to revitalize.  But the 50s suburbs are in deep trouble: not walkable enough to benefit from intown gentrification, not new enough to be appealing to suburbanites.


Posted by lewyn at 10:22 AM EDT
Updated: Monday, 21 May 2007 10:23 AM EDT
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
future posts on smart growth/sprawl issues

I am going to be posting on this blog a bit less in the future; instead I will be putting new smart-growth related posts in the Congess for New Urbanism salons at www.cnu.org


Posted by lewyn at 7:42 PM EDT
Wednesday, 14 February 2007
a cute little piece by Michael Gartner (formerly of NBC News)
My father never drove a car. Well, that's not quite right. I should
>say I never saw him drive a car. He quit driving in 1927, when he
>was 25 years old, and the last car he drove was a 1926 Whippet.
>
>"In those days," he told me, when he was in his 90s, "to drive a car
>you had to do things with your hands, and do things with your feet,
>and look every which way, and I decided you could walk through life
>and enjoy it or drive through life and miss it."
>
>At which point my mother, a sometimes salty Irishwoman, chimed in:
>"Oh, bull____!" she said. "He hit a horse."
>
>Well," my father said, "there was that, too."
>
>So my brother and I grew up in a household without a car. The
>neighbors all had cars -- the Kollingses next door had a green 1941
>Dodge, the VanLaninghams across the street a gray 1936 Plymouth, the
>Hopsons two doors down a black 1941 Ford -- but we had none.
>
>My father, a newspaperman in Des Moines , would take the streetcar
>to work and, often as not, walk the 3 miles home.  If he took the
>streetcar home, my mother and brother and I would walk the three
>blocks to the streetcar stop, meet him and walk home together.
>
>My brother, David, was born in 1935, and I was born in 1938, and
>sometimes, at dinner, we'd ask how come all the neighbors had cars
>but we had none. "No one in the family drives," my mother would
>explain, and that was that. But, sometimes, my father would say,
>"But as soon as one of you boys turns 16, we'll get one."  It was as
>if he wasn't sure which one of us would turn 16 first.
>
>But, sure enough, my brother turned 16 before I did, so in 1951 my
>parents bought a used 1950 Chevrolet from a friend who ran the parts
>department at a Chevy dealership downtown. It was a four-door, white
>model, stick shift, fender skirts, loaded with everything, and,
>since my parents didn't drive, it more or less became my brother's
>car.
>
>Having a car but not being able to drive didn't bother my father,
>but it didn't make sense to my mother. So in 1952, when she was 43
>years old, she asked a friend to teach her to drive. She learned in
>a nearby cemetery, the place where I learned to drive the following
>year and where, a generation later, I took my two sons to practice
>driving.
>
>The cemetery probably was my father's idea.
>
>"Who can your mother hurt in the cemetery?" I remember him saying once.
>
>For the next 45 years or so, until she was 90, my mother was the
>driver in the family. Neither she nor my father had any sense of
>direction, but he loaded up on maps -- though they seldom left the
>city limits -- and appointed himself navigator. It seemed to work.
>
>Still, they both continued to walk a lot. My mother was a devout
>Catholic, and my father an equally devout agnostic, an arrangement
>that didn't seem to bother either of them through their 75 years of
>marriage. (Yes, 75 years, and they were deeply in love the entire
>time.)
>
>He retired when he was 70, and nearly every morning for the next 20
>years or so, he would walk with her the mile to St. Augustin's
>Church. She would walk down and sit in the front pew, and he would
>wait in the back until he saw which of the parish's two priests was
>on duty that morning.
>
>If it was the pastor, my father then would go out and take a 2-mile
>walk, meeting my mother at the end of the service and walking her
>home. If it was the assistant pastor, he'd take just a 1-mile walk
>and then head back to the church. He called the priests "Father
>Fast" and "Father Slow."
>
>After he retired, my father almost always accompanied my mother
>whenever she drove anywhere, even if he had no reason to go along.
>If she were going to the beauty parlor, he'd sit in the car and
>read, or go take a stroll or, if it was summer, have her keep the
>engine running so he could listen to the Cubs game on the radio.
>
>In the evening, then, when I'd stop by, he'd explain: "The Cubs lost
>again. The millionaire on second base made a bad throw to the
>millionaire on first base, so the multimillionaire on third base
>scored."
>
>If she were going to the grocery store, he would go along to carry
>the bags out -- and to make sure she loaded up on ice cream.
>
>As I said, he was always the navigator, and once, when he was 95 and
>she was 88 and still driving, he said to me, "Do you want to know
>the secret of a long life?"
>
>"I guess so," I said, knowing it probably would be something bizarre.
>
>"No left turns," he said.
>
>"What?" I asked.
>
>"No left turns," he repeated. "Several years ago, your mother and I
>read an article that said most accidents that old people are in
>happen when they turn left in front of oncoming traffic. As you get
>older, your eyesight worsens, and you can lose your depth
>perception, it said. So your mother and I decided never again to
>make a left turn."  "What?" I said again.  "No left turns," he said.
>"Think about it. Three rights are the same as a left, and that's a
>lot safer. So we always make three rights." "You're kidding!" I
>said, and I turned to my mother for support.
>
>"No," she said, "your father is right. We make three rights. It
>works." But then she added: "Except when your father loses count."
>
>I was driving at the time, and I almost drove off the road as I
>started laughing. "Loses count?" I asked. "Yes," my father admitted,
>"that sometimes happens. But it's not a problem. You just make seven
>rights, and you're okay again."  I couldn't resist. "Do you ever go
>for 11?" I asked.
>
>"No," he said. "If we miss it at seven, we just come home and call
>it a bad day. Besides, nothing in life is so important it can't be
>put off another day or another week."
>
>My mother was never in an accident, but one evening she handed me
>her car keys and said she had decided to quit driving. That was in
>1999, when she was 90. She lived four more years, until 2003. My
>father died the next year, at 102. They both died in the bungalow
>they had moved into in 1937 and bought a few years later for $3,000.
>(Sixty years later, my brother and I paid $8,000 to have a shower
>put in the tiny bathroom -- the house had never had one. My father
>would have died then and there if he knew the shower cost nearly
>three times what he paid for the house.)
>
>He continued to walk daily -- he had me get him a treadmill when he
>was 101 because he was afraid he'd fall on the icy sidewalks but
>wanted to keep exercising -- and he was of sound mind and sound body
>until the moment he died.
>
>One September afternoon in 2004, he and my son went with me when I
>had to give a talk in a neighboring town, and it was clear to all
>three of us that he was wearing out, though we had the usual
>wide-ranging conversation about politics and newspapers and things
>in the news. A few weeks earlier, he had told my son, "You know,
>Mike, the first hundred years are a lot easier than the second
>hundred." At one point in our drive that Saturday, he said, "You
>know, I'm probably not going to live much longer."  "You're probably
>right," I said. "Why would you say that?" He countered, somewhat
>irritated. "Because you're 102 years old," I said. "Yes," he said,
>"you're right." He stayed in bed all the next day.
>
>That night, I suggested to my son and daughter that we sit up with
>him through the night. He appreciated it, he said, though at one
>point, apparently seeing us look gloomy, he said: "I would like to
>make an announcement. No one in this room is dead yet."
>
>An hour or so later, he spoke his last words:
>
>"I want you to know," he said, clearly and lucidly, "that I am in no
>pain. I am very comfortable. And I have had as happy a life as
>anyone on this earth could ever have." A short time later, he died.
>
>I miss him a lot, and I think about him a lot. I've wondered now and
>then how it was that my family and I were so lucky that he lived so
>long.
>
>I can't figure out if it was because he walked through life.
>
>Or because he quit taking left turns..........



Posted by lewyn at 5:12 PM EST

Newer | Latest | Older