U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 04-30-2011, 05:13 PM
Location: Wilmington, NC
30 posts, read 72,506 times
Reputation: 46


Between work and recreation, I've been in almost every part of NC, and I've seen the good and the bad of what NC does to conserve its natural areas (pretty well, actually). I've seen how we maintained the coast (beautifully) and the swaths of land that disappeared in the mountains in the past few years.

What I haven't done is travelled SC as extensively. I've heard that SC is more willing to knock these types of areas over, particularly to further its tourism industry, but I'm not buying it as true or false. I just haven't been able to see it for myself (yet), so I'm doing the next-best thing and asking those who know the areas intimately: how well does SC take care of its natural areas compared to NC?

Last edited by Jeep Guy; 04-30-2011 at 05:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 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, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top