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.
It isn't up to the elites , being car free or less dependent on foreign oil is kicking it to the Elites and Corporate big wigs.... Thats why the the lifestyle of living car free lifestyle is growing in the Northeast ,and those towns are growing where you don't have to connected to your car 24/7 to live. You have the option of Walking / Biking or taking Mass Transit to do your day....and thus those towns do fine when gas raises...residents reduce there driving habits to a few times a week and they do the Alts more which means more freedom. And before you say our suburbs were because of Agenda 21 , most were built back in the 1890s as Railroad Suburbs....or in the 1920s as walkable suburbs of cities... As of the recent census in the Northeast , 60% of the population lives in a Urbanized or Walkable Suburb , 15% live in Cities and 25% live in Exurbs which are expected to start to die later this decade...due to oil prices and commuting habits changing.
There are also disadvantages. What happens when the gubmint shuts down the light rail system and you are without a car and you want to get somewhere?
What happens when you start to see places you regularly visited are not off limits and they are owned by the gubmint or corporations?
What happens when they've packed everyone into villages like sardines as per their "desired density levels" as the Greenville plan refers to and are sick of it and what their space back?
The whole sustainability/environmental thing is a CROCK. There is enough land in New Zealand for every man woman and child on the face of the earth to all live with something like 1/4 acre each of land and still have land left over in New Zealand not to mention all the other continents would be empty and free to recover from all of human kinds dastardly deeds of harming it.
There is NO NEED to crowd people into certain sections of Greenville for "sustainable development". It isn't about sustainable development. It is about controlling the masses; stealing their assets and leaving them at a huge disadvantage while making them think this is a good thing for them.
It is about controlling the masses; stealing their assets and leaving them at a huge disadvantage while making them think this is a good thing for them.
....which is kind of the whole Progressive philosophy in a nutshell. We really must fight these things once we're aware of them.
There are also disadvantages. What happens when the gubmint shuts down the light rail system and you are without a car and you want to get somewhere?
Walk. We've been doing that for a very long time.
What happens when (and this is a much more likely/common scenario) you're living out in the country, and your car breaks down? Or, what if there is a severe snowstorm, and "the gubmint" doesn't plow your street?
Quote:
What happens when you start to see places you regularly visited are not off limits and they are owned by the gubmint or corporations?
Sometimes, when access to a place is restricted, it's because they are trying to preserve it. People are very hard on places--leaving trash, trampling vegetation, etc. The places where access is restricted, are very fragile, and can't take that kind of abuse. Other times, access to a place is restricted to prevent contamination. For example, people aren't allowed near the Meander Reservoir around here, because it's the source of drinking water for much of the Youngstown Metro.
If it's owned by a corporation, wouldn't it be private property, anyway?
Quote:
What happens when they've packed everyone into villages like sardines as per their "desired density levels" as the Greenville plan refers to and are sick of it and what their space back?
Well, if the people who CHOSE to live in those urban villages decide they want more space, they can CHOOSE to move to one of this country's thousands of sprawly suburbs.
Oh, and as I understand the concept, "desired density levels" refers to a cap on density--a target to shoot for, but not exceed. Municipalities have been doing this since zoning laws were invented. Usually, though, the goal was for low density.
Quote:
The whole sustainability/environmental thing is a CROCK. There is enough land in New Zealand for every man woman and child on the face of the earth to all live with something like 1/4 acre each of land and still have land left over in New Zealand not to mention all the other continents would be empty and free to recover from all of human kinds dastardly deeds of harming it.
Who told you that?!? There are about 66.4 million acres in New Zealand. 66.4 x 4 = 265.6. There are a lot more than 266 million people on earth.
Quote:
There is NO NEED to crowd people into certain sections of Greenville for "sustainable development". It isn't about sustainable development. It is about controlling the masses; stealing their assets and leaving them at a huge disadvantage while making them think this is a good thing for them.
If there is no "demand" for sustainable development in Greenville, then developers won't "supply" it. That's how the free market works.
There are also disadvantages. What happens when the gubmint shuts down the light rail system and you are without a car and you want to get somewhere?
What happens when you start to see places you regularly visited are not off limits and they are owned by the gubmint or corporations?
What happens when they've packed everyone into villages like sardines as per their "desired density levels" as the Greenville plan refers to and are sick of it and what their space back?
The whole sustainability/environmental thing is a CROCK. There is enough land in New Zealand for every man woman and child on the face of the earth to all live with something like 1/4 acre each of land and still have land left over in New Zealand not to mention all the other continents would be empty and free to recover from all of human kinds dastardly deeds of harming it.
There is NO NEED to crowd people into certain sections of Greenville for "sustainable development". It isn't about sustainable development. It is about controlling the masses; stealing their assets and leaving them at a huge disadvantage while making them think this is a good thing for them.
Its very rare for the Govt to restrict access to public lands unless there is Contamination or something else harmful to humans. Most of that can be cleaned up and is usually returned to the public , if its private that almost never happens. There are alot of private parks here and they close early and have more restrictions then Govt parks....
Yes , but after the 1970s in the Northeast shutting down Rail lines without an alt option is rare unless the line is endanger of collapsing....and all those lines that have been ripped up pre-1970 are coming back by 2030 thanks to public pressure and population growth.
Have you every visited an older Suburb of the NE , most of these smart growth plans follow those blueprints , your not packed in like Packrats... You get a decently sized piece of property and house size , with the exception of Mc Mansions which are banned in many towns and disliked by residents. There really aren't any desired Density levels for Greenville , there aren't any up here either Dense growth happens naturally. It is unlikely to occur outside the CBD down there.
I wasn't going to post on this, but it has gotten to be too much for me not too. How many of you frequent Falls Park? Do like it? Do you think its awesome? and serves the greater community? Well I have news for you, the land was privately owned and the city used eminent domain to possess it. Boom. The government at work. Guess yah can't go downtown now. Oh and you say all of this is for the government to steal your money? Ok. That makes sense. not. For every vehicle sold that qualifies for the 7500 dollar tax credit i.e. the Nissan Leaf, it loses that money. And I'm pretty sure the Bible commands us to be good stewards of the earth, developing less land and creating density helps with that. I'm pretty sure the Bible isn't in cohorts with the American Government, just saying. On top of that no one is forcing you to live in high density housing , you have the choice. It just turns out that the market is demanding high density housing. Actually the world is re-urbaninizing, on its own. Geeez people, you can have an opinion, but base it on facts. And if the facts don't agree with your opinion please don't call it a conspiracy.
What happens when (and this is a much more likely/common scenario) you're living out in the country, and your car breaks down? Or, what if there is a severe snowstorm, and "the gubmint" doesn't plow your street?
Those are risks a free person takes on his/her own. They balance the pros/cons of that kind of decision for themselves. Someone choosing to live in a rural area knows ahead of time there will not be those kinds of city services.
Those are risks a free person takes on his/her own. They balance the pros/cons of that kind of decision for themselves. Someone choosing to live in a rural area knows ahead of time there will not be those kinds of city services.
The same could be said for those who choose to live in an urban environment.
Those are risks a free person takes on his/her own. They balance the pros/cons of that kind of decision for themselves. Someone choosing to live in a rural area knows ahead of time there will not be those kinds of city services.
There are far too many illogical arguments in this thread. Someone asks "what happens when the government shuts down light rail? How would you get to work?" The same argument could be made about roads. What if the government decides that it no longer wants to fill pot holes? In fact that could already be argued to be true today. SCDOT doesn't have enough money to keep roads maintained (whether that's because of mismanagement or a low gas tax is a different discussion). What if the government decides it doesn't want to plow the snow of the roads or deice them? How are you going to get to work?
Of course, the probability of either of these things happening to such an extent that it would be unbearably difficult for you to get to work is quite low.
Let's not get into the big government arguments. Choosing to live in suburban sprawl or a rural area increases government spending because of the amount of money that needs to be raised/spent to build and maintain the roads to your low density neighborhood. Building roads in an urban area is more efficient and costs less per person because of the higher density.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
We've been doing that for a very long time.
There are about 66.4 million acres in New Zealand. 66.4 x 4 = 265.6. There are a lot more than 266 million people on earth.
