A (not so) Brief History of Hampton Roads (Virginia Beach: taxes, to live in)

[Spazkat9696]

Originally Posted by rtandc

I dont see those numbers....Va Bch does not have enough open land to build on to add another 250K residents unless they do away with the green line and allow cluster building in southern Va Bch.... The biggest growth Va Bch had was during the 50's, 60's and 70's by far and numbers like those will never be able to be reached again

I hope not, but I'd say that is what is going to happen. Isn't Landstown commons on/in the Green Line??

[cityboi757]

Originally Posted by Spazkat9696

I hope not, but I'd say that is what is going to happen. Isn't Landstown commons on/in the Green Line??

OMG you guys are so confusing.

You don't want to breach the greenline, yet you are all against dense, urban redevelopmet around the light rail that would counteract sprawl.

[Spazkat9696]

How about we just keep steady where we are?? Why must we grow??

[cityboi757]

Originally Posted by Spazkat9696

How about we just keep steady where we are?? Why must we grow??

It's inevitable. It will happen whether you want it to or not. With the expansion of the port we will have a huge surplus of jobs, meaning growth.

[GeorgiaTransplant]

Originally Posted by Spazkat9696

How about we just keep steady where we are?? Why must we grow??

Because if you grow in a limited area, your populations density increases. That's common sense, duh, but-from another forum where you are arguing against light rail.

Originally Posted by Spazkat9696

You're correct the interstates are a money pits. I rarely use them. I think people should live close to their work and shopping.

I agree. They should live close to their work and shopping. That's a lot easier when there is more work and shopping AVAILABLE near where you live. Thus, growth and increased density. Your own thesis-live near work and shopping. Obvious solution: density.

Light rail not only feeds off that, it ASSISTS that because new businesses and homes locate near stops-see Portland, Oregon for a great example of growth, in a limited urban area, shaped by light rail. It's darn near DC metro level in some areas-you don't need a car to get almost anything done. And I think that's a great thing.

[Spazkat9696]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant

Because if you grow in a limited area, your populations density increases. That's common sense, duh, but-from another forum where you are arguing against light rail.



I agree. They should live close to their work and shopping. That's a lot easier when there is more work and shopping AVAILABLE near where you live. Thus, growth and increased density. Your own thesis-live near work and shopping. Obvious solution: density.

Light rail not only feeds off that, it ASSISTS that because new businesses and homes locate near stops-see Portland, Oregon for a great example of growth, in a limited urban area, shaped by light rail. It's darn near DC metro level in some areas-you don't need a car to get almost anything done. And I think that's a great thing.

I'm sorry is this the light rail thread???

[rtandc]

Originally Posted by Spazkat9696

I hope not, but I'd say that is what is going to happen. Isn't Landstown commons on/in the Green Line??

No the green line in that section of Va Bch runs anything south of Indian River Rd

[GeorgiaTransplant]

Originally Posted by Spazkat9696

I'm sorry is this the light rail thread???

It is when you argue AGAINST density in one thread, then ***** and whine about how rail won't work because...not enough density.

You're arguing against yourself and being disingenuous with this zinger. Are you FOR or AGAINST additional population density? If you're against, fine. Now go back and rethink your arguments about why light rail WON'T work in the other thread....otherwise you're saying
a) I'm against population density
b) Light rail won't work because the population isn't dense enough
c) I'm AGAINST light rail because it would LEAD to population density
d) Go to a, so the metro never advances

[Spazkat9696]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant

It is when you argue AGAINST density in one thread, then ***** and whine about how rail won't work because...not enough density.

Or wait, maybe there IS enough density. Just not population.

See there is where you are wrong. I don't want the light rail because I think it is not a necessity in the current economic climate. The number of residents that will benefit from the light rail does not justify the cost. The city is looking at ways to cut the budget. Class sizes are increasing, and the city is asking if people would prefer layoffs or a decrease in hours. For me the cost to benefit factor is not there, and will not be there for many years to come. I would be all for it if I thought the cost was worth the benefit, but IMO it is not. Sure there are grants, but they will not cover everything. The upkeep alone will cost millions, and lets not forget about the start up costs and the inevitable construction cost overruns.

[Spazkat9696]

GeorgiaTransplant
My responses are in red

It is when you argue AGAINST density in one thread, then ***** and whine about how rail won't work because...not enough density.

You're arguing against yourself and being disingenuous with this zinger. Are you FOR or AGAINST additional population density? If you're against, fine. Now go back and rethink your arguments about why light rail WON'T work in the other thread....otherwise you're saying
a) I'm against population density true
b) Light rail won't work because the population isn't dense enough thank goodness!! I like my space.
c) I'm AGAINST light rail because it would LEAD to population density That and I don't see the benifit being worth the cost
d) Go to a, so the metro never advances I've been here my whole life (other than a year each in Anchorage and San Diego). How long have you been here?? Not everyone wants growth. Growth isn't always the best thing for an area.