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.
regardless, this discussion is silly, and we have to thank for this, all the liberal teachers, who imposs they're believes on students....no one, is going to tell me where to live, and I hope not my son and greand daughter as well. But I fear, socialists out number conservatives, unfortunately, this is just the beginning....what sodas to buy, even at work in our cafe, they took away the big cups, which I used for water every day. This is appauling...what is happening to this country is an embarrassment....as liberals say, if it works, fix it? Our government has sold us out, and McCain, when I saw you plead for the immigrants, it made me sick...
And what in that list you gave do you not agree with? Are you against giving citizens choices?
Urban blight is the effect of people moving further away from the core without new residents of equal or better incomes replacing them.
No wonder yo have no clue what you are even talking about, you cannot even give the correct definition of the things you are arguing about or trying to push....so sad...and embarrassing, for you anyway...
Quote:
23.2 Urban Blight
In the developed world, the other end of the exurban migration is the city from which people are moving. Exurban migration is the major factor underlying an urban decay, or blight, that has occurred over the last 60 years. A completely different set of factors is responsible for urban blight in the developing world. In that case, people are moving to the cities at a rate that far exceeds the capacity of the cities to assimilate them. The result is urban slums that surround virtually every city in the poorer developing countries. UN–HABITAT estimates that over 800 million people live in urban slums in the developing world, often under conditions so squalid that they defy description. (Boorse 599)
Boorse, Richard T. Wright and Dorothy. Environmental Science, 11th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions. <vbk:9781256080008#outline(27.3)>.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Urban sprawl is a general term that includes suburban sprawl, urban growth boundaries prevent that and preserve rural land. Is there something wrong with preserving our rural land? Why do you want to displace people in the country?
Wrong again, this is where you lefties have problems with your message, urban sprawl is NOT protecting our rural land, however smart growth is a program that is attempting to push back urban sprawl.
Quote:
urban sprawl
The widespread expansion of metropolitan areas through building houses and shopping centers farther and farther from urban centers and lacing them together with more and more major highways, usually without planning. (Boorse 656)
Boorse, Richard T. Wright and Dorothy. Environmental Science, 11th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions. <vbk:9781256080008#outline(32)>.
Quote:
Smart Growth
A movement that addresses urban sprawl by protecting sensitive lands and directing growth to limited areas. (Boorse 653)
Boorse, Richard T. Wright and Dorothy. Environmental Science, 11th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions. <vbk:9781256080008#outline(32)>.
No wonder yo have no clue what you are even talking about, you cannot even give the correct definition of the things you are arguing about or trying to push....so sad...and embarrassing, for you anyway...
Wrong again, this is where you lefties have problems with your message, urban sprawl is NOT protecting our rural land, however smart growth is a program that is attempting to push back urban sprawl.
Thanks for giving formal definitions to the exact same things I just said. The fact that you repeated the same thing I said yet try and pretend that isn't what i said is laughable at best.
So I guess, thank you for agreeing with me with being against unplanned growth that consumes rural land as it pushes further away from cities that it leaves behind to decay. Though not all cities are like this, a number of them have figured out ways to reverse this effect and have healthy thriving cities people can be proud of today.
Thanks for giving formal definitions to the exact same things I just said. The fact that you repeated the same thing I said yet try and pretend that isn't what i said is laughable at best.
So I guess, thank you for agreeing with me with being against unplanned growth that consumes rural land as it pushes further away from cities that it leaves behind to decay. Though not all cities are like this, a number of them have figured out ways to reverse this effect and have healthy thriving cities people can be proud of today.
You are a certian kinda special...bless your heart....
Lets re-cap:
you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Urban blight is the effect of people moving further away from the core without new residents of equal or better incomes replacing them.
You say they are moving away from cities, but that is clearly not the case nor the definiation that wsa provided to you, now was it....your reading comprehension....do you have it...
Quote:
A completely different set of factors is responsible for urban blight in the developing world. In that case, people are moving to the cities at a rate that far exceeds the capacity of the cities to assimilate them.
IN the developing world (which would be the United States) Urban Blight, people are moving TO the cities....you clearly stated they were moving AWAY from the cities....
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Urban sprawl is a general term that includes suburban sprawl, urban growth boundaries prevent that and preserve rural land. Is there something wrong with preserving our rural land? Why do you want to displace people in the country?
Now, lets look at urban sprawl, you stated they are there to preserve the land when the definition of urban sprawl clearly states "Without planning" so please inform us of "without planning" how does that preserve rural lands.....
Quote:
The widespread expansion of metropolitan areas through building houses and shopping centers farther and farther from urban centers and lacing them together with more and more major highways, usually without planning. (Boorse 656)
Boorse, Richard T. Wright and Dorothy. Environmental Science, 11th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions. <vbk:9781256080008#outline(32)>.
You are a certian kinda special...bless your heart....
Lets re-cap:
you said
You say they are moving away from cities, but that is clearly not the case nor the definiation that wsa provided to you, now was it....your reading comprehension....do you have it...
IN the developing world (which would be the United States) Urban Blight, people are moving TO the cities....you clearly stated they were moving AWAY from the cities....
Now, lets look at urban sprawl, you stated they are there to preserve the land when the definition of urban sprawl clearly states "Without planning" so please inform us of "without planning" how does that preserve rural lands.....
First off we haven't been a developing country in a long, long time, we are a developed country. Second, people moving to a city doesn't cause Urban Blight, people of lower financial classes is what causes Urban Blight, which means my statement is still correct. If you go by your idea of the definition, people moving to the suburbs creates suburban blight, which is incorrect if the people who are moving to the suburbs are financially stable and well off. The same can be true for cities, if people moving to a city have money and financial stability, then they are not creating Urban Blight.
Obviously you misread what I wrote, I never said Urban Sprawl preserves rural land, you are assuming that urban sprawl only means urban, when in actuality it includes suburban and urban, therefore unplanned suburban sprawl is what eats up our rural land, if we are better planning our urban and suburban areas, we learn to live off of less land so that more land can be preserved for country and farm land.
First off we haven't been a developing country in a long, long time, we are a developed country. Second, people moving to a city doesn't cause Urban Blight, people of lower financial classes is what causes Urban Blight, which means my statement is still correct. If you go by your idea of the definition, people moving to the suburbs creates suburban blight, which is incorrect if the people who are moving to the suburbs are financially stable and well off. The same can be true for cities, if people moving to a city have money and financial stability, then they are not creating Urban Blight.
Obviously you misread what I wrote, I never said Urban Sprawl preserves rural land, you are assuming that urban sprawl only means urban, when in actuality it includes suburban and urban, therefore unplanned suburban sprawl is what eats up our rural land, if we are better planning our urban and suburban areas, we learn to live off of less land so that more land can be preserved for country and farm land.
You win....but don't worry, I'll be sure to tell my college that they are putting out bad information...
Continue to twist words in ways they never were meant, even when showing you direct quotes from a book....you're right they are wrong...
Have fun with your misinformation, be sure to tell all your friends what we have learned here today, that way you and them are on your way to....well who knows....
You win....but don't worry, I'll be sure to tell my college that they are putting out bad information...
Continue to twist words in ways they never were meant, even when showing you direct quotes from a book....you're right they are wrong...
Have fun with your misinformation, be sure to tell all your friends what we have learned here today, that way you and them are on your way to....well who knows....
Actually your college probably put out correct information, but it is clear one of their students wasn't paying close attention. But hey, you keep pretending that unplanned suburban development is a good thing for the country.
hey how is that MSNBC kool-aid drinking Chris Mathews and Rachael Maddow doing these days?
Do they still have their noses up Obamas ass?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Well I can just watch Fox News viewers' brain cells dying as they watch this pure 100% high octane garbage. Thanks for the laugh with this video clip. So basically this idiot is wanting the country to move in "stupid growth."
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.
