U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Rural and Small Town Living
 [Register]
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)
View Poll Results: What do you think about preserving rural living?
I'm all for it, I hate urbanization 45 60.81%
I see the point of it, but balance is what we need 24 32.43%
It's pointless, how is a place to ever grow?t 3 4.05%
I couldn't care less. 2 2.70%
Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-18-2010, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Cody, WY
9,785 posts, read 11,271,488 times
Reputation: 19767

Advertisements

I was unable to vote in the poll as there was no acceptable choice. While I hate urbanization. I hate government intrusion even more. If I lived in an area where this were happening, I'd move.

Government intrusion and the people who support it drove me from Colorado. Urbanization was, compared to government as the savior, trivial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2010, 11:42 AM
 
48,516 posts, read 85,110,846 times
Reputation: 18083
I use to have a place and my firends in rural areas. i am talking about a area that did not have but maybe one doctor with a clinc within 30 miles of most. As modern medicine made so mnay advances that required really investent in a area;you saw change, As people got older most actaully moved when their heath chaged or just died on the land earlier. The i saw alot of people miove rural as they retired and often saw them reach a poit where they had to move or face real risk they had never considered. Mos now days at least want a town wit a modern hosital very close as time is more and more a critical factor in heart and stroke recover results. Even having a doctor in many rural areas has become a problem.that is becoming the real decison that people again have to make especailly when goign rural i this modern expensive age of medcine. It certainly chnaged my mind about retiring to a rural area as I aged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 02:44 PM
 
Location: CasaMo
15,592 posts, read 7,664,347 times
Reputation: 17159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming View Post
I was unable to vote in the poll as there was no acceptable choice. While I hate urbanization. I hate government intrusion even more. If I lived in an area where this were happening, I'd move.

Government intrusion and the people who support it drove me from Colorado. Urbanization was, compared to government as the savior, trivial.
Exactly. And I brought up a shining example in my last post. And then some will tell me "Yeah, but as long as its reasonable and doesn't go too far.."

When has that ever happened??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,736,591 times
Reputation: 3364
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac View Post
We have strict zoning here in rural central Minnesota ( farm country)

My area is zoned A-40 which means there can only be 1 house per 40 acres.

Some areas are zoned A-80 and a some A-160
I've lived in areas with similar zoning. The one exemption to the zoning that seemed to work in those areas was allowing more than one domicile on the acreage only if it was for a member of the family or for farmhands. I think that allowing more than one home on the acreage could be allowed as long as it's directly related to the farm itself and can't be platted out and sold off separately. That seems reasonable to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 04:47 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
34,458 posts, read 43,307,926 times
Reputation: 44140
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandorafan5687 View Post
Not necessarily, when I say build a home, why not have it built far back from the street? Why not have the sides and the back w/ much yard also. And also if the amount of homes is limited, it does not have to be a sprawl. I've rode around, and I've seen homes build out in the country, where some will still raise animals.

B/c generally speaking, McMansions don't have much yard, their home takes up all the yard.

Different areas have different rules. Here the base zoning is/was 5 acre lots outside the Town Center. That chewed up a lot of land until the brakes were thrown on. It still is 5 acres but now the houses have to be clustered with the remaining acreage remaining as green space. And there are ways around that using transferrable development rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 05:44 PM
 
9,807 posts, read 13,685,341 times
Reputation: 8170
Clustering is allowed where I am ( A-40)

However , it is done for preserving farm land .

Example........the owner of 160 acres with no buildings gets a cluster variance that allows him to sell 4 ( 2 acre) lots in a small woods.

He keeps the remaining 152 acres to farm, but gives up the right to build in the future as he already used up the 4 building spots for those 160 acres.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2010, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Lake Charles, LA
2,196 posts, read 2,450,550 times
Reputation: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming View Post
I was unable to vote in the poll as there was no acceptable choice. While I hate urbanization. I hate government intrusion even more. If I lived in an area where this were happening, I'd move.

Government intrusion and the people who support it drove me from Colorado. Urbanization was, compared to government as the savior, trivial.
Unfortunately, you can't have rural land or urbanization w/o government intrusion to some extent. Imagine if there was NO government intrusion whatsoever, there would be absolutely no stability. If you know of a way we can have balance w/o the intrusion of the government, please let me know I'd be all for it. I don't mind them intruding by stating that some land some be preserved, as long as I can plant what I want in MY yard, and I'm not told that I can't have a swimming pool or in MY yard. You know what I mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2010, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
1,954 posts, read 4,557,530 times
Reputation: 1826
What is meant by "urbanization" in this poll? Does it mean a return to city life? Increased sprawl due to suburban growth encroaching on rural lands?

I think we should preserve are natural lands as much as possible with good planning. I'm all for cities being vibrant and rural lands staying the way they are. We are wasteful and have too much expansion of our cities (sprawl) that uses up land and also takes away from the health of our urban centers.

The thing the worries me about small town life is that many small towns are becoming economically obsolete, and I'm not sure how that problem can be solved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2010, 11:21 PM
 
Location: Lake Charles, LA
2,196 posts, read 2,450,550 times
Reputation: 737
urbanization is just that, urbanizing an area. Which to some extent is needed, but when done excessively, you take away crop sources which your meals heavily rely on. And unfortunately good planning is something that so many planners lack today. Well it's not that they lack the ability, it's that they want to maximize their profits by building as many homes on one slab of land(i.e. the home are so close that you can shake your neighbors hand by reaching out of your window).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2010, 07:51 AM
 
9,807 posts, read 13,685,341 times
Reputation: 8170
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandorafan5687 View Post
urbanization is just that, urbanizing an area. Which to some extent is needed, but when done excessively, you take away crop sources which your meals heavily rely on. And unfortunately good planning is something that so many planners lack today. Well it's not that they lack the ability, it's that they want to maximize their profits by building as many homes on one slab of land(i.e. the home are so close that you can shake your neighbors hand by reaching out of your window).
Nobody is forced to buy them.

Yup, many people who don't have a pot to pitz in, want a new house with a few acres.

They should be thankfull they get their new house on a tiny lot.
Very thankfull..........cuz they sure couldn't afford a new house if it came with acreage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
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
Message:

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 > General Forums > Rural and Small Town Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:03 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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