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.
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.
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.
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.."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
