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 won't hide the fact I hate cities and so I find urban sprawl disgusting. It's bad for the environment, eats up valuable farmland and wilderness, makes the population density unbearable, etc. I'm caught between my libertarian political leanings and concern for the environment with this. I'm quite anti- over-development, what I see going on in parts of VT (Burlington, Rutland, etc.) disgusts me (sprawl, big box store after big box store with fast food joints and gas stations in between) but, also hate government intervention in people's lives, heavy taxes, regulations, etc. I don't think there is a solution that can be imposed, but we can have the government stop encouraging it. The government encourages it through subsidizing transportation costs (road construction, fuel, etc.) in varying degrees, bringing "services" to areas knowing it will result in sprawl, overtaxing one area driving people to another, etc. If the government refused to pave rural roads, refused to remove snow, refused to bring in city water and sewer, refused to force electric utilities to make power available, refused to add streetlighting, build schools, etc., in rural areas, it would effectively stop or slow down development without in fact telling people they can't build there. I'm myself moving to a remote area, to escape the urban, over-developed hell the rest of the country is becoming due to sprawl. I don't want it following me. If there's a proposal to pave the dirt road, I'll oppose it. If there's a proposal to organize/incorporate the area, proposals to build more utilities/etc., I'll oppose it all. I want most people to stay away. I'm not entirely anti-social but, I don't want an area to be attractive to most people, it brings too much development. I prefer living without running water or electricity than living in a rat cage in a city or suburb. Cities and suburbs make me feel imprisoned while in them, to be honest. The pavement is hot and unnatural to walk on, the car fumes, people packed on top of one another, the inability to do many things, the lack of nature. Feels like a prison to me. So, I do think something needs to be done to stop its spread but the problem is what can be done that does not make the government too powerful.
This development is not sustainable and things will come down like a house of cards as it becomes difficult or impossible to sustain the constant growth notion of capitalism. Constant growth is only possible until you get slightly past the natural limits of the earth, at which point things will get nasty for most people, as resources are scarce and there are more people than can be supported.
The government also subsidizes services for city residents, such as public transportation. It's not a one-way street. The population is growing. People have to live somewhere.
I won't hide the fact I hate cities and so I find urban sprawl disgusting. It's bad for the environment, eats up valuable farmland and wilderness, makes the population density unbearable, etc. I'm caught between my libertarian political leanings and concern for the environment with this. I'm quite anti- over-development, what I see going on in parts of VT (Burlington, Rutland, etc.) disgusts me (sprawl, big box store after big box store with fast food joints and gas stations in between) but, also hate government intervention in people's lives, heavy taxes, regulations, etc. I don't think there is a solution that can be imposed, but we can have the government stop encouraging it. The government encourages it through subsidizing transportation costs (road construction, fuel, etc.) in varying degrees, bringing "services" to areas knowing it will result in sprawl, overtaxing one area driving people to another, etc. If the government refused to pave rural roads, refused to remove snow, refused to bring in city water and sewer, refused to force electric utilities to make power available, refused to add streetlighting, build schools, etc., in rural areas, it would effectively stop or slow down development without in fact telling people they can't build there. I'm myself moving to a remote area, to escape the urban, over-developed hell the rest of the country is becoming due to sprawl. I don't want it following me. If there's a proposal to pave the dirt road, I'll oppose it. If there's a proposal to organize/incorporate the area, proposals to build more utilities/etc., I'll oppose it all. I want most people to stay away. I'm not entirely anti-social but, I don't want an area to be attractive to most people, it brings too much development. I prefer living without running water or electricity than living in a rat cage in a city or suburb. Cities and suburbs make me feel imprisoned while in them, to be honest. The pavement is hot and unnatural to walk on, the car fumes, people packed on top of one another, the inability to do many things, the lack of nature. Feels like a prison to me. So, I do think something needs to be done to stop its spread but the problem is what can be done that does not make the government too powerful.
This development is not sustainable and things will come down like a house of cards as it becomes difficult or impossible to sustain the constant growth notion of capitalism. Constant growth is only possible until you get slightly past the natural limits of the earth, at which point things will get nasty for most people, as resources are scarce and there are more people than can be supported.
Arctichomesteader, you make some good points. I myself have libertarian leanings and can't stand the government getting involved in things that are individual choices. I can understand the desire to not improve certain rural areas so they don't get 'discovered' by the masses. Once an area becomes 'known', the public is sure to follow with all the problems that brings. However, a lot of areas do get developed because the local govenments want the additional tax revenue, even though this eventually leads to the need to spend more money on services. You just don't get ahead of the game since more people demand more services so taxes must go up.
However, certain rural areas that are on the fringes of development literally have no chance to escape being developed. I myself hate to see farm areas torn down and turned into subdivisions, but people have to live somewhere. It's just that those rural areas near the sprawl are in the wrong place at the wrong time and they will inevitibly be developed. If our population keeps increasing, this is unavoidable and not everyone wants to live in a city environment, myself included.
However, remote areas far away from large urban areas can maintain their rural character. I'll be moving to North Dakota in the next couple of years and I sure don't want it to be developed like the city and suburbs of Chicago. I want North Dakota to stay rural and maintain its historical rural roots. I want to get away from all the problems that large masses of people bring - crime, gangs, congestion, high taxes, neighbors that don't mind their own business, etc. I'm not one to ask for additional city services and the taxes that come with it. If I have to take my garbage to a dump, I have no problem with that. If there isn't a local library, I'm OK with that also.
I find nothing wrong with sprawl. No one has the right to tell other people how to live. Not everybody wants to live in stuffy cities, cramped by humanity at all times. I find growth boundaries and big-box ordinances to be unconstitutional. The government does not have a right to draw a line around a city and then tell people they cannot develop outside of that line. We aren't pigs. The government also doesn't have the right to limit create ordinances limiting Wal-Mart Supercenters, Super Targets, and Super K-Marts in an attempt to curtail suburban-style growth.
Sprawl is profitable. It is much cheaper to develop on the outskirts of most cities than it is in the core. People should have a right to live as far out as they want to without their decisions described as "asinine." I don't think it's asinine for people to earn higher wages by working the city and wanting to live cheaply on the periphery. I don't think it's asinine for people to want to live in communities that are generally safer than cities. I don't think it's asinine for people to want their children to attend schools that are generally better than inner-city schools.
I enjoy driving my large SUV and shopping in suburban-style malls. I don't try to stop people from living in inner-cities, so why try to stop me from living in the suburbs? Let people choose on their own.
So in other words I'm apparently the only one who worries that continuing to sprawl people outwards 3, 4, 5, even 6+ hours away from urban cores is not environmentally responsible?
If someone lives 3 hours from a job, that means he's commuting 6 hours a day. Living 6+ hours away means commuting more than 12 hours each day. Somehow I don't think most people make commutes like that--so I don't think it's a huge problem to worry about.
And, it's becoming less of a problem, since increasing number of corporations are moving out to the suburbs.
I see this whole question from the POV of a small business owner. Moving our business out to Loudoun County was one of the best things to happen to us. Not only did we enjoy being closer to work, but our business expanded. Companies really don't need to be in downtown areas anymore.
When we started our company, we rented space close to the city. Why? Because we thought we'd be close to our clients. But as the suburbs grew, we found we were spending more and more time delivering orders to businesses out in the suburbs. Meanwhile, our rent was going up and so was the crime problem in the neighborhood.
At the same time, the office buildings springing up in the suburbs had some great deals. We liked having a place just down the road--once or twice I even rode my bike to the office. And, after moving our offices we developed a whole new client base near the new office.
An extra perk of moving operations to the 'burbs: college educated mothers seeking part time jobs near the kids' schools. We had the best employees ever after moving out to Loudoun County. I think this is a reason many companies are setting up shop in suburbs.
My point? Not everyone makes crazy commutes. It's your business if you choose to do so, but for most suburbs it is not that hard to find a job less than ten miles away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScranBarre
They have no time to join the PTA, neighborhood watch, etc. and just let their children become the responsibility of neighbors who want nothing to do with them.
So you're opinion is that inner city parents spend more time going to PTA meetings than suburban parents? That's an interesting thought. My observation has been the opposite, but maybe that's just life in Virginia. Does anyone have statistics on PTA attendance?
I find nothing wrong with sprawl. No one has the right to tell other people how to live. Not everybody wants to live in stuffy cities, cramped by humanity at all times. I find growth boundaries and big-box ordinances to be unconstitutional. The government does not have a right to draw a line around a city and then tell people they cannot develop outside of that line. We aren't pigs. The government also doesn't have the right to limit create ordinances limiting Wal-Mart Supercenters, Super Targets, and Super K-Marts in an attempt to curtail suburban-style growth.
Sprawl is profitable. It is much cheaper to develop on the outskirts of most cities than it is in the core. People should have a right to live as far out as they want to without their decisions described as "asinine." I don't think it's asinine for people to earn higher wages by working the city and wanting to live cheaply on the periphery. I don't think it's asinine for people to want to live in communities that are generally safer than cities. I don't think it's asinine for people to want their children to attend schools that are generally better than inner-city schools.
I enjoy driving my large SUV and shopping in suburban-style malls. I don't try to stop people from living in inner-cities, so why try to stop me from living in the suburbs? Let people choose on their own.
It's very short sighted. Long term loss for short term profit, then the developer needs to find more land to damage. We're already a net importer of food. Keep up the development and the problem will get worse as more land that could be farmed is eaten up for mcmansions/etc. There are many not so obvious costs of sprawl.
At the same time, the office buildings springing up in the suburbs had some great deals. We liked having a place just down the road--once or twice I even rode my bike to the office. And, after moving our offices we developed a whole new client base near the new office.
BTW, if you want quality of life be sure to choose a suburb that has walking trails and/or sidewalks. Yes, there are bound to be some suburbs that don't have these amenities and as a result are not all that conducive to walking or bike riding. So why choose to live there?
Choose a place that has sidewalks, parks, nearby stores. Every major city has at least a few suburbs with these amenities, so why choose a neighborhood without them?
Good point. Of course, we are also a major exporter of food. IMO, importing food has a lot more to do with variety at the grocery store than with housing developments.
For example, we import produce from the southern hemisphere to get apples, pears, bananas, etc. all year 'round. It's not practical to grow rice in Virginia, so we purchase it from Asia. Etc. etc.
But still, I can see your point--especially if we're talking about developments in the San Joaquin Valley or out in the midwest. In NOVA, it's not a big deal. Our clay soil isn't especially fertile.
The fields my house is built on were initially a tobacco farm. That crop stopped being profitable, so it became a dairy farm for a short time. But that wasn't profitable either and the Brockman family simply abandoned the land for several years until the suburbs reached out to this county. There was an orchard next door that eventually became part of the development--it was still producing fruit when we moved in, but the volume of fruit was so low that they sold it at a roadside stand and farmers' markets.
Good point. Of course, we are also a major exporter of food. IMO, importing food has a lot more to do with variety at the grocery store than with housing developments.
For example, we import produce from the southern hemisphere to get apples, pears, bananas, etc. all year 'round. It's not practical to grow rice in Virginia, so we purchase it from Asia. Etc. etc.
But still, I can see your point--especially if we're talking about developments in the San Joaquin Valley or out in the midwest. In NOVA, it's not a big deal. Our clay soil isn't especially fertile.
The fields my house is built on were initially a tobacco farm. That crop stopped being profitable, so it became a dairy farm for a short time. But that wasn't profitable either and the Brockman family simply abandoned the land for several years until the suburbs reached out to this county. There was an orchard next door that eventually became part of the development--it was still producing fruit when we moved in, but the volume of fruit was so low that they sold it at a roadside stand and farmers' markets.
We're slowly getting to where we will depend more on other countries for grains and possibly meats as well. We import more than we export now for food.
Clay soil can be improved with sand and made quite productive. I've got clay and rocks (lots and lots of rocks) to deal with in my garden in VT. The soil can still be quite productive though.
Clay soil can be improved with sand and made quite productive. I've got clay and rocks (lots and lots of rocks) to deal with in my garden in VT. The soil can still be quite productive though.
You know, there's a solution that would make everyone happy. There's still plenty of undeveloped land here, and the price is right these days. We'd love to see somebody buy it and turn it into a farm. With your gardening knowledge, you could make a nice living, contribute to America's food supply, and feel the satisfaction that you personally did something to prevent urban sprawl.
Or, if you don't wish to live here, how about getting a few of your like-minded friends together to buy the undeveloped pieces of land and get someone else to farm them. Or, just leave them au natural.
But unless you're willing to buy the land yourself, and pay the taxes, and run the farm, you don't get to tell property owners what to do with their own land. IMO, it's just not realistic to think that if a piece of property has ever been a farm it must never have another purpose. But if you do feel that way, you need to put your money down and buy the property yourself.
Last edited by normie; 09-15-2008 at 08:19 AM..
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.
