[ab8mi]

Growth with some fore thought is the key. Get together a group of people to help with the decision.....kick of the extreme left winger.....kick off the extreme right winger and then maybe just maybe we could come up with some viable solutions.

Hmmmm.....guess I am thinking in Utopian terms now...

[GregW]

Vermont and New Hampshire used to be centers of industrial activity until coal fired steam engines allowed factories to be built away from water power. Then the factories moved to the midwest to be nearer to the raw materials of coal and iron ore and the textile mills moved to the cheap labor in the southern US. Now everything is moving to even cheaper labor and government subsides in China because trans ocean shipping has become so cheap.

Re industrializing Vermont or New Hampshire is not likely to happen without changing the Federal Policies on industry, trade and energy. That is not likely unless to political and economic power (the same things actually) of the international banking and energy businesses are brought under some form of populist control.

I live in Londonderry, NH. When I moved here 23 years ago the town population was about 8,000. Now it is 24,000. Has this made a difference. You Betcha, it has. As the population and economic demographic changed the "wealth" of the town greatly increased as the pressure for houses ran into the restrictive zoning. Now houses sell for more than $300,000 around here. The prices went up so fast and our income stagnated (environmental scientist) so thoughroughly that we could never afford to move out of our small condo.

So what is the effect of "growth control"? Not much as far as I have experienced. I see the same bunch of real estate developers trying to take a profit from turning farm land into suburbia. All they have managed to do is price me out of the market.

If you want to see a discuaaion of wind as an alternate energy source check out the "Mars Hill...." thread in the Maine forum. Seems that wind is a good idea for the people that already own the windy site and a really annoyance for the people that didn't get a piece of either the land leases or "accomodation fees" to the local politicos. Great thread. Unfortunately for the alternate energy folks the wind is a natural phenomena and like water power is located where it is and not necessarily where pople want it. Too bad, build the windmills anyway.

My own contribution to control sprall and big box stores is to buy from the hardware store that has been heare for years while avoiding Home Despot and never shopping at Wall Mart. Further discussing of big box stores requires another rant. Enough for now.

BTW - considering what the sea level is likely to be in the next couple of decades, Vermont is a way better place to be than Florida or New Orleans. Tie up the boat in Barre.

[Jim McNamara]

I, too, worry about urban sprawl. Born and raised in small town New Hampshire, I lived in Vermont during the war years as my father worked in a factory in Springfield. I've lived for a short time in Boston MA, Denver CO, San Antonio TX, Berlin Germany, Lisbon Portugal and Washington DC. I've also lived in small towns like Fortuna ND, Biloxi MS, Fayetteville NC and I've retired in Statham GA. The nation's larger cities have become so large that they are spilling over into small town and rural areas, primarily because the way of life in the cities has become so stressful. Traffic in cities runs amok because of inadequate public transportation, crime has increased manyfold because police departments are impotent, and the very air in big cities is poisoned. The result is urban flight, that then increases the demand on highways, the rural utilities, and a quiet way of life.

People who escape urban areas do so with good intentions, but they overlook the fact that they have become so accustomed to the conveniences of a city that they begin demanding those conveniences where they've moved to. They don't leave their jobs behind, they commute greater distances. They don't leave their urban/suburban patches of green behind, they use rural water to make even larger green lawns. They send their children to the small town school, but expect that school to have all the big city features.

The only way I can see to combat the urban sprawl that coming to our rural areas is to demand that our commissioners and other local politicians represent all those who've elected them, not those who are sprawling in out direction, not those businesses who want to come with them, not the few who seek to make lots of money by selling land to developers, and certainly not developers. Land that is zoned agricultural, forest, wilderness should remain so, even if tax breaks must be provided to those who keep their land. New highways must be denied for they will only begat more highways.

Sorry if this seems a bit disjointed and incomplete. I'ts been written on a whim.

[RunawayJim]

I have a problem with this term "urban sprawl". Urbanism is not sprawl. The sprawl is the creation of suburbs, which started during the urban flight of the post-war era. You know... perfectly green yard, all houses look the same, white picket fences... that kind of thing. Strip malls (for example route 7 south of Burlington), big box stores, multi-lane roads... that's all sprawl. To protect the environment, you gotta do as chaz and harry suggested and have controlled well-planned dense development. Cities aren't the problem, suburbs are.

Growth is necessary to keep the economy going, but growth doesn't mean building outward. It could mean building upward. Unfortunately, the American dream has become a big yard.

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by RunawayJim

Growth is necessary to keep the economy going, but growth doesn't mean building outward. It could mean building upward. Unfortunately, the American dream has become a big yard.

I agree. The author of a book we're reading, Vermont Off the Leash (http://members.authorsguild.net/helenhusher/off_the_leash___subversive_journeys_around_vermont _79159.htm - broken link), used the term "generica" for that kind of cookie-cutter housing-development/strip-mall sprawl. I think it fits.

[arctichomesteader]

The problem is the regulations become burdensome and unnecessary in rural areas that are in no danger of becoming suburban. Controls on sprawl need to be at the local level only.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by RunawayJim

Growth is necessary to keep the economy going, but growth doesn't mean building outward. It could mean building upward. Unfortunately, the American dream has become a big yard.

As our population continues to grow, there is only so far 'up' we can build.
High rise fires, sanitation, public transportation for increasing masses in a limited area -- building up and up and up comes with it's own unique set of problems. 9/11 might be an extreme example, but I will never, ever forget the sight of people jumping from the buildings' upper floors in an ill-fated attempt to escape the nightmare. Even the Empire State building has periodically been struck (accidentally) by planes. How far up can one go before the risk outweighs the benefit of preserved acreage?

Keep eating cookies and sooner or later one is going to need a larger sized pair of pants.

If you look back in time to the development of cities -- they were once grassy areas with a number of homes, cattle grazing in the yards and commerce nearby, and easy routes in and out for trade. The land which would become Central Park was far north of NYC in the early 1800's. NYC built up and out. Urban sprawl. The Bronx was farmland; Queens was farmland, Brooklyn was it's own city with farmlands outside of it.

[Bang!]

The idea that urban sprawl is bad is a radical anti-progress perspective that is, empirically, not shared by the majority of people. Indeed, the suburbs will stop growing when people stop wanting to buy houses in them.

[RunawayJim]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

As our population continues to grow, there is only so far 'up' we can build.
High rise fires, sanitation, public transportation for increasing masses in a limited area -- building up and up and up comes with it's own unique set of problems. 9/11 might be an extreme example, but I will never, ever forget the sight of people jumping from the buildings' upper floors in an ill-fated attempt to escape the nightmare. Even the Empire State building has periodically been struck (accidentally) by planes. How far up can one go before the risk outweighs the benefit of preserved acreage?

Keep eating cookies and sooner or later one is going to need a larger sized pair of pants.

If you look back in time to the development of cities -- they were once grassy areas with a number of homes, cattle grazing in the yards and commerce nearby, and easy routes in and out for trade. The land which would become Central Park was far north of NYC in the early 1800's. NYC built up and out. Urban sprawl. The Bronx was farmland; Queens was farmland, Brooklyn was it's own city with farmlands outside of it.

The problem is the population has gotten out of control. Luckily, people are having fewer children now and the population is generally older. There is less of a need to build outward or upward, though there is a recent trend of people moving back into cities, though not quite in the same numbers as when they left the cities.

Most cities had farms in the early 1800s because very few people lived in the US. We now have 300+ million people here, about 8 million in NYC alone. That's just a bad example. You can't compare the early 1800s or even the early 1900s to today.

Originally Posted by Bang!

The idea that urban sprawl is bad is a radical anti-progress perspective that is, empirically, not shared by the majority of people. Indeed, the suburbs will stop growing when people stop wanting to buy houses in them.

Sprawl does not represent progress, and it's sprawl is not an urban thing, it's suburban. A well-built city does not have or cause sprawl, people's desire to live just outside the city with unnecessarily large amounts of property causes sprawl. The majority of people are uneducated about the issues caused by sprawl. Sprawl is simply bad for the environment and costs far more money in upkeep than proper urban development (again, urban development and sprawl are not the same thing).

[Bang!]

Originally Posted by RunawayJim

Sprawl does not represent progress, and it's sprawl is not an urban thing, it's suburban. A well-built city does not have or cause sprawl, people's desire to live just outside the city with unnecessarily large amounts of property causes sprawl. The majority of people are uneducated about the issues caused by sprawl. Sprawl is simply bad for the environment and costs far more money in upkeep than proper urban development (again, urban development and sprawl are not the same thing).

Unnecessarily large amount of property according to who? Certainly not the people buying the property.

Jim, is it that you simply prefer to use the coercive power of government to dictate people to spend their money in ways that suit your preferences? It is only a preference after all... nothing more. The anti-sprawlers have no claim to the moral high ground. Some (lots) of people like the sprawling suburbs. Others don't. Buy what you prefer and let others do the same.