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.
First, just a point of historical accuracy...NYC consolidated in 1898. The IRT opened in 1904, and the last of the three lines, the IND, was completed and opened in 1940. There have been some small additions in 1968 and the 63rd St and Archer Ave extensions opened in the late 1980s. The subway systems was mostly completed by 1940.
Most of the LIRR, and what is now the Metro North Commuter RR, was also built in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Sure, there has been electrification and modernization, but the lines are essentially the same as what was there 100 years ago. Same for most of the lines in NJ, including the PATH which was constructed in the late 1800s and opened in 1907.
Most of the water system was likewise built many years ago, and has been updated.
I really don't dispute anything you are saying. In terms of historical accuracy - The IRT Ninth Avenue line opened in 1868. I figured I would spare you the 40-year trek of New York Consolidation but here it goes:
Yes, the official Consolidation finally occurred in 1898. However, consolidation traces its origins to the desires of Tammany Hall. Wanting to have all of the immediate area under one municipal government, in 1874 what was then New York City (Manhattan) began to annex all of what is now the Bronx. Simultaneously, New York City constructed the Brooklyn Bridge to connect it to what was then an independent city. It was completed in 1883.
In 1886, The Brooklyn government wanted to become part of the larger New York City municipal entity and began to annex all surrounding land on Long Island (essentially to prevent New York from annexing it itself and completely outleveraging Brooklyn with limited economic and political clout). In the ensuing consolidation "struggle", Brooklyn annexed all of its present-day area by 1896. During this time, there was a stalemate between the Brooklyn municipal machine and all of the people Brooklyn was annexing. They all wanted to consolidate with New York but the Brooklyn machine didn't want to dissipate and surrender its political power. An agreement was reached when in 1894 Brooklynites voted in a referendum to consolidate with New York City under the condition that "Kings County" would be preserved as a political entity (Brooklyn continued to annex for the next two years). The referendum passed by a slight majority. Similar referendums passed in Queens and Richmond (Staten Island). Due to legal haranguing between Queens County and what was left over which was becoming Nassau County, Queens was not officially recognized as a borough until 1897. The consolidation finally went through in 1898. In 1914, the Bronx was legally separated from New York County (Manhattan) and became the fifth borough (Bronx County).
That explanation was certainly not as compact and concise as using the general word "consolidation", but you wanted it so there it is. I have no problem with saying 1886, 1894, 1898, or 1914. To me it isn't that deep. With that being said, your point is well-taken and I wholeheartedly agree with the general history you gave. It reaffirms my point that the NY transportation system has been improved, expanded, contracted, updated, and maintained over time. The MARTA has yet to expand out of Fulton and DeKalb during its history, but that is another thread. I have no problem speaking in terms of eras or decades or other generalizations but as you can see below some others are not quite so flexible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by testa50
So you disagree with hard facts and side with editorializing and generalizations instead?
cwkimbro posted this fact sheet which is a very good starting point for understanding the actual issue:
Nobody disagrees that solutions need to be found, which involves both infrastructure and politics, but Atlanta's underlying water resources are sufficient to support a MUCH larger city. And yes, we already pay ridiculously high water prices (higher than folks up north; some of us pay the highest in the country) and are investing in projects to return treated water to the basins, etc. We need to invest more, but it's far from an insurmountable growth barrier or something.
Yes I saw the link. Thanks. Metropolitan Atlanta gets 72.6% of its water from the Chattahoochee. I don't see how this is incompatible with what I'm saying. What percentage Metro Atlanta is withdrawing and how much of the Chattahoochee can be reserved, cleaned, and distributed before it runs off and still allow the legal amount to be withdrawn by Alabama and Florida is a different story. Yeah, there is a lot of water in Georgia. That is not the reason for its water shortage. The reason is, a 19th century surveyor hired by Georgia used faulty equipment and didn't claim a portion of the Tennessee River as he was directed to do. So barring a negotiation with the state of Tennessee and building an aqueduct up the I-75 corridor (in the 90s there was some banter about building an aqueduct and commuter rail up to Chattanooga along the same right-of-way), Georgia has until 2012 to come to an agreement with Alabama and Florida over the Chattahoochee. So forgive me if I am not moved by the lawyerspeak on your Atlanta Regional Commission site. They've got even better tall tales about transit and they are the ones that threw out the 8 million people by 2040 in the first place. So in theory it is not "insurmountable". But let's have this discussion again next year.
So if agreements aren't in place by 2012, "then withdrawals would revert to their “baseline” levels from the 1970s, before the Corps of Engineers started issuing interim contracts (and when metro Atlanta had less than a third of the number of people it has today)." If this occurs, metropolitan Atlanta as we know it (much less future growth) can consider itself done and done. How is that for a generalization!
Atlanta ranks #9 as a major city running out of water.
Did you bother actually reading that link?
Quote:
Between 2007 and 2008, the Southeast experienced a major drought, which depleted the region's major water supplies. No city in the south suffered more than Atlanta, the second-fastest-growing metropolitan area in the last eight years. The crisis began when the Army Corps of Engineers released more than 20 billion gallons of water from Lake Lanier, the city's primary source of water. Continued poor rainfall brought the lake to its lowest recorded levels. At one point, city officials reported there was only three months left of stored fresh water to supply Atlanta. The drought eventually subsided and consistent rain returned the lake to less dangerous levels. However, Atlanta may continue to be at risk, as the lake is the site of an ongoing legal conflict between Georgia, Alabama and Florida, all of which rely on the reservoir for fresh water. Last year, a federal judge declared Atlanta's withdrawals from the lake illegal, and if the ruling stands, the city will lose roughly 40% of its water supply by 2012.
1. We had an historic drought that was one of the worst in over 100 years and was exasperated by the Army Corps of Engineers bonehead move during this period to release water at the normal non-drought rate. However we did not experience the worst drought in the areas history in 2007. Droughts happen on a regular basis in the southeast, in fact the worst occurred in the 1890s as seen on the graph below:
It's a normal cycle of the area's environment that our current pampered society has no idea how to deal with without panicking because we consider every single inconvenience as the end of the world. /end rant
2. In a regular year, Atlanta receives 50 inches of rainfall on average which is a full 2 inches less than the 52 inches a city no would ever consider to be at risk of "running out of water": Seattle.
3. As others have noted, and the reference you cited did as well, our biggest problem isn't water. We have plenty of that. The biggest problem is where do we put it all and if we will be allowed to use a reservoir that is completely in Georgia (and refilled with rain that falls on Georgia) that Alabama and Florida somehow think they have more right to use for themselves on farms and oyster bays instead of water for 6 million in and around Metro Atlanta.
Despite that judges ruling, we're still using the water and I'd like to see a Federal official dumb enough to "cut off" the water for a major Metro. It's likely that this will all be resolved with the State of Georgia paying Alabama and Florida a bribe, err, a "reimbursement" to stop suing us about our water that resides in our State.
The biggest things we need to do are:
-Build more reservoirs
-Put in place more stringent water conservation controls (right now, unless there is a drought, there are hardly any restrictions on water usage. Someone could literally go outside, turn on the tap, leave it on all night, and will never be fined by the State. HOAs are a different story. )
However, one thing that people who post things like you did need to stop doing is to repeat the following: ATLANTA IS NOT RUNNING OUT OF WATER. WE ARE NOT PHOENIX OR LOS ANGELES. ATLANTA NOR ANY PART OF GEORGIA IS IN A DESERT.
Yes I saw the link. Thanks. Metropolitan Atlanta gets 72.6% of its water from the Chattahoochee. I don't see how this is incompatible with what I'm saying. What percentage Metro Atlanta is withdrawing and how much of the Chattahoochee can be reserved, cleaned, and distributed before it runs off and still allow the legal amount to be withdrawn by Alabama and Florida is a different story. Yeah, there is a lot of water in Georgia. That is not the reason for its water shortage. The reason is, a 19th century surveyor hired by Georgia used faulty equipment and didn't claim a portion of the Tennessee River as he was directed to do. So barring a negotiation with the state of Tennessee and building an aqueduct up the I-75 corridor (in the 90s there was some banter about building an aqueduct and commuter rail up to Chattanooga along the same right-of-way), Georgia has until 2012 to come to an agreement with Alabama and Florida over the Chattahoochee. So forgive me if I am not moved by the lawyerspeak on your Atlanta Regional Commission site. They've got even better tall tales about transit and they are the ones that threw out the 8 million people by 2040 in the first place. So in theory it is not "insurmountable". But let's have this discussion again next year.
So if agreements aren't in place by 2012, "then withdrawals would revert to their “baseline” levels from the 1970s, before the Corps of Engineers started issuing interim contracts (and when metro Atlanta had less than a third of the number of people it has today)." If this occurs, metropolitan Atlanta as we know it (much less future growth) can consider itself done and done. How is that for a generalization!
Haha...If you think the ruling and 2012 requirement is news to me, then I don't know what to say. Your mind on the water issue is clearly made up, so it's not worth arguing. Have fun cheering against us.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,987,215 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
You make some false presumptions. I grew up in NY and lived near Boston. I paid those taxes.
First, much of the infrastructure in NYC was developed and built in the 1800s or early 1900s. While they recently built a new aqueduct from the upstate reservoirs, that system was built many years ago. Same for the transit and commuter rail. Most of it has been around since before the neighborhoods it serves. The taxes are considerably higher but are not directly tied to services delivered. NYC especially is the home of the most greedy unions on the planet, where guys who sweep the subway earn huge sums and retire on huge pensions based on the overtime and pension rules. The tolls, sales taxes, income tax, and other taxes feed the beast, they don't provide anything that hasn't been there for 75 to 100 years.
I agree with you for the most part. Particularly about the infrastructure in older cities in the Northeast. Without getting too long winded, I'll just focus in on one thing.
Often people, while discussing the issues present in the Sunbelt regarding transportation, will say "Look at us here. We have hundreds of miles subway and commuter rail. We planned for our growth! Huzzah!"
Well, they aren't exactly correct because they are looking back on history with rose colored glasses. Cities such as New York City didn't always have a subway and there was a time when they experienced several decades worth of explosive growth without it. Traffic by most accounts was more horrific than we can imagine.
Now most of that of course was just due to the lack of the adequate technology being available to tackle that problem, but most of it was that they didn't have the infrastructure they needed because they had no use for it prior to the explosive growth and were unable to keep pace with it once it took off. It's easy to cast a scornful eye at Atlanta and say we "didn't plan" or "don't know how to do something" (even though a very large chunk of Atlantans are Northeasterns and know exactly how cities up North are, but that's another thread ) when they themselves have no memory of the growth that we are just now experiencing.
Then there are the economic and working condition differences from America in the Late 19th century to America in the early 21st century. Using the New York City Subway as an example, there are 656 miles of revenue track in the system. In 2011, it costs approximately $200 million to build one mile of electrified subway track. If another city was to rebuild the equal amount of revenue track in the New York City subway today it would cost $131,200,000,000. To make it more clear, that's 131 billion, with a B, dollars. I'm not sure how much it cost to build it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't even a tenth of that. On top of that, that's not even all the track used by the NYC Subway as there is an addition 200 miles of non-revenue maintenance tracks and facilities. Nor does it include the price for all the trians that would need to be purchased to run on that system or the amount of money that would be needed to pay the extremely large staff that would drive the trains, clean the system(granted that's not a high priority in the NYC subway) and do maintenance on the system. Oh, nor does it include the cost of all of the buses the system uses, plus the pay for the drivers, and the gas for said buses. Oh, and the commuter rail lines deep into the suburbs...I think we get the idea.
I'm not aware of any city that could make that type of investment today even over the course of 100 years. So we have to look at things from a practical aspect. Also, I feel that people do not adequately give credit to Atlanta where it is due. Out of all the major Sunbelt cities over 5 million people (Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and Los Angeles) we have by far the largest and most used subway. Hell, two of them don't even have a subway.
However, an extensive rail system isn't always the end all, be all solution to traffic problems. A more relevant comparison for Atlanta would be Washington DC where they started building their subway the same time we did, have the same amount of people in the city proper (but with twice the density) as we do, and almost exactly the same suburban population size that we do. They instead made their subway twice as long as ours with twice as many stations and with lines that go deeper into their suburbs than ours do. Also, they have the second highest daily subway ridership in the country (behind NYC only) with 1 million riders a day and the distinct honor having worse traffic and congestion than we do. In fact, we rank 9th among big cities in congestion and traffic while DC ranks #1...but they share that honor with Chicago.
That's not to say we don't have serious problems though with traffic. However, we do have a good system in place in the center and really what we need to focus on is filling in the gaps (of course with amalgamated solutions. We don't need MARTA subway stops in Kennesaw and Dacula for example) and patch the Metro together in a more cohesive way.
Haha...If you think the ruling and 2012 requirement is news to me, then I don't know what to say. Your mind on the water issue is clearly made up, so it's not worth arguing. Have fun cheering against us.
I am not cheering against Atlanta and certainly don't want to see the city in a crisis. This just goes back to my original post if you feel like reading it. As even you stated previously, Atlanta needs to start coming up with some strategies. I felt (feel) that Atlanta will have to start to make some politicially unpopular decisions to become sustainable. Allowing a level of growth that would lead to a metropolitan population of 8 million by 2040 I still assert would be an ecological nightmare. But I think a growth boundary, increased density, more widespread fixed mass transit, and a regional government with actual power (especially over water management) could mitigate these circumstances.
I am not cheering against Atlanta and certainly don't want to see the city in a crisis. This just goes back to my original post if you feel like reading it. As even you stated previously, Atlanta needs to start coming up with some strategies. I felt (feel) that Atlanta will have to start to make some politicially unpopular decisions to become sustainable. Allowing a level of growth that would lead to a metropolitan population of 8 million by 2040 I still assert would be an ecological nightmare. But I think a growth boundary, increased density, more widespread fixed mass transit, and a regional government with actual power (especially over water management) could mitigate these circumstances.
See here is why you are meeting so much resistance. I can't speak for everyone here, but I know several of the other posters and myself have spent a great deal of time discussing this very issue with great depth. We discussed the structural/engineering issues, the political issues, and the lawsuits that have us in this position.
Then every once in awhile... some outsider comes here... and makes some pretty bad assumptions about our problems with the ability to be sustainable based off of one or two little articles they read, which are mostly structured off of the narrative from a lawsuit Alabama has against the Army Corp of engineers and the state of Georgia. In most cases that is where the reporter got the narrative. It is very interesting to us when these people even talk down to us like they know more just from this article.
The ARC actually is a good resource. It isn't just a chamber of commerce booster club. They use real studies to determine our growth moving forward. It was established some time ago, because we have so many small counties each walking to the beat of their own drums. Up until this point most of the measures of our growth, employment growth, changes in air pollution from various changes (zoning, regulations, etc..), and even water use have been dead on accurate. It is a legitimate multi-county planning organization. When Gwinnett County had 520,000 people they predicted we would have 800,000 by 2010 and have an employment of 300,000. They were pretty dead on accurate and this was 15 years ago.
So their predictions for 30 years out from today are fairly believable.
But beyond that... We know Atlanta physically has enough water and sustainability is not an issue, because we actually do have enough water.
The only reason we are at risk of losing it, is we are risk of losing access to Lake Lanier's storage capacity. The lawsuit has more to do with whether or not water storage can be diverted from hydroelectric power operations to municipal water storage. The political side to this is.... it is a power play form Alabama to force us to negotiate into unusual terms to limit our economic growth.
A large part of it really was more of an overreaction to the drought. People down river saw river flow levels decrease and it was just easier and more convenient for them to say it was Atlanta's fault when in reality it was the droughts fault and Atlanta's water storage capacity had little to do with it. But, that is also telling our subtropical environment. During a 500 year drought event, the river kept flowing. People freaked, because the normal flow level was lower.
We have plenty of water and --politics aside-- have the capabilities of being very sustainable with no aqueducts whatsoever; unlike LA and NYC. We don't actually need any water from the Tennessee River either. The main advantage that would afford us is negotiating pressure. Right now Alabama and Florida have no pressure to negotiate (they are not very dependent on the water supply and have little to lose). It would have also gotten Tennessee on our side and Alabama has to negotiate from time to time with Tennessee on other issues as well. This would increase negotiation pressure. In fact Florida would never even accept an invitation to negotiate and Alabama has delayed and intermittently turned down water talks as well. The -politics- of the situation really are dysfunctional.
But the environmental, engineering, and long sustainability of the situation this is a great place to have a major city. Water is otherwise plentiful.
Also Gwinnett Co. isn't in a bad place as it sounds. They now have the capacity to return 80% of the water it takes from Lake Lanier back to the Lake through a new sewage treatement facility. We use to just dump treated water back into the Chattahoochee or the Yellow River Basin. So if municipal water supplies goes back to 1970s water levels during droughts it will be able to last much longer, because we can constantly return 80% of what the county takes. If we were to engineer a storm water treatment and return system we could probably greatly increase that number. (and before anyone gets clever and makes a cocky comment... to us a drought means we have 30 inches of rain a year instead of 50)
But anyways regardless of what happens.... from an environmental/ecological perspective...the water is there... we have access to it... Alabama can not take away our rights to the water... we will just have build/depend on other water storage facilities in a worse case scenario and so far they have been unsuccessful in court preventing us from doing so.
2. In a regular year, Atlanta receives 50 inches of rainfall on average which is a full 2 inches less than the 52 inches a city no would ever consider to be at risk of "running out of water": Seattle.
Not to nitpick (I actually help your argument, Sir Waronxmas!), but Seattle only receives around 38 inches of rain/precipation a year. Atlanta actually receives much more rainfall/precipation.
A lot of people don't realize this about Seattle--they confuse the mist/drizzle with real rainfall.
Atlanta's is one of the rainiest major cities in the United States (with the most trees--set in a humid subtropical forest...is also one of the hilliest cities and one of the highest--at almost 1,100 feet above sea level!).
See here is why you are meeting so much resistance. I can't speak for everyone here, but I know several of the other posters and myself have spent a great deal of time discussing this very issue with great depth. We discussed the structural/engineering issues, the political issues, and the lawsuits that have us in this position.
Then every once in awhile... some outsider comes here... and makes some pretty bad assumptions about our problems with the ability to be sustainable based off of one or two little articles they read, which are mostly structured off of the narrative from a lawsuit Alabama has against the Army Corp of engineers and the state of Georgia. In most cases that is where the reporter got the narrative. It is very interesting to us when these people even talk down to us like they know more just from this article.
Discounting everything you said, this is why Atlanta remains an island getting dragged down by the backwater Georgia undercurrent. Without metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia is South Carolina. Gloss over the legal issue if you must; once again let's just wait until July 2012. Right now, Atlanta's water supply is not just battling legal challenges from Alabama and Florida, but from South Georgia farmers. So essentially part of Georgia is on the side of the plaintiffs.
But get something straight. You can speak for whomever you want to, but I am not an outsider. I lived a pretty good chunk of my adult life in Atlanta. And I spent quite some time studying Georgia hydrology, albeit kaolin deposits interspersed in counties located between the Savannah River and Oconee/Ocmulgee/Altamaha River Watersheds as well as dredging concerns in the lower Savannah River basin.
But I did spend enough time also studying the ecological blunder that is Lake Lanier. It is bad enough that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not cut down some of the trees expecting the wood to be degraded and later boats and people (who drowned) got caught in the treetops that were still in tact. On top of that, if memory serves me correctly, metropolitan Atlanta was down to a 90-day water supply in 2007. This was compounded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers improperly calibrating the new gauge installed in Buford Dam two years earlier. But yeah, everything is cool with Atlanta's water issues and I'm just some agitator.
So when saying "talking down to us" spare the self-righteous indignation. You don't know me, you don't know where I have lived and how long I have lived there, and you know nothing about my education. I've said all I have needed to say about the topic. I just wanted to take the time to remind you of the terms of service; so why don't you make sure you stick to the forum topic and dispense with the personal value judgements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
However, one thing that people who post things like you did need to stop doing is to repeat the following: ATLANTA IS NOT RUNNING OUT OF WATER. WE ARE NOT PHOENIX OR LOS ANGELES. ATLANTA NOR ANY PART OF GEORGIA IS IN A DESERT.
Capice?
Actually if you were to circumnavigate the globe along the 30 Degree North line of latitude, everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere along this line with the exception of the Southeastern United States and Southeast Asia (identical conditions exist along the 30 degree South latitude line as well). The only thing that keeps the Southeastern United States from being a desert is the Gulf of Mexico creates a physiographic cul-de-sac to pool warm water from the Gulf Stream, then the Appalachian Mountains due to the Saturated Adiabatic Lapse Rate causes this water vapor to condense and fall as rain, creating the rivers that empty out onto the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain. HOWEVER, during times of El Nino, the warm water currents that keep Southeast Asia and the Southeastern United States slacken due to the impact of Reverse Southern Oscillation. As a result, the Southeastern United States begins to revert back to its desert conditions just like everywhere else along the 30 degree North line of latitude. So when you have mudslides in Peru and California but a drought in Georgia and the Okefenokee and Everglades are drying out and going up in flames like tinderboxes, you know what's happening!
Last edited by Steelers10; 02-23-2011 at 11:46 PM..
Discounting everything you said, this is why Atlanta remains an island getting dragged down by the backwater Georgia undercurrent. Without metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia is South Carolina. Gloss over the legal issue if you must; once again let's just wait until July 2012. Right now, Atlanta's water supply is not just battling legal challenges from Alabama and Florida, but from South Georgia farmers. So essentially part of Georgia is on the side of the plaintiffs.
But get something straight. You can speak for whomever you want to, but I am not an outsider. I lived a pretty good chunk of my adult life in Atlanta. And I spent quite some time studying Georgia hydrology, albeit kaolin deposits interspersed in counties located between the Savannah River and Oconee/Ocmulgee/Altamaha River Watersheds as well as dredging concerns in the lower Savannah River basin.
But I did spend enough time also studying the ecological blunder that is Lake Lanier. It is bad enough that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not cut down some of the trees expecting the wood to be degraded and later boats and people (who drowned) got caught in the treetops that were still in tact. On top of that, if memory serves me correctly, metropolitan Atlanta was down to a 90-day water supply in 2007. This was compounded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers improperly calibrating the new gauge installed in Buford Dam two years earlier. But yeah, everything is cool with Atlanta's water issues and I'm just some agitator.
So when saying "talking down to us" spare the self-righteous indignation. You don't know me, you don't know where I have lived and how long I have lived there, and you know nothing about my education. I've said all I have needed to say about the topic. I just wanted to take the time to remind you of the terms of service; so why don't you make sure you stick to the forum topic and dispense with the personal value judgements.
Actually if you were to circumnavigate the globe along the 30 Degree North line of latitude, everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere along this line with the exception of the Southeastern United States and Southeast Asia (identical conditions exist along the 30 degree South latitude line as well). The only thing that keeps the Southeastern United States from being a desert is the Gulf of Mexico creates a physiographic cul-de-sac to pool warm water from the Gulf Stream, then the Appalachian Mountains due to the Saturated Adiabatic Lapse Rate causes this water vapor to condense and fall as rain, creating the rivers that empty out onto the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain. HOWEVER, during times of El Nino, the warm water currents that keep Southeast Asia and the Southeastern United States slacken due to the impact of Reverse Southern Oscillation. As a result, the Southeastern United States begins to revert back to its desert conditions just like everywhere else along the 30 degree North line of latitude. So when you have mudslides in Peru and California but a drought in Georgia and the Okefenokee and Everglades are drying out and going up in flames like tinderboxes, you know what's happening!
No where in Georgia is at 30 degrees North Latitude, and definitely not 30 degrees south latitude. 30 degrees NORTH latitude goes roughly through Jacksonville, Florida. If this line touches any of Georgia, it is the little tip created by the St. Mary's River.
Atlanta is at roughly 34 N latitude. Lake Lanier is at roughly 35 N latitude.
By the way, not all places are a desert at 30 N latitude.
If you check this out, parts of China and south Asia are anything but a desert.
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.
)
) when they themselves have no memory of the growth that we are just now experiencing. 
