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.
Hmm, ok, I don't see why that matters, but Chinatown in modern day New York is another example of people rising above their station. I don't think the Chinese can become "white" or "hide their ethnicity". Not that I think that Jewish or Italian-origin people in New York are trying to pass as WASPS!!
You're white. I can tell form the bolded. I don't expect you to see why that matters. I guess you've never heard od housing or racial discrimination? Were black people able to do what Italian Americans were in 1946 when it came to the GI Bill?
No. Next...The situation today and back then and the demographics are soo different. Girls got married at 13 years old then.
Chinatown is a pit as far as residential quality. Chinese come here by choice with marketable skills. And theyre educate in a different and superior school system than BPS.
1) It is not. And you are not providing any fact. I can count empty lots in my town in one hand and while I have not been a report the logic is pretty strong. Empty lots sell quickly, that's why developers tear down houses, which is an expensive undertaking. People like more money rather than less in their pocket.
2) Are you really that thick or are you playing dumb? The MAPC contains roughly 50% of the population but it is only 1,422 square miles, which is only 13% of the state's total. Even if you take a more generous definition of "Greater Boston" you are not going to go above 25% of the area. So yes, it can be vastly different than state.
3) Your source only states that 10% of the land was protected in 2005-2013, hardly close to your 50% boast. Nevertheless, as you can also read there, on a net basis we continue to deforest our land, so your point does not hold.
1) It is not. And you are not providing any fact. I can count empty lots in my town in one hand and while I have not been a report the logic is pretty strong. Empty lots sell quickly, that's why developers tear down houses, which is an expensive undertaking. People like more money rather than less in their pocket.
2) Are you really that thick or are you playing dumb? The MAPC contains roughly 50% of the population but it is only 1,422 square miles, which is only 13% of the state's total. Even if you take a more generous definition of "Greater Boston" you are not going to go above 25% of the area. So yes, it can be vastly different than state.
3) Your source only states that 10% of the land was protected in 2005-2013, hardly close to your 50% boast. Nevertheless, as you can also read there, on a net basis we continue to deforest our land, so your point does not hold.
1) yes it is. And empty lot isn't the only developable land. Lol, how do you think lots get cleared. You level trees.
2) MAPC isn't the entirety of Greater Boston not even close. It doesn't claim to be, ever. Are you dumb? https://www.mapc.org/get-involved/subregions/
3)I said since the 1980s. Can you read? Count? ">50%, only became protected since the mid-1980s. So yes."
I do wonder though for the people who are poor or lower middle class why do they want to stay in MA? Family ties? If I didn't own my own home here or have family here I'd probably leave. My job is ok but I could find something similar somewhere else. I am not biotech scientist VP or hedge fund dude.
I do wonder though for the people who are poor or lower middle class why do they want to stay in MA? Family ties? If I didn't own my own home here or have family here I'd probably leave. My job is ok but I could find something similar somewhere else. I am not biotech scientist VP or hedge fund dude.
They rely on family and social networks to get by, thats all over the world. and if they have a family the cost of relocating is prohibitive. They're often grandfathered into lower-cost rents or mortgages.
Additionally, the schools, safety, educational opportunities, and culture (especially for our 1st and second-generation immigrants who make up a huge chunk of this state) are huge too. Lower middle-class people are still middle class they value things too. Poor people are subsidized and required for basic services/restaurants to function. Without them the QOL would suffer and they're tied to housing. Dont have the skills to find more meaningful employment elsewhere.
1) yes it is. And empty lot isn't the only developable land. Lol, how do you think lots get cleared. You level trees.
2) MAPC isn't the entirety of Greater Boston not even close. It doesn't claim to be, ever. Are you dumb? https://www.mapc.org/get-involved/subregions/
3)I said since the 1980s. Can you read? Count? ">50%, only became protected since the mid-1980s. So yes."
Youre so wrong every time, it is nuts.
1) you fail to understand the difference between an undeveloped lot and uncleared land. The former can be sold and developed, the latter cannot unless it can be subdivided according to the town’s bylaws. Of course there is uncleared land, but the vast majority can’t be subdivided legally. Beyond the legal argument there are also physical impediments which I have discussed above.
2) MAPS is pretty close to Greater Boston. Every town that has been mentioned in this post is part of it so the argument holds regardless. What is your definition of greater Boston anyway? 70% of the area would have to include the cape and stretch out The Connecticut river. You are wrong again.
3) this is a quote from your source:
From 2005 - 2013, Massachusetts lost an average of 13 acres of land to development each day.
38,000 acres of land was developed
50,000 acres of forest loss
10,000 acres of open land gained
The fourth edition of Losing Ground concluded that for every visible acre lost to development, an additional three acres loses its ecological function; in more rural locales, the less visible impact increases up to eight times that of direct construction impacts.
Despite more land being protected, there is land being lost to development on a net basis every year. As I said, more land is protected because more land is threatened than before.
As soon as people challenge your arguments the veneer of civility wears off and a thuggish core shines through.
1) you fail to understand the difference between an undeveloped lot and uncleared land. The former can be sold and developed, the latter cannot unless it can be subdivided according to the town’s bylaws. Of course there is uncleared land, but the vast majority can’t be subdivided legally. Beyond the legal argument there are also physical impediments which I have discussed above.
2) MAPS is pretty close to Greater Boston. Every town that has been mentioned in this post is part of it so the argument holds regardless. What is your definition of greater Boston anyway? 70% of the area would have to include the cape and stretch out The Connecticut river. You are wrong again.
3) this is a quote from your source:
From 2005 - 2013, Massachusetts lost an average of 13 acres of land to development each day.
38,000 acres of land was developed
50,000 acres of forest loss
10,000 acres of open land gained
The fourth edition of Losing Ground concluded that for every visible acre lost to development, an additional three acres loses its ecological function; in more rural locales, the less visible impact increases up to eight times that of direct construction impacts.
Despite more land being protected, there is land being lost to development on a net basis every year. As I said, more land is protected because more land is threatened than before.
As soon as people challenge your arguments the veneer of civility wears off and a thuggish core shines through.
1) You are shifting from focusing on Lincoln to speaking in broad generalizations. You're not gonna run through all of greater Boston 147 Eastern MA towns and read me the bylaws. Uncleared land is still undeveloped. I'm sure you know that. Also, I know what the issue is. Im highlighting that issue your e talking about. You're controlling again.
2) No it Aint. Not really "define pretty close" Its significantly less and misses many fo the large cities in the area. You're contorting again. Do you want to do the math on how many people live in Boston Area vesus MA. Those numbers are available. Omitting close in towns in NorthernBristol county that are more Boston than Providence (still eastern MA) it's about 63-64% of the state population. Include those britstol county towns and youre probably at 66/67% So not 70% I was wrong.
3. Yes read that. totally not what I said. You were wrong, regain some credibility and admit to that.
Im gonna go the Massnative route and just stop engaging. Youre not making good points at all. Youre just telling me things about MA town governance I already know to feel smarter. And then youre wrong on like everything else. No point.
You're white. I can tell form the bolded. I don't expect you to see why that matters. I guess you've never heard od housing or racial discrimination? Were black people able to do what Italian Americans were in 1946 when it came to the GI Bill?
No. Next...The situation today and back then and the demographics are soo different. Girls got married at 13 years old then.
Chinatown is a pit as far as residential quality. Chinese come here by choice with marketable skills. And theyre educate in a different and superior school system than BPS.
Chinatown residents come with marketable skills? What are you talking about? The very marketable skill of shopkeeping, dust cleaning and bicycle riding. The schools are better because the families care more, not because the teachers are better or the schools better funded.
Have you ever read a history book? Girls married at 13 in Brooklyn in the 20th century? Another uniformed take.
Not to speak of the fallacy of pretending the other party can’t possibly understand something because of their putative skin color.
Chinatown residents come with marketable skills? What are you talking about? The very marketable skill of shopkeeping, dust cleaning and bicycle riding. The schools are better because the families care more, not because the teachers are better or the schools better funded.
Have you ever read a history book? Girls married at 13 in Brooklyn in the 20th century? Another uniformed take.
Not to speak of the fallacy of pretending the other party can’t possibly understand something because of their putative skin color.
-People coming to chinatown right now are unskilled laborers?
-Girls didnt get married at 13 in Brooklin in the early decades of the 20th century?
-You really think you could understand everything a person not of your race would understand? Is it a coincidence that i identified you as white based on your statement?
-Of course, you paid zero attention to the GI Bill part. Doesnt fit your narrative.
1) You are shifting from focusing on Lincoln to speaking in broad generalizations. You're not gonna run through all of greater Boston 147 Eastern MA towns and read me the bylaws. Uncleared land is still undeveloped. I'm sure you know that. Also, I know what the issue is. Im highlighting that issue your e talking about. You're controlling again.
2) No it Aint. Not really "define pretty close" Its significantly less and misses many fo the large cities in the area. You're contorting again.
3. Yes read that. totally not what I said. You were wrong, regain some credibility and admit to that.
Im gonna go the Massnative route and just stop engaging. Youre not making good points at all. Youre just telling me things about MA town governance I already know to feel smarter. And then youre wrong on like evrythng else. No point.
1) This is what you originally said:
"I just identified- 53% of land in MA is undeveloped and unprotected. Let’s round it down to 35% in Greater Boston."
This is an utterly false statement.
Unclear land is not undeveloped land. Is the Back Bay undeveloped just because Commonwealth has a boulevard.
The question is not whether geometrically there is enough area to fit in more houses. That is preposterous.
2) Why don't you tell me your greater boston boundary that includes 70% of the Commonwealth's land? No sane definition would include more than 25%. Own up to the fact that you confounded population and area.
This doesn't take away from the fact that the MAPC is the area every town discussed has referred to but it doesn't change the argument an ounce that what holds true for the state can be very different at the greater boston level, regardless of what we define it to be.
3) As opposed to you, I admit I hadn't see that paragraph and admit the fact as true. This doesn't challenge my point however, which is that we are losing forested land and considering protected land as a relevant metric is misguided.
I will also stop engaging because it is clear I will not change your priors and readers have enough evidence to muster judgement.
I will see you on the other side of the barricade I guess.
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.
