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.
It's not meant to be their only source of food. It's meant to be a fun supplement. Kind of like a hobby farm where people can take their kids so it sounds like you don't understand the goals of it and are upset that it isn't something it was never designed to be.
Well, if it is supposed to only be an exhibition garden and not expected to regularly provide any edible produce (so not like a CSA) , then the size of the ag acreage could be maintained sustainably. However, the article made it sound like the garden was expected to routinely provide tenants with at least supplemental produce in exchange for their HOA dues that support it. If that is the case, then the acreage isn't large enough to sustainably do so for a community that size with any regularity.
Agree, but it is the standard "symbolism over substance" situation that has existed for a long time. As long as your intentions are good, the results are immaterial. Just look at the "war on poverty". $12 trillion bucks later there is more poverty and more need than there was when it started.
But it shows we care...right
At best this could be basically a petting zoo for the developments kids. It isn't going to produce significant amounts of fruits, vegetables or eggs or whatever when divided among all the residents. It will more or less be a park where they can take their visitors and say "see how green and earth conscious we are? We care!!"
It's pure balderdash, but it gives the appearance they give a hoot, no matter that it's an entirely futile gesture.
If they actually wanted to produce enough chicken or eggs for the residents for example, you would basically have to create a factory chicken farm on that 3 acres, and bring in high powered feed so the chickens were laying at maximum output, just like any other factory farm.
That would be far more real than what they have planned, and it would give them the "free" eggs they want and they could eat the burned out hens in Sunday stews.
They would have been better off, and more likely to actully produce something, if the development was only half the size, dump the strip mall , no McMansions, have rowhouses of condos on a small portion of the land, and use the rest of the ground to grow on. with half or a quarter of the planned residents and 160 +/- acres, they could actually produce in viable amounts even if they hire some local gardener to work it. It wouldn't produce enough to completely care for everyone, but it would produce enough to actually provide some real amounts of food.
It would be a much better more substantial return on the purported purpose of the development, but the return to the developer would be less as there would be fewer sites to sell.
If they really wanted to create a semi- self supporting "village" it could be done, but not on 3 1/2 acres. That is just insulting to anyone that has ever tried to grow enough to actually feed themselves and doesn't serve as a good model for children to learn from as it unrealistically tells them that you only need a couple acres of producing farm ground to provide for hundreds of people. Not a working model as it is factually incorrect.
I don't care if they want to do it, more power to them, but it should not be touted as a step forward because it is a completely empty gesture.
I don't like being so negative, but I have seen to many similar situations to ever look at one of these things as positive.
I agree. It's just another cutesy marketing ploy targetting bandwagon-seeking people with too much money who want to be seen as doing something "green".
Token gesture: an action or a decision that is so small or inconsequential as to be only symbolic
All I can say is that I damn well wish there were a "community garden" around here. And I'd love it if nobody in the neighborhood took an interest in it... besides me.
Again, with communities spending so much on worthless garbage like "sports parks" (soccer fields, disk golf, etc), and "community sprinkler parks" with little showers of water from cement slabs that waste precious water (in a desert, no less) every five minutes, and barbecue pits, pavilions, blah blah, etc etc etc... it's nice to see something different for a change that at least has the POTENTIAL of being half way useful. I think I'd PREFER to see a weedpatch, should it become that, rather than my tax dollars being squandered on the crap it's squandered on now (at least around here).
Well, if my HOA dues and/or tax dollars are intended to provide me with some sort of amenity that I deem valuable to me personally... then I want that amenity to actually provide me with it in a useful way. Forget about what the amenity actually is... if I paid for it, and it was part of why I decided to choose that community, then it acutally better be provided.
Dues & taxes pay for playgrounds, but I don't have kids, so that's not useful to me; I don't play sports, so sports fields and golf courses don't matter to me either and wouldn't play into my selection process (other than being general green space). But I do swim... so if I chose a community because my dues/taxes got me a free membership to their pool then I don't want to end up with a 8x8 wading pool that's barely maintained and never open. And that's the feeling I'm getting with this particular HOA garden idea. It's nice generalized green space, and if that's the understanding I'm paying for, well ok... but if I'm expecting CSA and get exhibition with no reliable produce, then I'd be seriously peeved.
Personally, the only thing I'm seeing is another development's planned green space. Sure, it's not a baseball diamond, golf course or picnic park... but it's not a real farm either. Just green space.
All I can say is that I damn well wish there were a "community garden" around here. And I'd love it if nobody in the neighborhood took an interest in it... besides me.
Again, with communities spending so much on worthless garbage like "sports parks" (soccer fields, disk golf, etc), and "community sprinkler parks" with little showers of water from cement slabs that waste precious water (in a desert, no less) every five minutes, and barbecue pits, pavilions, blah blah, etc etc etc... it's nice to see something different for a change that at least has the POTENTIAL of being half way useful. I think I'd PREFER to see a weedpatch, should it become that, rather than my tax dollars being squandered on the crap it's squandered on now (at least around here).
When I was growing up in Yugoslavia we had many sports complexes and parks maintained by the government. Everyone used them, it was free or for a symbolic price. I can't tell you how many hours I spent playing ping-pong with friends at a local sports complex where you could rent tables hourly for next to nothing, we had swimming pools, bowling alleys, handball and volleyball fields etc. etc, al in one complex, outdoors fields etc. Or how many hours I spent playing soccer on the local soccer fields, basketball etc. etc. Everyone I knew did the same, in fact that's where all of us "city kids" spent our childhoods playing. And this wasn't THAT long ago.
Obesity, by the way, was unheard of when I was growing up there. Fat people were a rarity. Today you go back and there is plenty of fat to be seen. People dying from heart attacks, cancer etc. - they are dropping like flies. Many of them are on some kind of a behavior altering drug, anti-depressants and sleeping pills.
Their food now has no controls, anything goes, there is McDonalds etc.
If you want to watch the effects of "modernization" of a society - go there and look. It is SAD.
Very similar to a zoo where seeing animals in cages teaches about how animals live in the wild right? Very few realistic lessons can be taught in this situation that couldn't be taught using a windowsill flower box, or a water glass with an avacado seed in it. You plant the seed, you water it, it grows. Miracle of growth. Doesn't say anything about how much land is necessary to grow real food to support yourself.
Not really - a 3+ acre community garden and grow a lot of stuff and it is definitely a larger ecosystem than a window box. You can control most of the inputs into a window box, an open garden - not so much. I still think it would be a wonderful teaching tool. Obviously 3+ acres are not going to feed a thousand people.
The zoos, on the other hand, are a dirty and disgusting business, even the ones that claim to breed exotics to prevent extinction. They are no different than concentration camps. There is absolutely NO BENEFIT to watching a caged lion - it does not translate into what the lion does in the savannah. However, taking your child to get their hands dirty growing radishes, that could be a valuable experience for the child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Golf courses are pretty useless too, but many have turned abandoned mine tailings areas or industrial waste sites into green areas, so they can serve a purpose. In those areas you couldn't usually grow food because of the high concentrations of toxics that are there, but putting a lawn over the top of it seals the heavy metals in so they aren't blowing around in the wind.
I didn't know that. I go from the point of view of living in a place in the SW where someone just tried to build a new golf course, after a 100 year drought. People were pissed and rightfully so....
Yes, we can agree that probably this is a sales trick. However, again, if people are already going to spend $400K on a house in a development, better a community garden than a gold course...
Not really - a 3+ acre community garden and grow a lot of stuff and it is definitely a larger ecosystem than a window box. You can control most of the inputs into a window box, an open garden - not so much. I still think it would be a wonderful teaching tool. Obviously 3+ acres are not going to feed a thousand people.
The zoos, on the other hand, are a dirty and disgusting business, even the ones that claim to breed exotics to prevent extinction. They are no different than concentration camps. There is absolutely NO BENEFIT to watching a caged lion - it does not translate into what the lion does in the savannah. However, taking your child to get their hands dirty growing radishes, that could be a valuable experience for the child.
Same song, different tune. There are zoos that provide open habitat and allow mingling of species that don't feed on each other so no kid will be traumatized by the sight of a lion dining on bambi, but it is educational. It isn't real, but hey, it looks good
I didn't know that. I go from the point of view of living in a place in the SW where someone just tried to build a new golf course, after a 100 year drought. People were pissed and rightfully so....
Yes, we can agree that probably this is a sales trick. However, again, if people are already going to spend $400K on a house in a development, better a community garden than a gold course...
They are free to spend their money however they like, and if they like golf, why not buy a house on a golf course?
This community as described is just a hook to reel in the gullible that want to feel like they are "making a difference" without having to work, sweat or put in any effort besides paying for the privilege of owning a square foot of a display garden.
That wastes water the same as a golf course or park or whatever. It just depends on what YOU see as a worthy waste of your money.
When I was growing up in Yugoslavia we had many sports complexes and parks maintained by the government. Everyone used them, it was free or for a symbolic price. I can't tell you how many hours I spent playing ping-pong with friends at a local sports complex where you could rent tables hourly for next to nothing, we had swimming pools, bowling alleys, handball and volleyball fields etc. etc, al in one complex, outdoors fields etc. Or how many hours I spent playing soccer on the local soccer fields, basketball etc. etc. Everyone I knew did the same, in fact that's where all of us "city kids" spent our childhoods playing. And this wasn't THAT long ago.
Obesity, by the way, was unheard of when I was growing up there. Fat people were a rarity. Today you go back and there is plenty of fat to be seen. People dying from heart attacks, cancer etc. - they are dropping like flies. Many of them are on some kind of a behavior altering drug, anti-depressants and sleeping pills.
Their food now has no controls, anything goes, there is McDonalds etc.
If you want to watch the effects of "modernization" of a society - go there and look. It is SAD.
And see, this is where that "individuality" that I'm always harping about here comes in. Yes, there was all of that (sports, parks, pools, BB and tennis courts, etc) where I grew up as well. I will admit to going swimming rarely, but other that that, I used none of them. I, for the most part, hate team sports at all levels (once in a blue moon, I'll watch a baseball game). On the other hand, if the area would have had public xc-ski trails, walking/running wilderness trails, roller skating (I used to skate nearly daily), and some of that sort of thing, I probably wouldn't have such a sour attitude about the typical "public" recreation attempts by local government. I'd have used those sorts of things constantly.
As it is, the area has a lot of what I basically called "crap" in the earlier post. BUT, I will give credit where credit is due--there is a decent river/mountain/wilderness trail system now (mostly narrow paved along rivers, through canyons, etc). I use it nearly daily (makes up for the non-existent use of the "crap" in my younger days). I've speed skated it, run, jog, snowshoe, walk, xc-ski (on the higher elevation trails), photograph, do artwork and write in nice spots along the trails, etc. So that part of the "recreation" scene here, I can at least give a nod of approval to. Along with the actual National Forest mountain backcountry trail system and wilderness areas.
But, see, when government only accommodates "the majority," those with alternate, but just as legitimate, interests are left out. I'd sooner see a useless weed patch over a soccer field. On the other hand, an xc-ski trail would turn my crank... and hardly anyone would use it around here. I'm just not a big supporter of the typical recreation department efforts because I've never been interested in the activities they typically cater to (soccer, b-ball, football, baseball, pools, tennis, golf, etc). Someone's panties will always be in a wad. I hate seeing my "contribution" going to soccer, but John Q. Citizen would have knotted knickers if his "contribution" went to a speed-skating track or ski trails.
This is a microcosm of the larger "collective" functionality and the main reason that I have never been big on the collective idea and "progressive" politics.
Note: I'm not whining that "my needs should be met by the collective." I'm simply stating that under a collective scheme, somebody will always be left out unless they are willing to surrender their natural/innate aspirations and/or talents in favor of the collective's choices. Of course, in my view or things, the collective functionality should be restricted to services that truly benefit everyone within the collective (sorry, but a swimming pool or public sprinkler system certainly does not benefit everyone or even most). This restricted mode, of course, would restrict the government to a "night watchman" functionality. And that would be perfectly fine with me. That's my preferred government functionality.
And see, this is where that "individuality" that I'm always harping about here comes in. Yes, there was all of that (sports, parks, pools, BB and tennis courts, etc) where I grew up as well. I will admit to going swimming rarely, but other that that, I used none of them. I, for the most part, hate team sports at all levels (once in a blue moon, I'll watch a baseball game). On the other hand, if the area would have had public xc-ski trails, walking/running wilderness trails, roller skating (I used to skate nearly daily), and some of that sort of thing, I probably wouldn't have such a sour attitude about the typical "public" recreation attempts by local government. I'd have used those sorts of things constantly.
Chris: I grew up in a city but even then there were plenty of big parks with lots of trails you could get lost in (and I did) . So, there was something for anyone. We also had a shooting range, as part of territorial defense classes you were taught to shoot a rifle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
As it is, the area has a lot of what I basically called "crap" in the earlier post. BUT, I will give credit where credit is due--there is a decent river/mountain/wilderness trail system now (mostly narrow paved along rivers, through canyons, etc). I use it nearly daily (makes up for the non-existent use of the "crap" in my younger days). I've speed skated it, run, jog, snowshoe, walk, xc-ski (on the higher elevation trails), photograph, do artwork and write in nice spots along the trails, etc. So that part of the "recreation" scene here, I can at least give a nod of approval to. Along with the actual National Forest mountain backcountry trail system and wilderness areas.
Where is this? I would love to live there. In this state 96% of all land is private. So, unless you are rich to own thousands of acres, you are confined to your little lot. How many folks do you know that own 5000+ acre properties? Is the whole state being private land better for the average Joe? I mean, after all in the 1800s I could saddle up and ride and ride and ride until I drop. Could I do that now in my state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
But, see, when government only accommodates "the majority," those with alternate, but just as legitimate, interests are left out. I'd sooner see a useless weed patch over a soccer field. On the other hand, an xc-ski trail would turn my crank... and hardly anyone would use it around here. I'm just not a big supporter of the typical recreation department efforts because I've never been interested in the activities they typically cater to (soccer, b-ball, football, baseball, pools, tennis, golf, etc). Someone's panties will always be in a wad. I hate seeing my "contribution" going to soccer, but John Q. Citizen would have knotted knickers if his "contribution" went to a speed-skating track or ski trails.
By definition government implies majority rule. Until they come up with a better system, it is what it is. You can argue what things are "rights" for people and what are perks. That's why some say healthcare is a perk not a right, or access to public lands is a perk, not a right, or .... However, it is what the majority decides. It works that way from local government to state to federal. Is the system fair? Hell no. But then again you would say that there should be no such thing as "fair" anyways, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
This is a microcosm of the larger "collective" functionality and the main reason that I have never been big on the collective idea and "progressive" politics.
No, I get that. Actually I somewhat agree. However, there are things that are in a precarious situation. For example, it takes money in the real world to provide access to health care but health care itself as a concept is, in my opinion, not measurable by money.
It's funny but look at the lobbying system. It was designed EXACTLY with the purpose of a group of people getting representation for something they want. It has turned into a disgusting business today that is hurting out country terribly but the idea was good. If you lived in an area and there were like minded people like you, you could organize and lobby to get an xc-ski trail, for example. Even that OLD idea of lobbying required a GROUP of people, a collective based on an idea or a need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Note: I'm not whining that "my needs should be met by the collective." I'm simply stating that under a collective scheme, somebody will always be left out unless they are willing to surrender their natural/innate aspirations and/or talents in favor of the collective's choices. Of course, in my view or things, the collective functionality should be restricted to services that truly benefit everyone within the collective (sorry, but a swimming pool or public sprinkler system certainly does not benefit everyone or even most). This restricted mode, of course, would restrict the government to a "night watchman" functionality. And that would be perfectly fine with me. That's my preferred government functionality.
Of course and I agree. However, there no better system of government known to man. As is evident from history and evolution of humanity, people have been striving towards some kind of a representative form of government which by its nature implies GROUPS of people and MAJORITY rule. You can say communism was a terrible mistake in its implementation or its idea or both. However, even all capitalist countries in the world are headed in the direction of providing the majority needs as services by the government - it is just a matter of degrees. Can you explain why?
They are free to spend their money however they like, and if they like golf, why not buy a house on a golf course?
I don't want to use the word "dense" but I am tempted to
I mean, I said "if there was a choice between a community with a golf course and one with a garden" I would take one with garden. I would hope everyone would. It's my wish, not a decree to rule the country. Obviously people are free to spend their money any way they want, I don't think the development we are discussing in this thread was a mandatory purchase?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
This community as described is just a hook to reel in the gullible that want to feel like they are "making a difference" without having to work, sweat or put in any effort besides paying for the privilege of owning a square foot of a display garden.
But wait, you just said that people were free to spend money on whatever they want. So why not let them spend money on this? After all, if you like to have a community garden and a private company is offering a development with it, it is capitalism, isn't it? There is supply and there is demand. This is not some government mandated development in North Korea right? Or did I miss something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
That wastes water the same as a golf course or park or whatever. It just depends on what YOU see as a worthy waste of your money.
"Audubon International estimates that the average American course uses 312,000 gallons per day. In a place like Palm Springs, where 57 golf courses challenge the desert, each course eats up a million gallons a day. That is, each course each day in Palm Springs consumes as much water as an American family of four uses in four years."
Methinks in this last statement you are VERY wrong.
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.
