What you said! BUMP!! Hopefully I live far enough out in the country that I won't be bothered with this for awhile.
Posted on 01/28/2006 1:50:56 PM PST by Lorianne
The same people who are pushing this "smart growth" or anti-"sprawl" nonsense at the same time oppose cracking down on illegal immigration.
Yep. The blue-staters think they're smarter than everyone else for having less/no kids. But, long-term, they're not really that smart, are they? Even biologically speaking, that is.
1. More land to build there Manse. Its easier and cheaper to build a McMansion 40 miles from work in the Exurbs, than it is to buy an already constructed on closer in. A friend of mine built a McMansion for about $1M in Hunterdon County, NJ, which would cost $4-5 million in eastern Morris County, some 25-30 miles closer in.
BTW, by "blue-staters," I'm talking about a mindset, not everyone who happens to live in a blue state (heck, I live in a blue state!).
Where the heck do they get that statistic? Talk about hysterics!
They make them up as they go along.
I don't get into the big city much anymore, I'm going to have to go for a visit, it sounds like all the attractive, fit and wonderful people live there, but that's not how I remember it.
What you said! BUMP!! Hopefully I live far enough out in the country that I won't be bothered with this for awhile.
So what part of "mine" is so confusing? It is my town, and I expect new residents to assimilate- not take over the schools and push their new agenda all over. These are typically not people seeking refuge, they are wealthy folks invading places that were poor, and happy to be poor.
It's classism. The only way they can feel superior is by building mansions next to shacks and letting their kids out to prey on the neighborhood.
"Smart growth" or "slow growth" advocates usually argue that development should be concentrated in existing urban or suburban areas instead of in new suburbs. Many states and counties have tried to protect open space by buying land and through zoning and other regulations.
Care to do the honors of providing the links and background, so all can see that the OBL-ers are getting ready to hide in THEIR gated communties while we are forced to live according to THEIR rules?
Is there that much of a problem with that, or is it more that people who now own the land get cheated out of some part of its worth?
If you really knew beforehand that there were restrictions on land use, you wouldn't buy the land. You'd either buy somewhere else or change your plans.
But for the person who owns the land now and expects to benefit from it at some point, restrictions can be a definite problem.
The point will be moot once the war in the Persian Gulf gets going.
Yeah, I understand the economics, I just find McMansions aesthetically empty. It seems to me that if you're going to go to all the trouble of buying the land and building the house, then it should be something with a little more class.
In a few big metropolitan cities, like Detroit, their urban cores are being transformed back into farmland.
Exactly. Zoning laws have been super restrictive for decades. "Slow growth"ers have been around for decades too ... they push development away from their area to be somone else's problem. Which caused leapfrog development
Developers have it never had it easy.
You can't buy class.
Someday these "planners" will wake up and realize that if you want denser urban areas, the easiest way to achieve this is to get rid of zoning, not instituting even more complicated regulations. It's call the law of unintended consequences.
"Developers have it never had it easy."
Well, I've certainly had it "easier," it's gets harder and more expensive every year. But, that's OK, that's the territory, I just deal with it. Right now, I'm about to go for a walk through my nice suburban neighborhood.
Except for ranches and farms, everyone's home sits on what was once someone's open space view, or field to play in, or area to hunt and fish. And someone was unhappy when your home got built.
"The only thing that I don't understand are the number of affluent young families that decide to move that far out, but then into one of those cookie-cutter "McMansion" deals. *Ugh*!"
The thing I don't understand is the number of affluent people who decide to move to the middle of nowhere, and then complain because there are fewer services out there. Next thing you know, taxes go up, crime goes up, and community ties go down. Sprawl is a great thing, isn't it? This is exactly the type of principle that Republicans should be basing their identity on.
Yes, there will always be NIMBY's
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.