[Zeroisanumber]

Sprawl is really tough to deal with. On the one hand, it stretches resources, creates pollution, and is a big factor in the traffic headaches of major cities. On the other hand, if a person buys some land then they should be able to decide what to do with it (within reason). If they decide that they want to drive a car that gets 10/mpg for an hour and a half to and from work every day, then, questionable sense aside, they should be able to do that.

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*!

[Clemenza]

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.

[x]

On the other hand, if a person buys some land then they should be able to decide what to do with it (within reason).

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.

[SC33]

"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.

[Publius6961]

but then into one of those cookie-cutter "McMansion" deals. *Ugh*!

You do realize that this is just a variant of the view of the controlling twits?
You may not be able to force others to accept the vertical ghetto, but you can attack their taste!

No, I do not live in a McMansion...

[Publius6961]

Sprawl is really tough to deal with. On the one hand, it stretches resources, creates pollution, and is a big factor in the traffic headaches of major cities.

Actually, reality sucks.
The only factor in the major cities' traffic problems is that they are 100% paved over, and can't reasonably provide healthy, decent and affordable housing for the workers it needs to keep it alive.

Rather than blame the commuter, they can prove it by the simple expedient of not allowing anyone who doesn't live there to work there.

Do you think that would fly? Do you think that it's possible?

Who are the fools? the large cities or the "sprawl" denizens?