As I said, I have no problem with people who choose country life over city life. What I object to is the rape of the landscape by city people who move to the country while insisting upon city conveniences. If people want to get away from the smelly crowds, let them accept well water, septic tanks, general stores, clotheslines, and slow driving on two-lane roads in return.
In retrospect, the smart thing to do would have been to change land-use laws back during the ‘50s, when the Interstates were built. Instead of allowing white-flighters to infest and consume the towns on the periphery of the cities using the Interstates, we should have made it a federal mandate that a fifty-mile-wide belt around the corporate limits of each Interstate-served city be zoned “No New Contstruction”. New construction and renovation building permits would have been limited to only those living in the greenbelts already, and all land in the greenbelt could be used only for genuine farming, ranching, and wildlife preserve. That would have prevented the hollowing-out of our cities while preserving the logistical and national security benefits of the Interstate system.
As it is, the only limit to Sprawl is the retail price of gasoline. (The cost of new roads is no limit; the Sprawlsters will insist that the rest of us pay for their big, expensive commuter freeways.) As soon as gasoline reaches the $6-$10/gal. level, the Sprawl will begin to die. Once the era of Cheap Gas is over, people will return to the cities. My guess is that the abandoned sprawlscapes will become “surface mines” to be stripped of usable materials and returned to nature by city-based teams of reclamation workers. The debuilding of Sprawl will be a lucrative industry for future generations.
Seems like a *rat in a cage* scenario.
Since most of the people who work downtown sit in a cubicle all day, the solution might be for them to work from home, limiting the amount of cars that commute each day.