[brianl703]

My comments in brackets:

"Spurring the smart growth movement are demographic shifts[white flight], a strong environmental ethic[watermelons], increased fiscal concerns[inner cities losing money], and more nuanced views of growth[???]. The result is both a new demand and a new opportunity for smart growth. [And perahaps all of those republicans who live in the suburbs will change their political views when we force them into high-rise apartments, enabling us to push our socialist agenda with less resistance from dissenters]"

[KC_Conspirator]

You are exactly right my friend. This is just another term for what used to be called "urban sprawl", but focused grouped so badly with soccer moms that liberals stopped openly using the term. Basically what is happening is that many liberals have ruined cities/towns/neighborhoods with their liberal policies and market forces are pushing people to move farther out to the suburbs. And the only solution the liberals have is to load your family onto boxcars and ship them back into the drug and crime infested cities.

[madfly]

I should have posted a Smart Growth Update much earlier. I see that there are initiatives on more than a dozen ballots. They sneak it in from the Counties, on up, Getting legislative tips and tricks from the federally funded (by "we the people") Smart Growth Guidebook with Agenda 21 origins.

CHECK YOUR BALLOTS!!

[Kay Ludlow]

I like your comments. I've heard the head of 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania give a presentation on why we need to stop sprawl. Her reasoning was exactly that we have vacant housing units in the inner cities and the cities don't have money for services because the income earners moved out. The answer is to not allow any more housing units to be built until existing buildings were fully utilized, and that could be done by creating Urban Communities (subsidized, with lots of services) and statewide planning, zoning and enforcement that would "protect our rural communities" by not allowing new building. The fact that people don't want to live in the inner cities was irrelevant, since it was a more efficient utilization of resources. Sounded a lot like the USSR system to me!

[hedgetrimmer]

http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield.htm


SMART GROWTH - PEOPLE PER ACRE


By Derry Brownfiel
April 5, 2002
NewsWithViews.com

Over the past few years, we have discussed "SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES," a term used by the politically correct elite for our future cities. Cities: without automobiles, no suburbs and no large homes on 2-acre lots. Sustainable communities tie in well with Agenda 21 and the Wildlands Project, whereby 50 percent of the United States will be reverted back to the wild and our entire population will live in these areas of "smart growth." The plan is to force rural folks into these already crowded areas and the move is well underway as farmers and ranchers are being forced off their land. Missouri's Governor has issued a Smart Growth Executive Order and our colleges are holding seminars and teaching courses on the subject.

The following figures have been taken from the Sierra Club website www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/enviroimpacts.asp. For example, Minnesota's Twin Cities density is 1,800 people per square mile but with smart growth it should grow to 3,000 people per square mile. Portland now has a density of 3,000 people per square mile but should be as dense as Los Angeles 5,600 per square mile. LA should improve its density to that of Chicago's 16,000 per square mile. The Sierra Club website indicates that the efficient urban density is 500 households per acre. An acre is only slightly over 200 feet square so Manhattan, with only 52,000 people per square mile, has a ways to go before it reaches smart-growth perfection.

The Sierra Club web page compares four different densities: Dense urban is 400 households per acre. Efficient urban is only 100 households per acre. Efficient suburban is 10 households per acre and then there is "SPRAWL" defined as one household per acre. At 100 households per acre our entire US population would fit into Los Angeles. The entire world population could live in the state of Virginia.

This sounds so ridiculous that most people won't believe it can happen. The folks behind these screwball ideas have huge amounts of money along with government grants to carry out their plans and they are very serious in their beliefs. If anybody can put a stop to their lunatic ideas it's not going to be the farmer or rancher who are trying to pay off the mortgage on the home place. It will be the multi-millionaire who has built a $3 million home on five acres. These people won't like living in a sustainable community any better than us farmers and ranchers and they have the money to fight for their freedom. It's our job to convince them that this is taking place before their very eyes.

As for me and my house - I still want land, lots of land underneath the skies above, so - please, don't fence me in.

© Derry Brownfield, All Rights Reserved