Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:X7BHj.101456$Ft5.14505@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Glenn" <pilcheg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:47eedad5$0$30547$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "George Conklin" <nil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>    You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
> >>
> > The population is growing.  Those against towns expanding, where do
you
> > want them to live, under a bridge?
>
> George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is *****ing about
> population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually
serves
> as housing (about 5-6%).
>
> Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
> about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is.
(At
> 35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).
>
>
>

    The problem is that the intellectual bind planners get into is severe.
If an area declines, then they bemoan abandoned houses, bad services and
so
forth.  If an area is growing, then they complain about land being "used
up"
and other assorted phrases like "lost to development."  Lost?  Land is
never
lost.   It is always put as a lose-lose situation.  Only a static society
with no changes seems to meet all objections raised by planning these
days.