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

"George Conklin" <nil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:13uv4uls3c5s7d4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.

In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e., 
your last sentence).
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf

Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are 
DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional 
reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done 
that).