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

"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:%ySHj.51156$097.34182@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:13uv4uls3c5s7d4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:X7BHj.101456$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).
>
>
>

It is called "traffic calming."  1.  They say you need connected parallel
streets so traffic can be moved more efficiently, and not just on "main"
roads.

2.  Then the call goes out for "traffic calming," which means slow it down
to a crawl.

3.  The Texas Institute then claims that billions of seconds are "lost"
due
to too much traffic.

4.  Lastly to slow it down even more, it is proclaimed we need to revert
to
a "walking city."