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

"George Conklin" <nil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:13v01bhalr6s4c0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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.

The University of Texas (Houston, I think) did a study 20 years ago and 
found we waste 20-25% of our annual gasoline usage to such traffic
systems.

Think how much fixing THAT would contribute to "conservation" and "energy 
independance".

> 4.  Lastly to slow it down even more, it is proclaimed we need to revert

> to
> a "walking city."

Dig into Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his "noble savage" to see the basis of 
the society they want to instill. Essentially, it's primitive tribalism.