Land developers:
In your rush to accommodate population growth (often called "economic growth"), do you sometimes draw a blank on what to name your latest subdivision? Many of those trendy names like "River's End" are getting stale. No need to worry about a lack of creativity. Just fall back on an old standard: name your development for whatever piece of nature it replaced or destroyed.
Some examples:
If grassland once existed where Yukon Denials and 6,000 sq. ft. castles stand, don't mourn that cheap remnant of nature. Just call it THE MEADOWS. Average people won't notice. They're too busy pushing paper and drawing debt so they can afford your creations. Money is the judge and jury for everything that's right.
If hundreds of oak trees were reduced to dozens, call that development THE OAKS. A very common name, that one. Many oak trees fall to the dozer as the U.S. population grows by 3 million annually. Revel in the glory of world population growth that exceeds 70 million per annum (net gain). Think of all the homes that will be needed, even if you aren't personally building them. The sound of hammers ringing in the morning is like.....victory.
If your "master planned community" just invaded 500 acres of wetlands or vernal pools, call it THE LAKES. The existence of an artificial pond can justify that title. Just make sure you can steal water from somewhere to fill it. Of course there's no shortage of water, even in the desert. All it takes is imagination and total lack of concern for anything else.
If you just won a battle against Godless environmentalists and pushed
50 homes into national forest boundaries, call that piece of paradise THE PINES. Pray it doesn't suffer the recent fate of a Lake Tahoe community where homes have blocked natural brush-clearing fires.It's easy to divide, conquer and pretend the landscape is fine by using name-psychology. It also makes potential homeowners believe they're not really destroying wilderness. After all, if you surround wilderness on all sides by development and leave a pocket in the middle, can it really be considered nature?
Ringing an area with sprawl, then cutting to the core is a good strategy for your long term plans. Nature is wasted space begging to be filled with houses. If it stays empty, some dirty animals might find a stronghold and the ESA may be invoked. Too bad they dumped Mr. Pombo but you have plenty of conservative allies. Funny thing about the word "conservative." Most people of that ilk think conservation is beneath them. They're all about consumption.
Home-builders have decades of expansion to look forward to. Sure, it has to end sometime (finite planet) but you can make a buck now, so who cares about the future? The California State Department of Finance released a report saying California's population may reach 60 million by 2050. Third-world America is well on its way. This means white flight to the hills and they must be developed!
Developers, you must always focus on what really matters for human progress. If the land doesn't get MORE CROWDED every day, we are failing our children. At some point, all but the harshest habitat will be vanquished, paved, and renamed, and you can bask in the glory of it while sitting in 5 MPH traffic.
E.A.