Are you referring to this William Simon:
If so, sounds like a right wing crank to me.
Anyway, this is just something you either believe or you don't - that
having kids is TMIJITW. It is a "2 kinds of people in the world" thing.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:15:25 -0700, John David Galt
That's exactly my point -- I was advocating eliminating (or
substantially increasing) the maximum allowed density in many areas.
I wouldn't prohibit large-lot single family dwellings, but if the
land is zoned to allow higher density, and it's in a location where
there is sufficient demand for such, the market price (and along with
that, the property taxes) of that land will rise to the point that
(other than a handful of rich people) most people would sell, and
redevelopment could occur.
Well, I was saying what I thought would help, not commenting on the
likelihood of it actually happening. :-)
Hence the zoning changes and the "unnecessary and/or harmful" subsidy
paid for by said tax to promote affordable, denser development closer
to where the jobs are.
Farmland is being paved daily and most parks within easy driving
distance are already overcrowded. Yosemite will be a total mob-scene
by 2050, with permits required many months in advance. That's exactly
how you define a shortage of space. You can't trust the market to
predict these things in advance. Credit allows people to live well
beyond their means.
Zoning exists to prevent nature from being totally overrun by the
_unnatural_ multiplication of a single species. Many members of that
species could care less about the ones they're forcing out.
Again, you show no concern for the fact that nature is being chipped
away at 24/7. Zoning laws exist for reasons that nature-haters will
never understand, since they consider nature to be wasted space.
Growth-addicts would happily erase all vestiges of a frontier. A thin
strip of woods in front of a McMansion is all the wilderness they
need. It's like facing shelves at a grocery store to create the
illusion of stock.
When animals breed out of control we call it overpopulation.
When humans breed out of control we call it "economic growth."
Back 20 years ago, when I was doing developments, I just named them
all after me: Joseph Hills, Joseph Heights, Joseph Lakes. I guess I
could have folled the thread starters idea and called my little lower
west side Erie project, Joseph Slums, since that was what had been
Perhaps this country should shut the door on illegal immigration to
reduce population growth.
Another problem with housing--and the high cost of it--is the
abandonment of old cities and suburbs. Old places have lost
population. These places need to be rebuilt, with good living values,
so people are attracted to come back and raise families there, and
industry comes back to provide jobs. Many people fled the cities NOT
for a split level house but to get away from crime, lousy schools,
etc. Clean up the crime and fix the schools.
We are approaching a crisis when the baby boomers become too old to
drive. That will be a huge block of people who can't get around.
Don't forget places to park at home and work. For employers who
provide parking, they need more square footage of parking area than
workers get for their workspace. Doesn't sound like a very efficient
use of land. (Remember a parking space requires a free space for the
vehicle to freely enter and exit at any time).
To build the highways and parking to serve the above adequately, we'll
need so much land we'll end up tearing down the homes and work
places. "Destroying the village in order to save it"
Here we go again. Whenever someone suggests that people need to live
within nature's limits, some reactionary claims it's got to involve
genocide. Those are your ideas, not mind.
Have you ever heard of CONTRACEPTION? It's the only technology that
can stave off the destruction of nature. It just needs to be used with
more foresight and vigor. The media talks and talks and talks about
the environment but is afraid to offend prolific breeders who are
crowding it out
No coercion need be involved for birth control to work; just general
intelligence. Unfortunately, that's been too much to ask of average
people. Most lowering of birthrates has come from economic expediency,
not an understanding of carrying capacity.
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
Why do certain people automatically assume zero population growth
implies genocide? Have you ever heard of contraception and restoring
the natural balance between births and deaths? With the advent of
cheap (finite) energy, people stopped playing by nature's rules - and
that's the whole problem. Here's a full page of methods to halt growth-
None of them involve idiot reactionary claims of genocide. If you have
a problem with those ideas, I'll conclude that you have other motives
for wanting growth to continue, like being in the construction
business and not giving a damn what happens to nature.
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
Frankly, I think this post is hilarious. Where my parents live, its
called Eagle Ridge. They also have Eagle Hills and Eagle View
subdivisions nearby. There is no ridge there, no hills, no view, and
if there were one, you can't see any eagles. I'm surprised here in
the Omaha area, there is no Buffalo Ridge, or Buffalo Hills, or
Buffalo View, because the irony would be too obvious.
Had a good chuckle with the above comments. I had a weird idea years
ago of finding some land in Johnson County, Kansas not already annexed
by one of the many growing communities like Overland Park and
Olathe. The name idea: Missouri City, only because there is Kansas
City, MO, Kansas City, KS and Missouri City, MO.
And that despite a multi-billion-dollar abortion industry. Go figure.
...and you might have gotten a squawk or two from Missouri City, Texas. ;-)
(I'd suspect the Texas one is probably a bit more populous than its Missouri
namesake, being between Houston to the northeast and Sugar Land to the
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey ( email@example.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI\'s 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
Multi *billion*? Aren't we exaggerating just a wee bit? Maximum costs range
from $700 to $1000 per procedure, and not all clients pay the full fare. To
get to the billions mark you would need 1 000 000 women paying the $1000
cost per year, and in a few years, the total number of women having an
abortion was less than 1 million.
Comrade Otto Yamamoto
If I heard the radio correctly, Planned Parenthood alone has a nearly
$1 billion budget with about 1/3 of that from government subsidy.
Regardless of one's stance regarding abortion, that's pork spending.
In Kansas the kid can be so near born that the top of his head can be just peaking through and they can and do either bash in its head or give a shot of poison. As long as they hold up the birth until he is dead before he pops out, it is legal. Haven't you ever heard Bill Orally hammering on this subject?
I read where tiller the baby killer gave over 100 grand to our new attorney general's campaign fund to get him elected over the previous one who was trying to prosecute him because the new ag said just he would just look into it. He then promptly fired the lawyer left in the ag's office that was working on it. All you have to do is pay the killer 5,000 and he will get a doc to say the would-be mother would be stressed if she had it. Some of the excuses have been that if they had the baby that they wouldn't be able to attend concerts etc.
I live in KS but am not proud of my politicians.
Tiller the baby killer will kill any baby, all it takes is 5 grand. The clinics made a good purchase when they bought the present Attorney General for Ks. There was an article in the paper just this morning stating that the AG had withdrawn all charges against the clinic here in Overland Park and that nothing is in the works for the one in Wichita. A link.
This has nothing to do with construction but I had to answer it
wrote:<BR>>> My Land of Misery wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> > And
that despite a multi-billion-dollar abortion industry. Go
figure.<BR>>><BR>>> Multi *billion*? Aren't we exaggerating just a
wee bit? Maximum costs range<BR>>> from $700 to $1000 per procedure, and
not all clients pay the full fare. To<BR>>> get to the billions mark you
would need 1 000 000 women paying the $1000<BR>>> cost per year, and in a
few years, the total number of women having an<BR>>> abortion was less
than 1 million.<BR>>><BR>>> --<BR>>> Comrade Otto
Yamamotohttp://mryamamoto.50megs.com <BR>>> decreasing the signal,<BR>>> increasing the NOISE!<BR>> <BR>> If I heard the radio
correctly, Planned Parenthood alone has a nearly<BR>> $1 billion budget with
about 1/3 of that from government subsidy.<BR>> Regardless of one's stance
regarding abortion, that's pork spending.<BR>></BODY></HTML>
They're actually underfunded when you consider the present and future
costs of overpopulation. People who complain about immigration should
want to fund foreign family planning aid! Ease the pressure at the
source, not the border. Planned Parenthood is about birth control much
more than abortion. Take notice, you cretins who think "genocide" is
the only means to achieve zero population growth. Contraception
prevents genocide while growth-as-usual has the opposite effect.
Never ask a "conservative" to conserve anything.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.