In article ,
says...
On 21 Mar 2007 10:40:54 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:43 pm, Just Joshin wrote:
On 18 Mar 2007 04:52:27 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

Building for a green future
A wave of green building laws is sweeping the nation, forcing builders
to install solar panels, fluorescent light bulbs and roofs with
vegetation whether they like it or not.
athttp://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20070318-125757-4681r.htm

imho:

I've noticed there is always a trend of the 'haves' to dominate the
'havenots'. This is typically done with 'enviro/open space' laws.
Once a person has a home in a nice neighborhood, they don't want to
see everyone follow them. So, they push for stricter more expensive
new homes, less land by pushing for no-dev spaces, etc.

Just an observation. I'm guessing that renters don't vote.

tom @ www.FreelancingProjects.com

But since the 'haves' to which you refer are footing the bill for the
open spaces due largely to the smaller tax base, what's the problem?

Communities expanding into lower taxes is very differcult to achieve.
Often a community try to prevent taxes from increasing by preventing
starting families from enter the community. Since children typically
increase the highest tax, school taxes, fast. This 'prevention' can
be done by causing less land to build affordable houses, or making
starter homes more expensive by imposing many rules.

But the options for people who need 'affordable' houses are endless,
with respect to available space. I think you're not looking at the
big picture.

Just an observation of some people, and their outward motives.

How are they dominating anyone? It's not like the country is going to
run out of space anytime soon. That's like objecting to the type of
car they drive or the size of their TV. As long as they're spending
*their* money and not impacting anybody else, where's the harm?
Increased choices is one of the rewards of success.

Maybe my tone was conveyed wrong. Since it seems like I'm defending
my observations of other people. Sorry, wasnt' meant to be a
generialization, just pointing out some people's 'green' motives
aren't 'pure'.

I think your's is a gross overgeneralization. When someone has the
financial wherewithall (that's the first time I've ever used that
word in a sentence!) to buy lots of land, it's not necessarily with
the intention of shutting other people out. It could be simply
because they want to see lots of land when they look out the window.
Or they may want to ride horses, or bikes, or ATVs - it doesn't
matter. If their objective is to avoid contact with the less
affluent, there are plenty of densely populated affluent communities
for them to live in. The lots of land alternative really is about
lots of land. Even if they're not interested in the green part, it's
there. Think of it as a bonus for the rest of us.

I am a big fan for 'open space'. Being one of those 'newer families'
with a young child, trails, parks, picnic areas are our source of
family time for us. Then for Daddy time, I often hit the hills with
my mountain bike, and soon fly fishing. We love useful open space,
but we want it help build better communities for our families and
future Americans.

As I said, there's plenty of open space in this country. Don't sweat
it.

Just my observations,

tom


I've heard (and this may not be totally accurate, but I'm sure it's
in the correct ballpark), that if the entire population of the earth
were to be packed together at the density of Tokyo, the State of
Texas would be adequate to hold them all. That gives you an idea how
much empty space there is in the US - and in the rest of the world,
for that matter.