Global Warming News

[keegs]

keegs: Yup. I grew up in eastern Mass. When my parents moved to the town, everyone said "why way out there?" That area went through these processes. I saw the area go from 20 some farms down to two farms, and then town had to preserve them. By then, the town had grown from 4,000 to 14,000 or so. And then everyone missed the farms, and the two remaining ones turned into roadside farm stands with about 1/2 the produce grown on site. The "easy stuff" get developed, then infill development occurs. It is unsustainable, but eventually the areas just get clogged and then the land and housing supply is fixed and the price goes up. Or local industries go away and the prices go down. What rarely happens is stability, but that might also be the nature of life.

Part of why I'm on the planning board is to help both control some of the run away growth, but also avoid some of the run away over-restrictions. I just have to remember to _never_ start a statement with "Well, up North we used to..." I know that compromise means you're in the middle and will get squished but it's worth the risk. BTW, have been out of Mass since '73, and in NC since '83.

Pete

It's tough with so many interests involved...everyone eager to prosper and to own a piece of paradise. It's the American way. But the process consumes allot of energy... almost 25 % of the world's oil production last I checked.

Some of my experience has been to observe first hand how land use is done in Sweden. The kind of planning and control there wouldn't stand a chance here but the result IMO is a quality of life that's both comfortable, convenient and sustainable. And for the most part they thoroughly support it.

Again I have no illusions.

 

[dave1949]

It's tough with so many interests involved...everyone eager to prosper and to own a piece of paradise. It's the American way. But the process consumes allot of energy... almost 25 % of the world's oil production last I checked.

Some of my experience has been to observe first hand how land use is done in Sweden. The kind of planning and control there wouldn't stand a chance here but the result IMO is a quality of life that's both comfortable, convenient and sustainable. And for the most part they thoroughly support it.

Again I have no illusions.

Promoting socialism yet again Keegs ? ?That will wake up FallbrookFarmer! His fight card must be filled up, haven't heard from him.

If you stand on a hilltop in Germany and look across a valley, you see tightly clustered villages with farm or forest lands surrounding them. You can't build a new house outside of a sanctioned 'new building area', which is generally located on the edge of an existing village or town. It just isn't allowed. In general, raw land doesn't change hands nearly as frequently as here either.

There are historical (walled towns) and cultural elements involved certainly, but some of those land use patterns evolved over time in densely populated countries because they were found to be successful. As we become a densely populated country, some of these adaptations will make more sense to us IMO.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

Promoting socialism yet again Keegs ? ?That will wake up FallbrookFarmer! His fight card must be filled up, haven't heard from him.

He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.

 

[dave1949]

I'm on our county's planning board. All the comments here so far make sense. And it doesn't become any easier to find equitable solutions if you part of the group "drawing the line". If you're lucky the sand is white, most of the time is soiled and shows signs of a scuffle.

Biggest thing going on here is "rural suburbanization" where farms get divided into lots for building houses. Some as dense as 2 acre lots, a bunch at 10 acres (so that county zoning doesn't apply) and as more horse hackers move in, lots of 30 to 50 acre size. No sewer and water in the county controls the density at the low end. So people around here drive around and say "This used to be all farm land." There is still a lot of land in agricultural use for timber and hay. My land grows hay for a nearby farmer who has beef cattle. With this rural suburbanization we are seeing more of these land rights issues. Anything that can cross a property line is up for discussion. Sound, sight, smell, water quality and even light pollution.

Pete

Hi Pete,

Add my admiration for serving on the planning board too. I had to chuckle about never saying 'up north'. 'None of them Yankee ways for us', I bet.

What's sad about the process is it does repeat with a few local variations as different areas go through the same stages - just at different times. Surely there is something to be learned, good and bad, from those who have been there already.

Other than a spate of scattered new houses during the bubble years, we just don't have much going on here. Zoning or master plans are not of interest because things are pretty static, have been and probably will continue to be.

So, we have no zoning and no master plan. There was a young, informed, well-meaning guy at town meeting couple years back during the housing bubble that said if you want to avoid this or that, you really need at least a master plan. I have seen lead balloons bounce higher than the response that got. Anyways, as a newcomer, it was educational.

Maine areas along the coast with growth issues are all over the master plan and zoning thing as a means of preserving the character of the town. Some even have an annual cap on building permits. One crazy town had an annual lottery for building permits. I think they finally saw the light, or the death threats were getting serious , and started an order of application list, but they still have their cap.

When the economy recovers, I wonder how many boomers will still want, or be able to, have a second home or relocate to a coast or other attractive places?
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Promoting socialism yet again Keegs ? ?That will wake up FallbrookFarmer! His fight card must be filled up, haven't heard from him.

If you stand on a hilltop in Germany and look across a valley, you see tightly clustered villages with farm or forest lands surrounding them. You can't build a new house outside of a sanctioned 'new building area', which is generally located on the edge of an existing village or town. It just isn't allowed. In general, raw land doesn't change hands nearly as frequently as here either.

There are historical (walled towns) and cultural elements involved certainly, but some of those land use patterns evolved over time in densely populated countries because they were found to be successful. As we become a densely populated country, some of these adaptations will make more sense to us IMO.
Dave.

Did I hear my name mentioned?
Just got back to Fallbrook last night after a two day drive from Houston.
Haven't read all the posts yet, but promise I will,

 

[Pilot]

He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.

Good thought, Keegs!

Farmer, a 2 day drive from Houston? What were you thinking? You are supposed to take public transportation to save the planet!

Dave, just to be sure there is no confusion, I don't oppose land use planning and zoning in general; my concern is with finding the right balance between land use restrictions and freedom. I think Oregon went too far and so do lots of others who moved to the Vancouver area so they could live the lifestyle they desire. Oregon is a Mecca for government control types who pack themselves into condos and miniature lots in Portland and Eugene, the rest of the state disagrees and is outvoted by the metro areas. Oregon's land use restrictions have contributed greatly to the Vancouver area's growth. Washington isn't backward in their land use laws; they are just not as restrictive as Oregon--they found a better balance as far as those ex-Oregonians are concerned.

 

[EE_Bota]

This is not a reply to anyone's specific comment. It is something I have found value in, and therefore wish to share.

I am going to finish the "Crash Course" today, but when I got to 17a, it reminded me of you guys.

Crash Course Chapter 17a: Peak Oil - Economy - Crash Course Videos at Chris Martenson - Economy, Energy, export land model, fuel shortages, oil production, Peak Oil, supply and demand, three Es

I like this series. I think that a great many of you could use it to educate others, particularly young people. I have no children, so I will not have to deal with whether is is better for my children to be "happy" or "prepared" and issues about what can I possibly do to make this all up to them.

I have subscribed to this thread briefly to see if any of you thank me, cuss me, or have questions, but I will soon unsubscribe, since I consider Global Warming to be completely beside the point. The "Crash Course" series does in my opinion embody many of the real points.

 

[dave1949]

Good thought, Keegs!

Farmer, a 2 day drive from Houston? What were you thinking? You are supposed to take public transportation to save the planet!

Dave, just to be sure there is no confusion, I don't oppose land use planning and zoning in general; my concern is with finding the right balance between land use restrictions and freedom. I think Oregon went too far and so do lots of others who moved to the Vancouver area so they could live the lifestyle they desire. Oregon is a Mecca for government control types who pack themselves into condos and miniature lots in Portland and Eugene, the rest of the state disagrees and is outvoted by the metro areas. Oregon's land use restrictions have contributed greatly to the Vancouver area's growth. Washington isn't backward in their land use laws; they are just not as restrictive as Oregon--they found a better balance as far as those ex-Oregonians are concerned.

Pilot, I didn't take it that you are opposing it on principle, just the way it is being done in some areas. I know nothing of Oregon, I do see many mentions of how 'green' Portland is, but have never thought about what that may mean really. I thought they were just dedicated recycler's or something

I'll stick with 'moderation in all things'.
Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

Good thought, Keegs!

Farmer, a 2 day drive from Houston? What were you thinking? You are supposed to take public transportation to save the planet!

Dave, just to be sure there is no confusion, I don't oppose land use planning and zoning in general; my concern is with finding the right balance between land use restrictions and freedom. I think Oregon went too far and so do lots of others who moved to the Vancouver area so they could live the lifestyle they desire. Oregon is a Mecca for government control types who pack themselves into condos and miniature lots in Portland and Eugene, the rest of the state disagrees and is outvoted by the metro areas. Oregon's land use restrictions have contributed greatly to the Vancouver area's growth. Washington isn't backward in their land use laws; they are just not as restrictive as Oregon--they found a better balance as far as those ex-Oregonians are concerned.

I think the greater Seattle area and the counties here are probably about as restrictive as where you are in the Portland area. I know that it's less restrictive as you get away from the greater Seattle area.

 

[dcyrilc]

Pilot, I didn't take it that you are opposing it on principle, just the way it is being done in some areas. I know nothing of Oregon, I do see many mentions of how 'green' Portland is, but have never thought about what that may mean really. I thought they were just dedicated recycler's or something

I'll stick with 'moderation in all things'.
Dave.

X2! Both lack of regulation and over regulation can bring about chaos. There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle. Washington is known as the Evergreen State...here around Seattle, they are trying to make it the Ever Green State. LOL