smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "MTN HIGH" <mtn-high@msn.com> |
| Subject | Re: Wal-Mart |
| Date | Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:49:01 +0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain (5.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
It's interesting to see perspectives from other areas of the country
concerning growth.
And hey...at least the people inhabiting those 2 acre lots outside of Boston
actually *live* there. Here...we have many massive homes (try 16K sq. ft) on
million (or more) dollar lots that sit idle all year...used only at
Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter breaks for those "perfect" rich boy
holidays. All the while...even with no one there to enjoy it...the house is
warm and cozy in winter...and the sprinkler system over-waters the 2 acre
lawn on a daily basis in the summer. My wife works for the water CO...and
although we're in the midst of a severe drought...people from the more
humid/wet areas of the country where water is plentiful completely ignore
the situation at hand...often using 10 times more water in a month than the
typical family of 4 uses in an entire year! Likewise, even though we often
have high pollution days in the valley...it's mandatory for most visitors to
build a roaring fire in their condo.."'cus you have to have a fire in the
fireplace after skiing in Colorado".
The result of all of this is that prices here are very high for
housing...and the only place the typical working person can afford to live
is anywhere from 13 to 35 miles away from "downtown"l. Even then...you can
expect to pay no less than 400K for a house on a postage stamp sized lot AND
get to drive your SUV 35 miles one-way to work. (the average price of a home
here currently hovers around 1 million dollars) Some of this is due to the
fact that there is a finite aount of private land available here. About 85%
of the land in my county is owned by the Feds...either BLM..or the USFS.
Consequently...we are seeing a lot of "upzoning" here that sounds opposaite
of what you are describing happening in eastern MA. A developer buys a lot
zoned for 16 homes/units...and *magically*...by speaking the words
"affordable housing"...they can transform that lot into 220 units. Talk
about overloading the infrastructure. The kicker here is that once things
are built...unl;ess the county "deed restricts" the property at the
onset...most of these places are NOT affordable when they hit the open
market. i've seen condos built that were represented as costing a projected
170K upon completion go to over 300K at completion. In the end, the only
person benefitting is the developer.
In a nutshell...while I see the argument as being strong in many towns for
living close-in rarher than in the 'burbs...the fact of the matter here is
that *If* you could afford a home in "downtown" here...it's a given that you
wouldn't walk to work because you obviously have so much money you *don't
need to work at all*. Therefore..the commuters here aren't the rich folks
living way out on the ranchettes that are to pricey for the average
Joe...they're the people who have been forced down-valley simply to
survive/afford ANYTHING resembling a home...which is definitely not the norm
from what I see in some of the other points made in this discussion.
"Beautiful losers...shakers and movers" Gladhands
Pat
>From: DanAbnrml9@aol.com
>Reply-To: audities@smoe.org
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Subject: Re: Wal-Mart
>Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:23:54 EST
>
>In a message dated 12/4/2003 2:26:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>audities-owner@smoe.org writes:
><<It's easy and fun to point at Wal-Mart and say it's all their fault,
>which
> > is why it's so popular to gang up on them. But start talking about
>infill,
> > neighborhood renewal, mixed-use zoning laws, historical preservation and
> > tax credits for downtown businesses -- you know, the stuff that actually
> > *combats* urban sprawl -- and people's eyes glaze over. Much like those
>of
> > 87% of those reading this thread.>>
>
>I agree with Stewart more and more every day...
>
>Maybe it's because we both live in Massachusetts, and we see the negative
>results of initially well-meaning measures to curb sprawl (mandating a
>minimum
>lot size to build a home, heavily restricting construction of both
>privately
>owned structures and public infrastructure, etc). For example, most of
>Boston's
>outer-ring suburbs demand that you own ridiculous amounts of land--over an
>acre, sometimes over two, which is a lot in the suburbs--
>to build a house. The intention was that this would preserve "rural
>character" for these towns. Instead now we have outrageously wealthy
>suburbs that few
>can afford to move to and don't have the tax bases to upgrade roads and
>schools
>to accomodate the influx of residents. It also forced development out
>another
>ring--or two, or three--and caused people to have massive commutes on
>highways that were not designed for heavy traffic. These strict development
>laws--which exist in many Mass. towns--have helped make Eastern
>Massachusetts one of
>the most drasically overpriced parts of the country to reside. But if you
>tell
>these people who live in these towns; people who drive massive SUVs and
>feel
>that they've helped save the character of Massachusetts, about any of the
>above
>concepts that Stewart mentions, you'll merely get a rather typical
>NIMBY-ish
>reaction, only it'll be buttered by further self-righteousness. --Jason
_________________________________________________________________
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home.
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.