PBS show on Urban Sprawl this morning

[AStone]

water

Good point, CB.

I lived in ABQ for a while. Even in the late 80's, aquifer draw down in the expensive, exclusive, east-side mountain 'burbs' (up close to the ski lift, 45 min from downtown via I-40) was draining them. New wells were going deeper and deeper. there's a bottom.

And even more severe for food supply AND water: have you checked the status of the Ogallala aquifer in the last few years? Heads up, boys & girls. It's being drawn down in decades, but doesn't recharge on the scale of civilizations.

Do the math: if output > input, then eventually 0.

And that big underground pool is what waters most crops in the breadbasket.

 

[cracked butt]

Things are going to get really interesting in the future.

In the Great lakes region there are often small squabbles with Canada or between cities a certain distance away from the lakes about water access. I'm wondering what's going to happen when the great plains get thirsty and start eyeing up lake michigan and superior in a desperate way.

 

[xd9fan]

LOL Zundfulge. Wyoming is like my beautiful home state of North Dakota. With Low population (Last I checked ND is actually LOSING poulation=which just makes me like the place better) they dont know what the concept of urban sprawl is. period.
Here in Minnesota with ST Cloud booming and the Twin Cities Booming (even with the oppressive taxes and Mondale Libs here) Urban Sprawl is very much live and well and consuming.
Like many on this thread have said, the issue is "white Flight". Politicians want us to stay and living here but that will not happen until we "get back to the basics" and fight crime and use local/county taxes more effectively. I think urban sprawl will slow down if we do something with the entitlemant/crime class


To me the fact that we have urban sprawl (people leaving) is because its a "vote of no confidence" with the city politicians,planners and their views on crime control and social control. Its easier to just move and get real results now then to fight with the political structure.

I will soon have a thrid child (making 3 under 3 and a half years old) I dont have the time nor the faith to change the city of Bloomington, MN politics.
But we do plan on moving way out and having the land still farmed.
We're a red state family living in a blue state's metro.....for now.

Coronrch your statement:
"I don't think it has jack to do with "control", in any coherent, Orwellian manner. Right...the City Council in Metropolis is in cahoots with the zoning authority in Smallville to better bring the commuting proles in line. Sorry, not buying it. Does this create a general atmosphere that is conducive to blue-state thinking? Perhaps. That, however, is incidental. Look at any growing city...you will see many very real problems associated with growth. They're trying to deal with th"ose, not inculcate a sheeplike mentality."

I do disagree. Big cities do play in a God-like Orwellian style everyday. Social engineering is live and well. And this is why people leave the city. Here in Bloomington, MN they are spending WAY too much time on the smoking ban and not on crime. I dont think they are trying to deal with the problems. Controling the already law-abidding is easier and shows great result come election time......then to fight the hard fights with crime and telling the entitlement class to go in the backyard and grow a spine...............the law-abidding, tax paying citizens will only put up with so much.....and once the level of BS is reached....... they just leave.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Well, so far I've seen I've seen two moderators and zero gun-related content.

Anyway, in Minnesota, gas taxes and vehicle registration cover something like 95% of road costs at the state level. I don't know how federal gas taxes relate to federal highway funds.

I dislike the idea of someone telling me what I can and cannot do with my land. I also value the presence of natural spaces and farmland around me.

That's an easy one. Buy the land! That's what the Nature Conservancy does. They don't tell other folks what to do with their land, they BUY it, and thus control it.

Can't afford to buy a few square miles around your rural home? Well, sorry. I guess those that own it get to make the decisions.

 

[MinScout]

I don't like urban sprawl, period. That said, one can hardly deny young familes their share of the "American Dream". In Northern Minnesota, sprawl is not the huge issue it is in many urban areas, but it is present. I think the best course is for hunters/outdoorsmen, and concerned citizens to put their money where their mouth is. Get together with others and buy up large tracts of land and agree to keep it undeveloped. I used to belong to the Nature Conservancy, but then I read a story that some old timer had given them an island on Lake Of the Woods and they turned around and sold it to a developer. I think it was so they could buy more "ecologically critical" land elsewhere. Even so, it kind of soured me on that orgaization.

 

[Control Group]

And even more severe for food supply AND water: have you checked the status of the Ogallala aquifer in the last few years? Heads up, boys & girls. It's being drawn down in decades, but doesn't recharge on the scale of civilizations.

Do the math: if output > input, then eventually 0.

And that big underground pool is what waters most crops in the breadbasket.

You are, of course, right. Insofar as you are simply pointing out facts and obviously logical conclusions, I won't quibble with you in the slightest.

There's no getting around the fact, though, that these sorts of discussions, no matter how factual in context, contain a significant subtext of value decisions. It's plainly clear that drawing down the aquifer faster than it regenerates will eventually lead to it being empty. It's also not difficult to see that this will pose a significant problem for water availability when it happens.

On the other hand, slowing down the process to a sustainable pace - spreading out our usage over the period of civilizations - poses exactly the same problem.

This is identical to the fossil fuel supply: it is only useful insofar as we make use of it.

The question, then, isn't how we can stop the process, it's what we can do to deal with the impact of the process running its course. In the case of water, at least, I think it's a safe estimate to say that we create more water than we destroy (burning fossil fuels as opposed to electrolysis), so we're not going to run out of water. We'll simply run out of easily accessible (i.e., cheap) fresh water. Perhaps the answer is a massive desalinazation infrastructure. Perhaps it's harvesting polar ice. Perhaps it's a fiendish device to shift rainfall from over the oceans to over the land. Our best bet is, IMHO, to do as much as possible to ensure that the gradient of change is no steeper than it has to be.

Whatever it is, it will no doubt be expensive. But it will not be TEOTWAWKI (though I fully expect some very unpleasant "bumps" along the road).

 

[AStone]

Control Group,

Well said. We may differ on some points - and what a boring world it would be if we didn't have disagreements - but on the following point we agree:

The question, then, isn't how we can stop the process, it's what we can do to deal with the impact of the process running its course.

Ah, yes, common ground.

It's a busy day here, so I'll not respond anymore for now. Perhaps later. Only this brief point for now about one of your statements.

Whatever it is, it will no doubt be expensive. But it will not be TEOTWAWKI (though I fully expect some very unpleasant "bumps" along the road).

I find that often in discussions like this, participants have different definitions of terms. In this case, we may differ on our definition of "TEOTWAWKI".

I want to make it clear that when I use that acronym (which is really fun to pronounce, once you practice it a bit), I mean TEOTWAWKI, not TEOTW. There's an important difference.

I have no doubt that running out of inexpensive, easily accessible water will NOT be the "end of the world" for humans, whether in the US, the middle east or western Africa.

But I do hold out the strong probability that losing the Ogallala, and losing irrigation water in western rivers due to long term drought and water disputes among neighbors would be a TEOTWAWKI situation for the agriculture system as we knew it for much of 20th century. Without water for irrigation, much of the TX panhandle, western OK, Kansas and Nebraska are going to be pretty useless for high yields of corn, soy & wheat. That would have a HUGE impact on not only agricultural system and economic, but social systems that depend on those.

Would we survive with a lot of bumps? Probably, as long as climate doesn't jerk us around too badly, and IF we can find quick, cheap alternatives to the dwindling oil supply.

But, TEOTWAWKI is the term I use to refer to any large-scale rearrangement of economic, social or ecological systems (in this case, all three).

N~

 

[Zundfolge]

I dislike the idea of someone telling me what I can and cannot do with my land. I also value the presence of natural spaces and farmland around me.

Then buy it ... keep it natural or farm.

The socialism angle isn't a straw man either ... either we're free to use our property as we see fit or we're renters who rent our property from the state.

Any "compromise" is simply deciding how much real ownership you're willing to give up for illusion of ownership.

To use guns as an example, we always hear about "common sense gun control" ... thats code words for a death by a 1000 cuts ... "common sense gun control" will eventually work its way to total gun ban ... which is why we fight this so called "common sense".

 

[grimjaw]

Everyone just please stop breeding. If you hate sprawl, send this message to ten of your friends, worldwide, and implore them to stop breeding NOW.

Please.

jmm

 

[AZRickD]

I equate this with yet another leftwing marketing plan: "global warming." That so many "solutions" to this problem require US citizens or companies to hand over money to third world countries should point to the real goal of these and other socialist five-year plans.

Rick

 

[AStone]

I equate this with yet another leftwing marketing plan: "global warming." That so many "solutions" to this problem require US citizens or companies to hand over money to third world countries should point to the real goal of these and other socialist five-year plans.

Oh, please. Quit insulting our intelligence with your conspiracy theory.

This has nothing to do with socialists, Democrats, republicans, libertarians, greens or any brand of politics.

Educate yourself about a reality that Europe already understands even <personal irrelevancy removed by Art>.

 

[AZRickD]

Not to derail the thread (but it has pretty much run it's course).

No, thanks. A theory that can't be used to explain temperature rises in 1935 as well as temperature shifts in the 19th century would be discarded by this epidemiologist.

Perhaps we should start a global warming BS thread and leave this one alone?

Rick

 

[AStone]

A theory that can't be used to explain temperature rises in 1935 as well as temperature shifts in the 19th century would be discarded by this epidemiologist.

Hmmm. Epidemiologist. Remind me, please: how many classes in climatology were required along the way to that degree? And you have a solid background in nonlinear dynamics, right?

The early 20th century spike in global T, followed by a cooling trend from the 40's throught the 70's, followed by yet another T spike that continues to this day, is well understood by now by climatologists. Old news.

But perhaps your epidemiology journals don't cover that, so here's a useful source:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

Now, please do some reading before spouting off more inaccuracies.

Perhaps we should start a global warming BS thread and leave this one alone?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=153994

 

[454c]

The so called 'urban sprawl" is happening.I'm a young feller and remember big fields that are now full of houses,malls,etc.Can it be shut down? I doubt it.You can't blame city folks for wanting to get out.I wouldn't want to live there either.So why does it seem to happen at a faster rate nowadays?In addition to some things allready mentioned,I think another part is the value of the "family farm" is almost gone.Think about it,in order for people to buy and build,someone has to sell it to them.When the kids don't care about the farm,it gets sold.When the time comes to sell,not many people can throw down $1 mil. for a 500 acre farm at $2000 an acre BUT if we split it up into small tracts and charge $4000 an acre,the city folks will come running.Bye bye farm land,hello suburbia.

 

[AStone]

You can't blame city folks for wanting to get out. I wouldn't want to live there either.

I'm considering moving to a bigger one for professional reasons. I've been having second thoughts in the last few days. Thanks for reminding me about why.

Some of the coolest spelunking i ever did was in NW AR, near Mt. View. Big, deep limestone caves. Beautiful country.

No urban sprawl there, at least then, and i hope still not ...

 

[Preacherman]

If I might be permitted to re-direct our focus for a while, I think urban sprawl has a great deal to do with the Second Amendment and the RKBA. Consider:

- Those who live in urban communities, whether inner-city or suburban, tend to rely on services provided by others (e.g. law enforcement, health, sewage, water, electricity, social services, etc.). Those who live in rural areas have typically been far more self-reliant w.r.t. the necessities of life.

- Those who live in urban communities typically become part of the "community mentality", where conformity to a social norm is enforced by the expectations of the group. A good example is the housing covenant or governing rules often adopted by communities. You're bound to a code of conduct, and can be punished or even expelled if you break it. You've become part of the flock - a sheep. In rural communities, there's far more of a "you mind your own business, and I'll mind mine" mentality.

- Those who live in urban communities typically tolerate conditions of crowding, cheek-by-jowl living, etc. that would horrify and dismay those used to the "wide open spaces" of rural living. Put an average city dweller out in the country, dependent on his own resources, and he/she will typically be lost. Put a rural dweller in the city, and he might not like it much, but he'll survive (and get back to the country as soon as possible! ).

All these factors tend to emphasize the difference between self-reliance and reliance on others. The former is what we'd expect to find in those committed to the 2A and RKBA issues; the latter, in those who oppose our interests.

Worth thinking about...

 

[Colt]

The way the cities work is this:

Lots of people get together for convenience.
This encourages more crime and more dependency.
The middle class move out of the city to avoid the crime.
The ones that are left are the criminals, the dependents, the poor, the young, the wealthy urbanites and the elitist intellectuals.
Obviously these people elect Socialists to rule over them.
Socialists maintain or exacerbate the status quo.
The middle class continue to move outside the city as soon as they can afford to.
Ergo "sprawl".

Interesting. The only thing I'd add is that cities also provide the annonimity necessary to act without personal responsibility or any sort of morals.

In a small town, everyone seems to know everything about everybody, and people usually act in a more accountable manner. If they don't, they have to live with the shame that everyone else projects upon them.

In a big city, no one knows or cares who you are, who your family is, etc. You can do whatever you want, which is why the cities attract so many deviants and whack-jobs. It's the only place they aren't judged on a personal level. Good riddance.

 

[roo_ster]

What, me worry?

Worrying that our food supply will disappear because of sprawl is, IMO, misguided and somewhat mis/uninformed.

To give it a little perspective...
Cultivation started all along the Atlantic seaboard & was largely limited by the Appalacians before the American Revolution. After the AR, folks moved west & brought more land under cultivation. After the Civil War, the Great Plains, hitherto considered the "Great American Desert" came under cultivation. It wasn't Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, but it would provide a living (then). By 1900, those midwesterners started putting some eastern farmers on marginal land outta business. All during the 20th century, rural land that used to be under cultivation was abandoned to the wilderness, as some eastern farmers could not make a living & compete with cheap midwestern corn, wheat, etc. So, now we have more forest & less land under cultivation.

If it came down to it, that land could again be cleared and used to produce. Given contemporary methods, it is likely that that marginal land would exceed the production of the best land back in the early 1900s.

All it would take is a long-term rise in the prices of agricultural products to make it worth somebody's time.

 

[AZRickD]

mmm. Epidemiologist. Remind me, please: how many classes in climatology were required along the way to that degree?

Biostats, data analysis and study design -- all transfer well to other disciplines.

BTW, there is another thing that urban centers attract. Disease. Look at the rates per 100K of HIV in urban vs rural areas. Lots of chances for mass contact and exposure in the urbs. Yet another reason to flee and to resist those who would make it difficult to flee the resultant crime and taxation that is associated with urban infill.

Rick

 

[AStone]

Rick,

First, please accept my apology for jumping on your case last night re global warming. Please understand that I've studied climate change issues a lot in the last couple of years - in some ways, it's been my professional focus - and I teach public, college-level community classes about it trying to help people sort out reality from hype.

Second, I'm really NOT interested in hijacking this thread. If we want to argue about global warming and climate change, let's take it over to the existing thread on that issue.

(In fact, I'm leaning more towards Preacherman's suggestion for the direction of this thread. I think he's onto something - as usual; that guy starts some great threads - and look forward to reading more ...)

But in this post, I'm explaining why I jumped so hard at you last night. I've found an overwhelming tendency in the public to attempt to greatly oversimplify the whole global warming/climate change issue, which is an immensely complex issue. Thus, your comment ostensibly sweeping the issue aside like so much uneaten junk food by implying that it's nothing more than a socialist conspiracy just raises my flags and sounds all kinds of alarms. Although there are clearly politics involved, there's way, way, way more to the issue than that. And most of those throwing political barbs don't even understand the science behind it, let alone the mathematics.

My approach to teaching on this issue has consistently been, it may be real, it may not be real, but the only way to know for sure is to discuss it openly and carefully, considering all the components and not looking for simple answers that don't exist.
_ _ _

As for my question and your response to it:

Q: Epidemiologist. Remind me, please: how many classes in climatology were required along the way to that degree?

A: Biostats, data analysis and study design -- all transfer well to other disciplines.

I agree with you that having a strong background in biology & stats will help you understand the climate issues. I have a Ph.D. in ecology (that's NOT environmentalism!) plus an MS in probability theory and mathematical statistics (that's the derivation of the stats more than their use). {That makes me no smarter than anyone else, and in some ways dumber. I just spent a long time studying in university (where i really didn't always fit very well), but I still can't build a house. }

Both the math & the biology (especially physiology, interestingly enough) have greatly helped me grasp many of the issues in climate change.

Given your background, may I encourage you to explore the issue more thoroughly. I think with your background, you could understand the science and mathematics well.

The web site I sited, George Weart's site on The Discovery of Global Warming , is THE best single source I've found on the issue. It is ALL science though it does offer an ostensibly unbiased history of the development of the idea, both its supporters and detractors. The site is based on evidence, not on politics or environmental view. It does not have a political flavor. It is sponsored by a professional physics society, the American Institute of Physics, not a politcal group or environmentalist groups. It offers a very accurate portrayal of what we know with reasonble certainty that has withstood peer review and scrutiny, and what we do not know.

I'll add that I think you make good points about disease epidemics & their spread in dense populations. As a person with substantial background in population ecology, and a growing background in network dynamics (especially systems theory), I can relate to your words.

Regards,

N~

PS: I truly appreciate your signature, regardless of whether we agree on other things or not.

 

[Gifted]

I live in St. Charles, just outside of St. Louis. I've seen sprawl. Just over the hill there used to be a farm. It's houses now. There's several issues here.

In this area at least, taxes are based on the assessment. And they don't always assess right. That farmland I mentioned above was in the middle of the burbs when it got sold. While the farmer's son was interested in selling anyway, the burbs surrounding the land increased the value to the point that farming couldn't pay the bills. As I understand it(I studied it years ago for a school assignment) they assessed the land as suburb, not farmland. It's worth more with houses on it, and therefore, the property taxes are higher. Things like this have to be fixed too. If a farmer has to sell his land because he can't afford the taxes and other expenses, it just adds to the problem.

Take a look at Utah for dissappearing farmland. When visiting my sister earlier this year(in Provo), she mentioned that what I thought were large gutters were actually channels following the old irrigation channels. Water still goes through there, so they have to have the channels. It used to be farmland. Lots of it, now under houses.

I want a good piece of land. I'd love it. But I want green land, with trees and grass and stuff. Most of that is gone, or is way out of reach for me right now(any like this in Wyoming?). I wish the housing bubble would burst, so I could scoop something up cheap.

 

[Art Eatman]

Hey, guys, we export half the grains we grow. It's gonna be a long time before Aunt Jemima or Mrs. Baird run out of work to do. We import those fresh veggies and fruits you find in the Hoggly-Woggly or the A&Poo Feed Store during the cold months.

Having grown up around farming and ranching, and made a fair chunk of change in an offiice in a city, and now back to the middle of nowhere, I pretty much agree with Preacherman's assessment of types of people. It fits with my decades of being a dedicated people-watcher.

The federal gas tax goes into the Highway Trust Fund. This used to be enough money to build roads, until inflation meant tapping the general revenues, whence cometh Pork.

One aspect of urban sprawl: Local ad valorem property taxes. Appraisals are based on "highest use", which, typically, is residential and commercial. In Texas, they won't clobber you if more than half your income is from the land. Otherwise, shame on your happy tail. Example:

In 1939, my grandfather bought 150 acres five miles from Austin's city limits, for $24 an acre. By 1980, I was paying school taxes of $34/acre/year. I made more money in town than I could from the land, so no agricultural exemption on the taxes.

Hey! You can make a lot more money off condos than cows. So I contributed my own bit to urban sprawl.

(For any Austinites here, that's out Manchaca Road, the 9000 block on down to Slaughter Lane. Right-hand side when you're outbound.)

Regardless, people gotta live somewhere. The U.S. has roughly doubled in population during my lifetime.

Art

 

[halvey]

One cause of sprawl is the decline of family farming. In the past a working farm was 80-160 acres. Now you need 500 acres or more of cash crops just to breakeven. All these little farms have become giant farms. And its not the corporate farms either. Farmers did this to survive. So the people who didn't stay to farm had to move somewhere.

I've live in a small radius of 30 miles my whole life. In my former town of 2500, the new people move in because they can get more house for the money. They like the "quaintness" of the small town but then, they b!tch because they don't have the ammenties of the city. So they whine and cry and want the strip malls and Walmart to come in.

JohnBT :Too much pavement leading to run-off and islands of heat affecting the weather pattern.

I don't think thats true but runoff DOES raise the water temperature. There is a strip mall development planned near me that will back up to the only trophy trout stream in Southern Minnesota. Stupid stupid stupid.

Nematocyst-870: One solution among others - that simultaneously takes control away from the zoners: rip out (burn, dig up, plow under...) your hybrid, kentucky blue grass "lawn" (which is a product of English gentry who liked manicured lawns, a decidedly fluffy way of life. why, that's even more fluffy than the libs. no fluffly people on this forum, are there?) once you rip out your lawn, plant food there. beans, squash, corn, tomatoes, greens, herbs....

I completely agree. Especially for the folks living on acreage lots and lakeshore. Get rid of the lawn! Plant prairie grasses and trees with wildlife cover. I am on 2.5 acres and have a big project planned for next spring to start a prairie restoration project. I converted 1/2 my lot already into woody cover and eventually 90% of my lot will be woods and prairie grasses. Already the amount of wildlife has increased dramitacally.

 

[roo_ster]

Art:

FWIW, 40% of the recently passed highway bill's expenditures were not on highways, but on mass-transit & pork (same thing, really).

 

[AStone]

FWIW, 40% of the recently passed highway bill's expenditures were not on highways, but on mass-transit & pork (same thing, really).

Jfruser, I'm a little confused about your point. Are you suggesting that spending on mass transit is pork? If so, why?