On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:18:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 10, 4:20*am, jeff miller wrote:
wrote:
* * *- Ken
look closer at the number of acres being lost annually in agricultural
regions of the south...don't you think that is an awful lot?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

...and therein is the problem revealed.... no sense in discussing the
issue with you.

I'm being purposefully flippant. To be more honest, urban sprawl is
essentially a local problem. If you don't like your local urban
sprawl
then vote your local *******s out.

As someone who lives in an "Urban Growth Boundary", you might not
like the alternatives either. Primary problem is too many people
breeding
too many more people.


Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
* *- Ken

yeah...again, i find it hard to believe you are that
narrow-minded...until now, i never suspected such. what happens when all
the "private" farmland and forests are gone to condos, parking lots,
etc? *rainforests?? *hell janik...why should you and i worry about
anything...won't be much change by the time we're dust... * anyway, i'm
leaving this morning for a trip west...and working at the great mystery
again.

I think I work with data too much. A 1.7% change over 40 years is
essentially
no change. I'm confident that the error bars in the data are larger
than that
change.
- Ken


The humorous thing about this whole thing is that it is not like Donald
Trump trying to cover all of Central Park with CLASSY!!!! skyscrapers
and concrete, but rather, it's like Tom Keller trying to buy Tavern on
the Green...and turning it into a restaurant...(and speaking of pearls
before swine...)

HTH,
R