Or, Dan I might be employed further out of the city and want or require space for an alternate lifestyle...like raising animals, growing food or having a side agri business on my property. You can't raise livestock in the city. You can't do much of anything but consume goods, go out to eat and watch reality TV shows in high density housing. Why do I have to move a ridiculous distance from my customer base to pursue my life? Wake up, the developers are not creating livable developments which preserve green space. They are shoehorning as many people as possible onto cramped, paved over town home "communities" as far as the eye can see. They don't have to follow the rules imposed on everyone else and don't kid yourself, it's all about turning a buck. Ask yourself why it's so difficult to permit stuctures on land designed for using the land such as barns, enclosures and shops. What's the purpose of that but to prevent land owners from extracting any value from their land. That has nothing to do with preventing sprawl and everthing to do with lining developers pockets. My little farm would be a great townhouse enclave, they just have to drive down my land value and restrict me out of business before they can have it. Oh yes, they want every patch of land to be infinitely subdivideable hence the "rural clustering" regulations. The bottom line is these land restrictions only serve to make land development and ownership beyond the grasp of the middle class and hand control of how people live to big business and government. The environment should be considered and protected but what's happening with land rights and forcing people to conform to a single lifestyle is an Orwellian social engineering nightmare. It's not going to result in the preservation of our rural areas, it's going to ensure their demise. The only thing that's going to stop sprawl is zero population growth....and absolutely no one wants to talk about that.
Dan - 13 years ago
Another technique to restrict development is to create incentives for the home buyer to purchase a home in a more urban environment. I know plenty of Washintonians who wouldn't live in Seattle, Tacoma or any urban area in the state. Instead, they want that house built on that sprawled-out piece of land that requires them to drive their H3 four miles to the 20-acres of asphalt known as the Costco parking lot if they need to buy something. If one wants to live a small, sustainable lifestyle that only requires taking up a small area in an already developed city, too bad citizen, that's not the 'merican way.
Or, Dan I might be employed further out of the city and want or require space for an alternate lifestyle...like raising animals, growing food or having a side agri business on my property. You can't raise livestock in the city. You can't do much of anything but consume goods, go out to eat and watch reality TV shows in high density housing. Why do I have to move a ridiculous distance from my customer base to pursue my life? Wake up, the developers are not creating livable developments which preserve green space. They are shoehorning as many people as possible onto cramped, paved over town home "communities" as far as the eye can see. They don't have to follow the rules imposed on everyone else and don't kid yourself, it's all about turning a buck. Ask yourself why it's so difficult to permit stuctures on land designed for using the land such as barns, enclosures and shops. What's the purpose of that but to prevent land owners from extracting any value from their land. That has nothing to do with preventing sprawl and everthing to do with lining developers pockets. My little farm would be a great townhouse enclave, they just have to drive down my land value and restrict me out of business before they can have it. Oh yes, they want every patch of land to be infinitely subdivideable hence the "rural clustering" regulations. The bottom line is these land restrictions only serve to make land development and ownership beyond the grasp of the middle class and hand control of how people live to big business and government. The environment should be considered and protected but what's happening with land rights and forcing people to conform to a single lifestyle is an Orwellian social engineering nightmare. It's not going to result in the preservation of our rural areas, it's going to ensure their demise. The only thing that's going to stop sprawl is zero population growth....and absolutely no one wants to talk about that.
Another technique to restrict development is to create incentives for the home buyer to purchase a home in a more urban environment. I know plenty of Washintonians who wouldn't live in Seattle, Tacoma or any urban area in the state. Instead, they want that house built on that sprawled-out piece of land that requires them to drive their H3 four miles to the 20-acres of asphalt known as the Costco parking lot if they need to buy something. If one wants to live a small, sustainable lifestyle that only requires taking up a small area in an already developed city, too bad citizen, that's not the 'merican way.