Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert.hampton
My point was promoting sprawl is not a solution to sprawl.
|
I don’t think he was saying “sprawl is the solution to sprawl”, instead I think, and he can correct me if I’m wrong, but they way I took it was that it your going to sprawl anyways, then why not build it more compact (meaning on open fields and thousands of empty acreage between developed neighborhoods) to at least reduce the amount of driving a bit for commuters, and reduce current wasted land around the metro. This would also be easier on residents tax money as you won’t need to build so many extra roads going out further, as well as extending the cities utilities and sewer lines... it’s more of just a waste of tax dollars when in reality you could just build the newer developments on large patches of empty lots already along the current road system and closer to the cities utility tracks. (Assuming of course if sprawl is going to happen no matter what, then why not be a little smarter with how it happens)
I believe fully in a free market, and unfortunately sometimes there are things like sprawl that can be a result... I also believe in zoning (to an extent) and wish that the city would offer more incentives with building permits to developers who choose to build on already available land within the metro, without just building further and further out.
Sorry, I realize a lot of this probably sounds like rambling, I just woke up ha