At 10:25 AM -0500 10/8/02, Paul T. O'Leary wrote: >Not that I know anything about land use, but couldn't an argument also be >made about not just the _amount_ of sprawl, but the _kind_ of sprawl? IOW, >sprawl of any kind is bad, yeah, but what if the sprawl were made up of >neighborhoods where people weren't dependent on their cars? I would think >that sprawl from a commuter rail line, even acre-for-acre, would be much >less harmful to the environment than sprawl from a highway, because the >people occupying that sprawl wouldn't be driving as much to or from (or, >hopefully, _in_) it. >
As Ald. Ken Golden would probably ask, What is Sprawl? Definitions vary.Residential and business growth around downtown Mazo, but I wouldn't classify that as sprawl (although some would). A better way to look at is: is this it a choice between a subdivision in Mazo vs. condos in Madison? or is it a choice between a subdivision in Mazo vs. mini Mansions in Arena? -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Darin Burleigh |><|\/|/\|-o [EMAIL PROTECTED] |<>|/\|\/|-o _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
