Hans Fugal wrote: > Anyway, my take on it is it's a crying shame that people are dumb but > it's not news. It's a crying shame that Utah is filling up and space is > limited, limiting your choices (or forcing you to a longer commute), but > it is.
Utah is hardly filling up--the wasatch front is. It was a natural evolution, but without any planning whatsoever, and that's tragic. The subdivisions are all in the wrong places. If, 100 years ago, growth had been planned for, then most of the cities would not be where they are today. Instead subdivisions would have been built in the west deserts and on marginal land, leaving the wasatch valley area available for farm land and orchards. When SLC was founded, it was planned such that people could live among the land that they farmed, which was sensible for the 1800s. Utah could be fairly self-sufficient in terms of basic food production. Today the farmland is all but gone in the fertile areas. But of course that's totally fine because food comes from grocery stores now anyway. And we probably don't have enough water for both people and orchards anyway. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
