Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization Revisited
and livestock, material to build the shelter, fuel and anything else I may be forgetting. The whole urban Vs. rural debate can never be productive because, a mix of the two has to be the ultimate outcome. Yes urban as well as rural and can, do better in reducing their impact on the environment, but IMO putting one above the other is counter productive. Doug - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization : Greetings, : : I think our definitions of what is rural and what is urban need to be : straightened out. If you live in a town, on an ordinary lot, in a single : family home, you live an urban lifestyle, no matter where it is. The : reason I say this, is because only small lots require water and waste : treatment plants. And that is a fallacy, too. Actually, compost toilets : and grey water systems work really well, improve your land and have no : waste. They do not require public works and are not bad for the : environment. The problem is that one must engage the brain at all times, : when using the systems or yes, you could make yourself very sick. : : To live in the country does require a higher degree of organization and : more of a willingness to do for oneself, even if it is just cooking your : own meals. We don't have a McDonalds just around every corner. : : I meet lots of people who are living a life based on fear, and are so : unhappy. They simply do not understand that it is the lack of skills that : is causing this problem. This is especially easy to see in middle-aged : single moms, living in the country without the skills to look after their : own place. Add to that a limited income, and yes I do understand the : fear. The thing is, the skills are not that difficult to acquire. : : There is a real joy, in eating a meal that with the exception of the salt : and pepper, came from your land, was processed 100% on the land and in a : home that your built yourself. It is fun setting an example of how it can : be done, in reasonable comfort and in safety. It is empowering to know : that you can survive whatever is coming down the road. Yeah, I guess I am : kinda subversive. But what else would you expect from an old hippie? grin : : Bright Blessings, : Kim : ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
The New York Times Opinion OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Empty House on the Prairie By BOB GREENE Published: March 2, 2005 Chicago IF you and your family would like to move to Crosby, N.D., not only will the town give you a free plot of land on which to build your house, they'll also throw in a free membership to the Crosby Country Club. If you and your family would like to move to Ellsworth, Kan., not only will the town give you free land, they'll also give you thousands of dollars toward a down payment on the house you build if you have children who will attend the public school. If you and your family would like to move to Plainville, Kan., not only will the town give you free land, they will also drastically reduce the property tax on your house for 10 years, and the first-year tax rate will be zero percent. The logical question, upon hearing all of this, is the one I presented to Plainville's mayor, Glenn Sears: What's the catch? Mr. Sears paused for a good seven seconds before answering, as if the question itself did not make sense. Then he said, There is no catch. But there is a requirement: that you pack up your life as you now know it, and start again in Crosby (population 1,100) or Ellsworth (population 2,500) or Plainville (population 2,000). The free-land offer is the result of one of the most significant American stories of the last century, one that has received sporadic attention because it has unfolded so gradually: the inexorable population flow out of rural areas, toward larger cities. The tiny towns in the Great Plains and upper Midwest don't want to die. They are trying to keep their young people from departing, to beckon home those who have left, and - more and more - to think of ways to entice outsiders to come and build and stay. Thus, proposed tax breaks in Iowa; loans in Nebraska; land giveaways in Kansas and elsewhere. And although word of these lures is getting out, no one truly knows whether any of it will work. In northwestern North Dakota, they think there is no option but to try: Steve Slocum, of the area's development alliance, said, You don't get any pheasants if you don't shoot your gun. There may be an inherent problem in the approach: when something is free, it appears to have no value. Playing hard to get has long been more effective than throwing yourself at someone. The jaded big-city negotiating line is: Desperation is the worst cologne. They're not buying that in the towns giving away the land. When I suggested that the towns might do better by taking the opposite psychological direction - charging hefty initiation fees for the pleasure of living in a quiet, safe, low-stress environment - Anita Hoffhines, head of the effort in Ellsworth County, said, We've tried coy long enough. Yet there does seem to be a danger that, by all but begging outsiders to come, the rural communities will send a false and counterproductive message: that small-town life is so undesirable that the only way to keep people is to chain them down (or bribe them). It might be better to explain to the world exactly why a placid way of life is preferable to urban cacophony and chaos - and inform the outsiders that this kind of living is so valuable, they're going to have to pay a little extra for the privilege of moving in. Make what's inside the tent seem irresistible - a lesson that should have been learned on the midways of every county fair there ever was. Not that the small towns aren't trying to spell out their qualities. They're doing it earnestly (Lincoln, Kan.: The Size of a Dime With the Heart of a Dollar); with a wink (northwestern North Dakota: We have four distinct seasons - three are absolutely beautiful, one is very distinct); with exuberant punctuation (Atwood, Kan.: Where else can you enjoy a cup of coffee at the local cafe, and everyone there is your friend?!). In some of these towns, a commute to work is four minutes; crime is all but nonexistent; at night you half-believe you can look toward the soundless sky and see the outskirts of heaven. And isolation, in our age of 500 channels, of easy Internet access and e-mail, does not mean the same thing it did to generations past. So if the giveaway programs fail to bring about a new land rush, maybe it will be no one's fault. The United States is no longer quite so young a country; we've been here a while, and nations, like people, get set in their ways. If the great urban-rural population divide stays the way it is, it may be because we all have chosen to live this way, and are not about to change. With that in mind, I asked Nita Basgall, the city clerk of Plainville, to consider what she would do if the invitation was reversed: if, say, New York City were to offer free plots of land in Midtown Manhattan. Her response was courteous and it was instant: No, thank you. Bob Greene is the author of Once Upon a Town: The Miracle of the North
Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
for their ideas. Where I live, you used to be able to get 3 acres and a 1200 square foot shell house for $18,600 with $1000 down and payments of $183 per month. No credit check, no id required. The reality is that we attracted many of the worst kind of people to the area. Theft skyrocketed, violence, drugs and all sorts of problems happened. Some good people came too and they are the ones who stayed. It was a rough 5 years until the town had a population base built up and they started selling finished houses for outrageous amounts of money. After having lived through this, I really wonder if these towns know what they are doing. Bright Blessings, Kim At 06:52 AM 3/2/2005, you wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/opinion/02greene.html?oref=login The New York Times Opinion OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Empty House on the Prairie By BOB GREENE Published: March 2, 2005 Chicago IF you and your family would like to move to Crosby, N.D., not only will the town give you a free plot of land on which to build your house, they'll also throw in a free membership to the Crosby Country Club. If you and your family would like to move to Ellsworth, Kan., not only will the town give you free land, they'll also give you thousands of dollars toward a down payment on the house you build if you have children who will attend the public school. If you and your family would like to move to Plainville, Kan., not only will the town give you free land, they will also drastically reduce the property tax on your house for 10 years, and the first-year tax rate will be zero percent. The logical question, upon hearing all of this, is the one I presented to Plainville's mayor, Glenn Sears: What's the catch? Mr. Sears paused for a good seven seconds before answering, as if the question itself did not make sense. Then he said, There is no catch. But there is a requirement: that you pack up your life as you now know it, and start again in Crosby (population 1,100) or Ellsworth (population 2,500) or Plainville (population 2,000). The free-land offer is the result of one of the most significant American stories of the last century, one that has received sporadic attention because it has unfolded so gradually: the inexorable population flow out of rural areas, toward larger cities. The tiny towns in the Great Plains and upper Midwest don't want to die. They are trying to keep their young people from departing, to beckon home those who have left, and - more and more - to think of ways to entice outsiders to come and build and stay. Thus, proposed tax breaks in Iowa; loans in Nebraska; land giveaways in Kansas and elsewhere. And although word of these lures is getting out, no one truly knows whether any of it will work. In northwestern North Dakota, they think there is no option but to try: Steve Slocum, of the area's development alliance, said, You don't get any pheasants if you don't shoot your gun. There may be an inherent problem in the approach: when something is free, it appears to have no value. Playing hard to get has long been more effective than throwing yourself at someone. The jaded big-city negotiating line is: Desperation is the worst cologne. They're not buying that in the towns giving away the land. When I suggested that the towns might do better by taking the opposite psychological direction - charging hefty initiation fees for the pleasure of living in a quiet, safe, low-stress environment - Anita Hoffhines, head of the effort in Ellsworth County, said, We've tried coy long enough. Yet there does seem to be a danger that, by all but begging outsiders to come, the rural communities will send a false and counterproductive message: that small-town life is so undesirable that the only way to keep people is to chain them down (or bribe them). It might be better to explain to the world exactly why a placid way of life is preferable to urban cacophony and chaos - and inform the outsiders that this kind of living is so valuable, they're going to have to pay a little extra for the privilege of moving in. Make what's inside the tent seem irresistible - a lesson that should have been learned on the midways of every county fair there ever was. Not that the small towns aren't trying to spell out their qualities. They're doing it earnestly (Lincoln, Kan.: The Size of a Dime With the Heart of a Dollar); with a wink (northwestern North Dakota: We have four distinct seasons - three are absolutely beautiful, one is very distinct); with exuberant punctuation (Atwood, Kan.: Where else can you enjoy a cup of coffee at the local cafe, and everyone there is your friend?!). In some of these towns, a commute to work is four minutes; crime is all but nonexistent; at night you half-believe you can look toward the soundless sky and see the outskirts of heaven. And isolation, in our age of 500 channels, of easy Internet access and e-mail, does not mean the same
Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization Greetings, I think our definitions of what is rural and what is urban need to be straightened out. If you live in a town, on an ordinary lot, in a single family home, you live an urban lifestyle, no matter where it is. I would have agreed with you, Kim, until I moved from urban Texas, to rural Minnesota. To be just blatantly honest, I can hardly tell a difference, other than distance. Urban and rural, country and city, don't mean much in America anymore. I guess maybe I need more definition from you. Are you seperating urban and rural by their treatment of waste water? Or are you defining them as being town = urban, no town = rural? Just FYI, the town I now live in, has a population of 214! No kidding. I still think they are making that number up, there's no way this town has over 200 people living in it. McDonalds? Not around any corner for 20+ miles. WalMart? Nope, 34+ miles. We have a post office, 2 churches, 1 mechanic, 2 bars (have to balance out the churches I guess), 1 wedding dress shop (???). The reason I say this, is because only small lots require water and waste treatment plants. And that is a fallacy, too. Have you ever tried disconnecting your house, within city limits, from city water and sewer? To put it mildly, it is an extremely difficult proposition. I actually checked into doing this, not once, but twice, when I was still in Texas. I was fortunate to have a family member who is employed by a city that borders Galveston Bay. He made some inquiries on my behalf regarding the disconnecting an existing sewer hook-up, and as I'm sure you are all aware, that went over like a lead balloon. I never said I handled it the best possible way, I just said that I had actually checked into it. My point is that even if one engages the brain at all times, current author excluded of course, and works incredibly diligently at keeping his/her impact(s) on the environment to acceptable minimums, our infrastructure and inability to adapt, with anything that resembles acceptable speed, is not allowing us to change. Actually, compost toilets and grey water systems work really well, improve your land and have no waste. They do not require public works and are not bad for the environment. The problem is that one must engage the brain at all times, when using the systems or yes, you could make yourself very sick. To live in the country does require a higher degree of organization and more of a willingness to do for oneself, even if it is just cooking your own meals. We don't have a McDonalds just around every corner. I meet lots of people who are living a life based on fear, and are so unhappy. They simply do not understand that it is the lack of skills that is causing this problem. This is especially easy to see in middle-aged single moms, living in the country without the skills to look after their own place. Add to that a limited income, and yes I do understand the fear. The thing is, the skills are not that difficult to acquire. There is a real joy, in eating a meal that with the exception of the salt and pepper, came from your land, was processed 100% on the land and in a home that your built yourself. It is fun setting an example of how it can be done, in reasonable comfort and in safety. It is empowering to know that you can survive whatever is coming down the road. Yeah, I guess I am kinda subversive. But what else would you expect from an old hippie? grin Bright Blessings, Kim snip ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA Greetings Mike, Actually I am listing urban as a place that has lots of rules. Rural can do for oneself. I live outside of a small town, don't know how many people. They just incorporated around a year ago although the town was established in 1832 in the province of Tejas. We have 6 churches, 3 restaurants, a bank, video rental place, post office, gas station with store and a produce store . No bars, local option is dry. You have put your finger on the real problem with urbanization, too many rules against living sanely. In Houston, most neighborhood gestapo won't allow a clothes line! Forget solar panels and solar hot water. The Houston Renewable Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] list has great fun with this, at least we provide a place for people to rant. My lifestyle of compost toilets and a grey water system would be totally against the law. My point is that even if one engages the brain at all times, current author excluded of course, and works incredibly diligently at keeping his/her impact(s) on the environment to acceptable minimums, our infrastructure and inability to adapt, with anything that resembles acceptable speed, is not allowing us to change. And why do we have all these dumb rules? Because self reliance went out of fashion and everyone wants to be protected. Bright Blessings, Kim ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
Well yes the rub is in defining rural. My point is you don't have to drive very far out of town to find the very same things that where being used to paint urban as somehow more evil than rural. The second point was that there is not enough viable real-estate available for every family have their own self-sustaining homestead. Viable meaning decent soil, enough water to support, crops humans and livestock, material to build the shelter, fuel and anything else I may be forgetting. The whole urban Vs. rural debate can never be productive because, a mix of the two has to be the ultimate outcome. Yes urban as well as rural and can, do better in reducing their impact on the environment, but IMO putting one above the other is counter productive. Doug - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization : Greetings, : : I think our definitions of what is rural and what is urban need to be : straightened out. If you live in a town, on an ordinary lot, in a single : family home, you live an urban lifestyle, no matter where it is. The : reason I say this, is because only small lots require water and waste : treatment plants. And that is a fallacy, too. Actually, compost toilets : and grey water systems work really well, improve your land and have no : waste. They do not require public works and are not bad for the : environment. The problem is that one must engage the brain at all times, : when using the systems or yes, you could make yourself very sick. : : To live in the country does require a higher degree of organization and : more of a willingness to do for oneself, even if it is just cooking your : own meals. We don't have a McDonalds just around every corner. : : I meet lots of people who are living a life based on fear, and are so : unhappy. They simply do not understand that it is the lack of skills that : is causing this problem. This is especially easy to see in middle-aged : single moms, living in the country without the skills to look after their : own place. Add to that a limited income, and yes I do understand the : fear. The thing is, the skills are not that difficult to acquire. : : There is a real joy, in eating a meal that with the exception of the salt : and pepper, came from your land, was processed 100% on the land and in a : home that your built yourself. It is fun setting an example of how it can : be done, in reasonable comfort and in safety. It is empowering to know : that you can survive whatever is coming down the road. Yeah, I guess I am : kinda subversive. But what else would you expect from an old hippie? grin : : Bright Blessings, : Kim : ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
Well yes the rub is in defining rural. My point is you don't have to drive very far out of town to find the very same things that where being used to paint urban as somehow more evil than rural. The second point was that there is not enough viable real-estate available for every family have their own self-sustaining homestead. Viable meaning decent soil, enough water to support, crops humans and livestock, material to build the shelter, fuel and anything else I may be forgetting. The whole urban Vs. rural debate can never be productive because, a mix of the two has to be the ultimate outcome. Yes urban as well as rural and can, do better in reducing their impact on the environment, but IMO putting one above the other is counter productive. ... unless they're out of kilter, as indeed they are, in which case it could help to restore the balance. It's a major problem that one IS above the other, and indeed it's counterproductive I don't think anybody seriously proposes Death to Cities. Probably most of us here can see how poorly cities are planned from the point of view of sustainability, and it's also not too hard to see how it could be improved - very greatly improved. There'll always be a mutual relationship between rural and urban, as there always has been, but it cannot for long be a relationship where the one dominates the other and has it all their own way, it just doesn't work. Cities can be much more sustainable and self-sustaining, more self-reliant, and they're going to have to be, no matter how much it hurts. They'll survive, of course, but at best there'll still be a dependence on the rural sector, and vice versa. Rural areas? Lots wrong there too, as this thread is revealing. There are three problem areas, I think: the urban problem, the rural problem, and the uneven urban-rural relationship. They can all be fixed. Probably the main obstacles are the will and mindset, not the political will so much as at the individual level. Re which: : that you can survive whatever is coming down the road. Yeah, I guess I am : kinda subversive. But what else would you expect from an old hippie? Just that, Kim, just that. :-) Plus a bright blessing or two. Regards Keith Doug - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization : Greetings, : : I think our definitions of what is rural and what is urban need to be : straightened out. If you live in a town, on an ordinary lot, in a single : family home, you live an urban lifestyle, no matter where it is. The : reason I say this, is because only small lots require water and waste : treatment plants. And that is a fallacy, too. Actually, compost toilets : and grey water systems work really well, improve your land and have no : waste. They do not require public works and are not bad for the : environment. The problem is that one must engage the brain at all times, : when using the systems or yes, you could make yourself very sick. : : To live in the country does require a higher degree of organization and : more of a willingness to do for oneself, even if it is just cooking your : own meals. We don't have a McDonalds just around every corner. : : I meet lots of people who are living a life based on fear, and are so : unhappy. They simply do not understand that it is the lack of skills that : is causing this problem. This is especially easy to see in middle-aged : single moms, living in the country without the skills to look after their : own place. Add to that a limited income, and yes I do understand the : fear. The thing is, the skills are not that difficult to acquire. : : There is a real joy, in eating a meal that with the exception of the salt : and pepper, came from your land, was processed 100% on the land and in a : home that your built yourself. It is fun setting an example of how it can : be done, in reasonable comfort and in safety. It is empowering to know : that you can survive whatever is coming down the road. Yeah, I guess I am : kinda subversive. But what else would you expect from an old hippie? grin : : Bright Blessings, : Kim ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
Hi, Frankly I'm glad there are those who desire are willing to live in the cities, there is not enough real estate available to spread us all out in that mythical bucolic rural setting. I can only hope those who are able to by choice to live and work in a rural area appreciate the luxury, for the luxury that that is. Rural itself has miles and miles of hard road surfaces and associated storm drainage. There has to as much goods transported into rural areas as there is transported into urban. Rural also requires both water and waste treatment. Rural has it's share of stink and noise. Forget some supplies when in town? May be up to a 15 mile drive to get what you forgot or ran out of I'm not so sure rural residents really want to see an all *inclusive* comparison who pay taxes and who receives tax revenue or receives subsidies. A fact that Cook County receives 90% of the taxes collected by the State of Illinois is, data insignifica with out knowing, what percentage of the tax revenue was extracted from Cook County. There is a good chance it IS rural that can't survive without subsidies, think carefully about opening that door. Respectfully please don't perpetuate the myth about the big bad public works. Privatize you may see any savings to be had going off as profit to some far off investor instead of employing a neibor. Doug From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 1:52 PM Subject: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization : Pannir, : : I feel the same as you. The big cities ruin the ecology. The whole premis that millions of people should live jam packed in a city is wrong. : : Cities artificially compensate for the massive overtaxing of the ecology by building waste water treatment plants, storm water run off systems, concrete covered streets, and centralized energy distributions systems. : : The air stinks, the water has to be clorinated to be made safe, citizens must travel miles to get a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. : : The total cost of living in a city is subsidized by taxing non-urban residents. The sole benefit to mankind for living in a city is incorrectly identified as efficiency. : : More jobs, more resources, less transportations costs, less fuel burned, less air pollution, but that is all bull. Everything needed to live in a city must be transported into, and within, the city. : : I have lived both in big cities and in the countryside. I now live one mile outside of a small rural town in northern Wisconsin. My one and only trip to New York city left me wondering why anyone would live there. It was filthy, noisy, crowded, most of the streets were in disrepair, the subway trains seemed to drag themselves along the tracks, facades were falling off the buildings (and killing pedestrians below), the only good thing I found was the ability to get great food at any hour of the day or night, but that is little compensation. : : Big cities are artificially sustained entities. Take Chicago for example. Of all the tax revenue collected by the state of Illinois, 90% goes to Cook county (Chicago). The rest of the state must live off the remaining 10%. If cities are so efficient, why must they be so heavily subsidized? The reality is they are not efficient; they are really inefficient public works projects. : : : : ___ : Biofuel mailing list : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel : : Biofuel at Journey to Forever: : http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html : : Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): : http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ : ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
Pannir, I feel the same as you. The big cities ruin the ecology. The whole premis that millions of people should live jam packed in a city is wrong. Cities artificially compensate for the massive overtaxing of the ecology by building waste water treatment plants, storm water run off systems, concrete covered streets, and centralized energy distributions systems. The air stinks, the water has to be clorinated to be made safe, citizens must travel miles to get a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. The total cost of living in a city is subsidized by taxing non-urban residents. The sole benefit to mankind for living in a city is incorrectly identified as efficiency. More jobs, more resources, less transportations costs, less fuel burned, less air pollution, but that is all bull. Everything needed to live in a city must be transported into, and within, the city. I have lived both in big cities and in the countryside. I now live one mile outside of a small rural town in northern Wisconsin. My one and only trip to New York city left me wondering why anyone would live there. It was filthy, noisy, crowded, most of the streets were in disrepair, the subway trains seemed to drag themselves along the tracks, facades were falling off the buildings (and killing pedestrians below), the only good thing I found was the ability to get great food at any hour of the day or night, but that is little compensation. Big cities are artificially sustained entities. Take Chicago for example. Of all the tax revenue collected by the state of Illinois, 90% goes to Cook county (Chicago). The rest of the state must live off the remaining 10%. If cities are so efficient, why must they be so heavily subsidized? The reality is they are not efficient; they are really inefficient public works projects. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
I like cities (depending on the city). I like the rural life too, I really don't know which I prefer. Both, I suppose. Some comments below... Pannir, I feel the same as you. The big cities ruin the ecology. The whole premis that millions of people should live jam packed in a city is wrong. Cities artificially compensate for the massive overtaxing of the ecology by building waste water treatment plants, storm water run off systems, concrete covered streets, and centralized energy distributions systems. The air stinks, the water has to be clorinated to be made safe, citizens must travel miles to get a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. The total cost of living in a city is subsidized by taxing non-urban residents. The sole benefit to mankind for living in a city is incorrectly identified as efficiency. More jobs, more resources, less transportations costs, less fuel burned, less air pollution, but that is all bull. Everything needed to live in a city must be transported into, and within, the city. I have lived both in big cities and in the countryside. I now live one mile outside of a small rural town in northern Wisconsin. My one and only trip to New York city left me wondering why anyone would live there. It was filthy, noisy, crowded, most of the streets were in disrepair, the subway trains seemed to drag themselves along the tracks, facades were falling off the buildings (and killing pedestrians below), the only good thing I found was the ability to get great food at any hour of the day or night, but that is little compensation. Big cities are artificially sustained entities. Take Chicago for example. Of all the tax revenue collected by the state of Illinois, 90% goes to Cook county (Chicago). The rest of the state must live off the remaining 10%. If cities are so efficient, why must they be so heavily subsidized? The reality is they are not efficient; they are really inefficient public works projects. I don't think they necessarily have to be inefficient. In this thread we've been discussing food supplies for cities, among other things. I think cities can supply very much more of their own food than they currently do, and there are a lot of cities that can demonstrate that - or, perhaps more often, the cities themselves can't, but the inhabitants can, the community itself rather than officialdom. I pointed at our City farms pages at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/cityfarm.html City farms http://journeytoforever.org/cityfarm_link.html Resources for city farms I was also talking about urban farming in Japan - very extensive! Or widespread, rather, actually it's very intensive. I'm not the only one who thinks this, a lot of people do. They've just been discussing chickens over at the COMFOOD group, which deals with food security: From: Sympa user [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of HERBERT DREYER Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [COMFOOD:] chicken You know, I once read that LA eats 7 to 8 million chickens a weekend! Of course that was a few years ago. From your way off target comfoodie (w apologies to my friend Michele) Herb Dreyer - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Chicken is the most popular meat consumed in America. I am just guessing but probably 99% of the population eats it. Ken Hargesheimer From: Hank Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:39:48 -0500 Subject: RE: [COMFOOD:] chicken Using the latest available population estimates and per capita consumption estimates: In the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area the population in 2002 was 12,694,396. The US per capita consumption of chicken in 2003 was 82 pounds. If one chicken weighs out at 4 pounds, that is 20.5 chickens per person. Thus we can estimate that the residents of the Los Angeles MSA consume 260.2 million chickens per year, 5 million chickens per week, and 715,000 chickens per day. In terms of pounds LA MSA residents buy 2.9 million pounds of chicken daily. If chicken sells retail at $1.99 per pound in LA, then LA residents spend $5.7 million daily for chicken. How many small chicken farmers will that daily expenditure support? Hank From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:22:55 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [COMFOOD:] chickens per day Hank, Great thinking. I sincerely believe that one day in the future, small farmers will be providing a very large percentage of the food to a city. The truth is, most cities have the land to produce much of their food right now. The problem is that most people can not think in terms of farming. People are so removed from agriculture. When I was young my mother would telling me that if I ever used a four-letter dirty-word she would wash out my mouth with soap. In the 21st century, there is an
Re: [Biofuel] End of Suburbia and Ruralization
Kim Greetings All the overcrowed urban , the place in MEGA City become much expensive, ecologically destructive , the under developed suburban areas having less people.These suburban place around the city can be used make food, fuel , feed needed for the urban city. But the same model for the urban developments of destroying the lands are also used in all the places , no employments , no local work , no local industry as importation is made easy than local production It is true that that any 'new urbanism' is not going to be a improvement , but decentralized Ruralized suburban can really make the urban areas sustainable and a lot of the improvements. For this we need to have peoples power in the hands of the people who love the place and democracy and suburban people to make the place more productive , by local production and sharing.The global economy need not be allowed to kill the local development and local economy .The combined fuel and food production done locally and sharing the products are still practised in sevral urban areas. The local small city local economy in Brasil is not yet destroyed by global economy , thussaving and serving the poor and middle class people via week end free , street open markets in rural ares , still in urban areas too. It is very hard to believe how this can survive together with the globalised super market closed marketing system .The end of this ruralized economy in urban areas is the reason for the increased violence , terror and all need to pay very hard to have the balance. Thanking you Yours Pannirselvam On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:22:29 -0800 (PST), Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recall my daughter researching cow gestation. I think there is a 3 week spread between the breeds. Kirk --- Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings, I live in the middle of nowhere and yes, we do see this all the time. No one walks anywhere, no bicycles, very few motorcycles. They drive 25 miles to the city daily for whatever, even if they do not work. Many who live here drive 150+ miles a day to work and back. Me, I go to town once a week, in my Volks TDI. I did look at getting a motorcycle, but the animal feed ect. just doesn't fit. Eventually we hope to lower the amount we are spending off farm, but it takes time and effort to build the place, improve the soil and keep everything done. Being self sufficient is really hard to set up. For example, right now I have to buy milk and milk products because my cow is almost 2 weeks overdue to have her calf. I did have some milk in the freezer, but we ran out. Mother Nature makes this lifestyle an art, not a science. I have read books like 5 acres and independence, but they obviously did not have a Jersey cow. The biggest problem I have found it that local economy is so expensive. They expect you to pay dearly for the privilege of buying locally, to the tune of double what I can pay 25 miles away. Worse than that, the local produce store carries Californian oranges, not the Texas or Louisiana oranges that I get a Walmart. [I am in east Texas] We have nothing produced locally that is sold locally. The high gas prices have had little effect on the lifestyle. Most people who have moved here from the city have no interest in doing for themselves. Less than 10% of the homes have gardens, and this in a place where gardening year round is easy. The reality of today makes it hard to believe that any 'new urbanism' is going to be an improvement. Bright Blessings, Kim At 12:51 PM 2/24/2005, you wrote: I think the reason the film spoke of new urbanism as one possible result (not solution) is that a possible trouble with moving further out is that unless you can provide all of your own goods/services (which most can not), the increased distance will require MORE not less transportation (and hence more energy). High density living facilitates a reduction/concentration of transportation, and also enables the use of higher efficiency transportation methods (mass transit for individuals, trains for goods, etc). _ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel
