In article ,
(Enough Already) wrote:

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

=v= You really have no clue what you're talking about. The
organizers of the Sierra Club's campaign against sprawl are
excellent people, one of whom I know personally. That means
nothing to you, of course, so I'll their work speak for itself:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/


They are elitists who are do not want the next generation to have what
they already have. We have population concentration in the USA, not
sprawl.
They have it backwards.

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?

There's a difference between calmly citing the FActs and screaming like
chicken little that the sky is falling. One indicator useful for
telling the two apart is exclamation points. Another is vague
generalities. Let us see as we proceed here. Oh, and a third is
anonymous posting


The eastern seaboard is built to capacity in many areas,

You, of course, mean places like NYC the epitome of anti-sprawl. So we
find out, finally, that you aren't against "sprawl" but against any
human footprint regardless of urban form.

the midwest and most fertile
valleys are a sea of farmland (needed to feed all those people)

Well, the Central Valley of California might disagree given their
massive urbanization and as people continue to vote with their feet and
abandon huge swaths of the midwest you might reconsider.

and
the West is growing in places with barely enough water to sustain it.

NYC doesn't have enough water to sustain itself either.

Take a look at aerial photos of Las Vegas, the Phoenix area, Los
Angeles, eastern Colorado, Sacramento and the like. It's the very
definition of sprawl, you fool!

Really? What you are seeing is called urbanization. Los Angeles, for
instance, is the densest metro area in the US. Now you are advocating
against denser urbanism and in the cases od LV and Phx against using
marginal open land for urbanization. First you bitch about valuable
farmland being lost and then you bitch about useless desert being lost.
You are not anti-sprawl, you are anti-human. Lucky for the rest of us
you are not a hypocrite and we all expect you to lead by example below.


=v= There has been a concerted effort by the anti-immigration
crowd to get the Club membership to support their goals. When
put on the ballot, the membership has voted it down. They made
an effort to climb onto the coattails of the popular campaign
against sprawl and were rebuffed there, too.
_Jym_

Just barely was it voted down, because it would tip the hands of the
others, who support zero population growth anyway.

Zero population growth is an excellent idea, long overdue.

You first. Lead by example, prove your sincerity.

People who
oppose it don't understand that land and resources are limited
(usually a religious viewpoint).

The zealot preaches that everyone else is blind. LoL.

There are 290 million people in the
U.S. at the moment and it's not doing our quality of life any good,
unless you're in the construction business or some other
pyramid-scheme industry. Growth-addiction is something to be cured,
not satiated.

A big appeal of America was once its wide open spaces, but you'd
rather bury them in suburbs and asphalt under the pretense of creating
"more wealth" or "more jobs" which would be unnecessary without more
people in the first place. Growth-addiction is a true sickness.

No, Clue Deficit Disorder is the true danger.


E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

The usual FAct free "is not, is so/is NOT, is SO" claims.