Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition
Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition
"PeterBP" <ask@me,com > wrote in message
news:1ielkhw.1kuhls1m9v8dlN%ask@me,com ...
> Enough Already <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote:
>
> > Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> > starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> > gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> > increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> > designated wilderness.
>
> Yep. I never followed it up with any deep research though.
>
> What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
> area covered by roads.
A trivial amount.
>
> I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
> Anybody know is this is correct?
>
A study in ACCESS showed that a well-designed city has MORE are devoted
to roads than the infamous car-dependent suburb.
"PeterBP" <ask@me,com > wrote in message
news:1ielkhw.1kuhls1m9v8dlN%ask@me,com ...
> Enough Already <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote:
>
> > Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> > starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> > gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> > increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> > designated wilderness.
>
> Yep. I never followed it up with any deep research though.
>
> What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
> area covered by roads.
A trivial amount.
>
> I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
> Anybody know is this is correct?
>
A study in ACCESS showed that a well-designed city has MORE are devoted
to roads than the infamous car-dependent suburb.
Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink,net > wrote in message
news:13uv564ftoqq70@corp.supernews,com ...
>
>>
>> What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
>> area covered by roads.
>
> A trivial amount.
>
>
>>
>> I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
>> Anybody know is this is correct?
Yes, it is. So what? How much land space of the lower 48 does Manhattan
cover?
>>
>
> A study in ACCESS showed that a well-designed city has MORE are
> devoted
> to roads than the infamous car-dependent suburb.
Because car-dependant suburbs don't fit the profile that the statists
desire.
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink,net > wrote in message
news:13uv564ftoqq70@corp.supernews,com ...
>
>>
>> What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
>> area covered by roads.
>
> A trivial amount.
>
>
>>
>> I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
>> Anybody know is this is correct?
Yes, it is. So what? How much land space of the lower 48 does Manhattan
cover?
>>
>
> A study in ACCESS showed that a well-designed city has MORE are
> devoted
> to roads than the infamous car-dependent suburb.
Because car-dependant suburbs don't fit the profile that the statists
desire.
Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition
"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message
news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups,com ...
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>
The standard housing development begins with raw land and plows roads
through them. Then, the housing starts are processing and building begins.
Not the other way around.
What happens afterward is widening of access roads to this aforementioned
development, adding shops and stores along the said access road along the
way. Its a support structure for the people who frequent such roads.
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
Common sense, its (start) simple permission of the governing locale allowing
commencing of building a home.
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> From http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period.
Its also comparison of undefined housing starts. That is, one could be a
vast majority of modest homes with another sample of starts of more
expensive homes involved. That is, simple comparison of number of housing
starts in one year to another year is comparing apples and oranges unless we
know what the starts are starting in terms of monies.
.
Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
See above, could be BS as well.
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
Uhhhh, the VAST majority of people borrow to purchase a home as that is
their only alternative. Will has nothing to do with it.
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
>
The chicken and egg thing is the basis of the economy, not just housing.
Another instance is Social Security, its very basis is a constantly
increasing population paying in vice paying out.
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
Don't worry, nature always rebounds. We, and our grandchildren, just won't
be around when it does...
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
The planet has be human over-populated for over a century now. Its just a
matter of time.
> http :// www .wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
>
> E.A.
>
> http :// enough_already.tripod,com /terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.
People will succumb to lack of resources and lack of usable land for their
sustenance like any other creature of nature.
--
Dave
How about a tax to support any military conflict/police action over 3 months
old?
An actual war, we can do what's been done in the past.
"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message
news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups,com ...
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>
The standard housing development begins with raw land and plows roads
through them. Then, the housing starts are processing and building begins.
Not the other way around.
What happens afterward is widening of access roads to this aforementioned
development, adding shops and stores along the said access road along the
way. Its a support structure for the people who frequent such roads.
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
Common sense, its (start) simple permission of the governing locale allowing
commencing of building a home.
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> From http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period.
Its also comparison of undefined housing starts. That is, one could be a
vast majority of modest homes with another sample of starts of more
expensive homes involved. That is, simple comparison of number of housing
starts in one year to another year is comparing apples and oranges unless we
know what the starts are starting in terms of monies.
.
Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
See above, could be BS as well.
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
Uhhhh, the VAST majority of people borrow to purchase a home as that is
their only alternative. Will has nothing to do with it.
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
>
The chicken and egg thing is the basis of the economy, not just housing.
Another instance is Social Security, its very basis is a constantly
increasing population paying in vice paying out.
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
Don't worry, nature always rebounds. We, and our grandchildren, just won't
be around when it does...
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
The planet has be human over-populated for over a century now. Its just a
matter of time.
> http :// www .wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
>
> E.A.
>
> http :// enough_already.tripod,com /terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.
People will succumb to lack of resources and lack of usable land for their
sustenance like any other creature of nature.
--
Dave
How about a tax to support any military conflict/police action over 3 months
old?
An actual war, we can do what's been done in the past.
Re: Housing .. uses 0.5% of land
"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message ...
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year?
Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
http :// www .statemaster,com /graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-total
Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers 0.1
acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
then houses cover 10 million acres.
Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
If this doubles over next century, then 1% of land will be covered. (Note:
much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy 'houses'
in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
Dan in Philly
"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message ...
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year?
Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
http :// www .statemaster,com /graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-total
Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers 0.1
acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
then houses cover 10 million acres.
Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
If this doubles over next century, then 1% of land will be covered. (Note:
much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy 'houses'
in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
Dan in Philly
Re: Housing .. uses 0.5% of land
"Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol,com > wrote in message
news:0bMHj.283679$FE.277722@fe05.news.easynews,com ...
> "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message ...
> > Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> > starts each year?
>
> Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
>
http :// www .statemaster,com /graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-tota
l
>
> Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers
0.1
> acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
> then houses cover 10 million acres.
>
> Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
>
> If this doubles over next century, then 1% of land will be covered. (Note:
> much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy
'houses'
> in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
>
> Dan in Philly
>
>
I live on an abandoned tobacco farm. The barn was burned in our
fireplace. There are 150 houses where there used to be one tobacco farm.
Do we need more tobacco or more houses? There are all kinds of trees on the
land now, but at one time there were none. I so happen to have a buy-out
for a tobacco allotment (on another piece of land). But do we need more
smokers?
"Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol,com > wrote in message
news:0bMHj.283679$FE.277722@fe05.news.easynews,com ...
> "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message ...
> > Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> > starts each year?
>
> Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
>
http :// www .statemaster,com /graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-tota
l
>
> Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers
0.1
> acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
> then houses cover 10 million acres.
>
> Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
>
> If this doubles over next century, then 1% of land will be covered. (Note:
> much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy
'houses'
> in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
>
> Dan in Philly
>
>
I live on an abandoned tobacco farm. The barn was burned in our
fireplace. There are 150 houses where there used to be one tobacco farm.
Do we need more tobacco or more houses? There are all kinds of trees on the
land now, but at one time there were none. I so happen to have a buy-out
for a tobacco allotment (on another piece of land). But do we need more
smokers?
Re: Housing .. uses 0.5% of land
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:01:48 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol,com >
wrote:
>"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message ...
>> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
>> starts each year?
>
>Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
> http :// www .statemaster,com /graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-total
>
>Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers 0.1
>acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
>then houses cover 10 million acres.
>
>Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
>
>If this doubles over next century, then 1% of land will be covered. (Note:
>much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy 'houses'
>in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
>
>Dan in Philly
Overall context:
The entire population of the world, 6.6 billion, could be given
single-family homes (figuring 5 persons per family, low for the world)
on quarter-acre lots, with yards to play catch with the kids and all,
and easily fit into four or five decent-sized U.S. states.
Say ... Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas.
Though they might prefer California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and
Arizona. Nicer weather, with more choice about it.
That's about 15% of the land area of the US.
Then say you create multi-family housing, so one-third of housing area
is single-family homes, one third is two-family homes, and one-third
averages nine families up in apartment buildings, per quarter acre.
Now you've emptied 75% of even that space, and 6.6 billion people live
in about 3.5% of the land area of the US, with the other 11.5%
becoming room for ball parks, offices and shopping center parking
lots.
The great bulk of the world's land area is empty. The great weight of
humanity physically bears down upon the globe like dust upon a
basketball.
As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:01:48 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol,com >
wrote:
>"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message ...
>> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
>> starts each year?
>
>Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
> http :// www .statemaster,com /graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-total
>
>Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers 0.1
>acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
>then houses cover 10 million acres.
>
>Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
>
>If this doubles over next century, then 1% of land will be covered. (Note:
>much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy 'houses'
>in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
>
>Dan in Philly
Overall context:
The entire population of the world, 6.6 billion, could be given
single-family homes (figuring 5 persons per family, low for the world)
on quarter-acre lots, with yards to play catch with the kids and all,
and easily fit into four or five decent-sized U.S. states.
Say ... Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas.
Though they might prefer California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and
Arizona. Nicer weather, with more choice about it.
That's about 15% of the land area of the US.
Then say you create multi-family housing, so one-third of housing area
is single-family homes, one third is two-family homes, and one-third
averages nine families up in apartment buildings, per quarter acre.
Now you've emptied 75% of even that space, and 6.6 billion people live
in about 3.5% of the land area of the US, with the other 11.5%
becoming room for ball parks, offices and shopping center parking
lots.
The great bulk of the world's land area is empty. The great weight of
humanity physically bears down upon the globe like dust upon a
basketball.
As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.
Re: Housing .. uses 0.5% of land
"RogerDodger" <none@not-here.org> wrote in message
news:kjjvu3p2eokvg70001j8nger2pcvkfacmi@4ax,com ...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:01:48 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol,com >
> wrote:
>
> >"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message ...
> >> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> >> starts each year?
> >
> >Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
>
> http :// www .statemaster,com /graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-tot
al
> >
> >Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers
0.1
> >acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
> >then houses cover 10 million acres.
> >
> >Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
> >
> >If this doubles over next century, then 1% of land will be covered.
(Note:
> >much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy
'houses'
> >in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
> >
> >Dan in Philly
>
> Overall context:
>
> The entire population of the world, 6.6 billion, could be given
> single-family homes (figuring 5 persons per family, low for the world)
> on quarter-acre lots, with yards to play catch with the kids and all,
> and easily fit into four or five decent-sized U.S. states.
>
> Say ... Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas.
>
> Though they might prefer California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and
> Arizona. Nicer weather, with more choice about it.
>
> That's about 15% of the land area of the US.
>
> Then say you create multi-family housing, so one-third of housing area
> is single-family homes, one third is two-family homes, and one-third
> averages nine families up in apartment buildings, per quarter acre.
>
> Now you've emptied 75% of even that space, and 6.6 billion people live
> in about 3.5% of the land area of the US, with the other 11.5%
> becoming room for ball parks, offices and shopping center parking
> lots.
>
> The great bulk of the world's land area is empty. The great weight of
> humanity physically bears down upon the globe like dust upon a
> basketball.
>
> As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
> density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
> into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.
Given quadraplexes, the Sierra Club ideal, everyone in the world would
fit into Texas, leaving the rest of the world to snakes and flies.
"RogerDodger" <none@not-here.org> wrote in message
news:kjjvu3p2eokvg70001j8nger2pcvkfacmi@4ax,com ...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:01:48 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol,com >
> wrote:
>
> >"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote in message ...
> >> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> >> starts each year?
> >
> >Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
>
> http :// www .statemaster,com /graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-tot
al
> >
> >Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers
0.1
> >acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
> >then houses cover 10 million acres.
> >
> >Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
> >
> >If this doubles over next century, then 1% of land will be covered.
(Note:
> >much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy
'houses'
> >in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
> >
> >Dan in Philly
>
> Overall context:
>
> The entire population of the world, 6.6 billion, could be given
> single-family homes (figuring 5 persons per family, low for the world)
> on quarter-acre lots, with yards to play catch with the kids and all,
> and easily fit into four or five decent-sized U.S. states.
>
> Say ... Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas.
>
> Though they might prefer California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and
> Arizona. Nicer weather, with more choice about it.
>
> That's about 15% of the land area of the US.
>
> Then say you create multi-family housing, so one-third of housing area
> is single-family homes, one third is two-family homes, and one-third
> averages nine families up in apartment buildings, per quarter acre.
>
> Now you've emptied 75% of even that space, and 6.6 billion people live
> in about 3.5% of the land area of the US, with the other 11.5%
> becoming room for ball parks, offices and shopping center parking
> lots.
>
> The great bulk of the world's land area is empty. The great weight of
> humanity physically bears down upon the globe like dust upon a
> basketball.
>
> As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
> density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
> into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.
Given quadraplexes, the Sierra Club ideal, everyone in the world would
fit into Texas, leaving the rest of the world to snakes and flies.
Re: Housing .. uses 0.5% of land
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink,net > wrote in message
news:13v01egqohmi822@corp.supernews,com ...
>
> "RogerDodger" <none@not-here.org> wrote in message
> news:kjjvu3p2eokvg70001j8nger2pcvkfacmi@4ax,com ...
>> As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
>> density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
>> into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.
>
> Given quadraplexes, the Sierra Club ideal, everyone in the world would
> fit into Texas, leaving the rest of the world to snakes and flies.
..and to the Sierra Club.
Now THAT's an unbeatable real estate deal!!
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink,net > wrote in message
news:13v01egqohmi822@corp.supernews,com ...
>
> "RogerDodger" <none@not-here.org> wrote in message
> news:kjjvu3p2eokvg70001j8nger2pcvkfacmi@4ax,com ...
>> As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
>> density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
>> into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.
>
> Given quadraplexes, the Sierra Club ideal, everyone in the world would
> fit into Texas, leaving the rest of the world to snakes and flies.
..and to the Sierra Club.
Now THAT's an unbeatable real estate deal!!
Re: Housing .. uses 0.5% of land
"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes,com > wrote in message
news:4GTHj.51171$097.21115@newsfe21.lga...
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink,net > wrote in message
> news:13v01egqohmi822@corp.supernews,com ...
> >
> > "RogerDodger" <none@not-here.org> wrote in message
> > news:kjjvu3p2eokvg70001j8nger2pcvkfacmi@4ax,com ...
> >> As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
> >> density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
> >> into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.
> >
> > Given quadraplexes, the Sierra Club ideal, everyone in the world would
> > fit into Texas, leaving the rest of the world to snakes and flies.
>
> ..and to the Sierra Club.
>
> Now THAT's an unbeatable real estate deal!!
Nah...for snakes.
"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes,com > wrote in message
news:4GTHj.51171$097.21115@newsfe21.lga...
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink,net > wrote in message
> news:13v01egqohmi822@corp.supernews,com ...
> >
> > "RogerDodger" <none@not-here.org> wrote in message
> > news:kjjvu3p2eokvg70001j8nger2pcvkfacmi@4ax,com ...
> >> As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
> >> density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
> >> into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.
> >
> > Given quadraplexes, the Sierra Club ideal, everyone in the world would
> > fit into Texas, leaving the rest of the world to snakes and flies.
>
> ..and to the Sierra Club.
>
> Now THAT's an unbeatable real estate deal!!
Nah...for snakes.
Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition
On Mar 29, 12:25 pm, Enough Already <enough alre...@lycos,com > wrote:
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year?
Yes, of course, many people do often.
Since as fate would have it, that's the limit of what the moron
politiciians in the US even know about economics, buisness,
science, engineering, or any subject really.
So, that's obviously where the robots, digital, computers,
fiber optics, laser disks, satellittes, artifical intelligence,
tasers,
D.U., D,N.A., and cruise missiles came from for the "stsrt-me-up"
imbeciles.
This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> From http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
>
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
> http :// www .wcs.org/humanfootprint(housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
> E.A.
>
> http :// enough already.tripod,com /terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.
On Mar 29, 12:25 pm, Enough Already <enough alre...@lycos,com > wrote:
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year?
Yes, of course, many people do often.
Since as fate would have it, that's the limit of what the moron
politiciians in the US even know about economics, buisness,
science, engineering, or any subject really.
So, that's obviously where the robots, digital, computers,
fiber optics, laser disks, satellittes, artifical intelligence,
tasers,
D.U., D,N.A., and cruise missiles came from for the "stsrt-me-up"
imbeciles.
This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> From http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
>
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
> http :// www .wcs.org/humanfootprint(housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
> E.A.
>
> http :// enough already.tripod,com /terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.
Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition
On Mar 29, 11:25 am, Enough Already <enough alre...@lycos,com > wrote:
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> From http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
>
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
> http :// www .wcs.org/humanfootprint(housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
> E.A.
>
> http :// enough already.tripod,com /terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.
So what do you suggest?!
Criticize is easy, what would you do is important. Stop building?!
http :// www .planorealestateadvisor,com
http :// www .planorealty.blogspot,com
On Mar 29, 11:25 am, Enough Already <enough alre...@lycos,com > wrote:
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> From http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
>
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
> http :// www .wcs.org/humanfootprint(housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
> E.A.
>
> http :// enough already.tripod,com /terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.
So what do you suggest?!
Criticize is easy, what would you do is important. Stop building?!
http :// www .planorealestateadvisor,com
http :// www .planorealty.blogspot,com
