Comments on: Cars Are Green

By: Ed Ring

Ed Ring — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:18:58 +0000

Well one might at least ask where we draw the line. In my region - Sacramento, California - mandated growth guidelines defines “low density” as eight homes per acre. They are actually building detached homes of 14+ per acre! These are not nice places to live, and they are grossly overpriced because of the artificially low supply of entitled land.

Read “California land use choices” and verify the numbers for yourself. California’s population is set to increase by 13 million between now and 2030, and if you put 100% of these newcomers on farmland on 1 acre lots, you’d only use up 16% of remaining farmland. But that is a very extreme case - in reality many people like living in high density urban core environments. And of course, for every square mile of farmland in California (40,000 square miles) there are three square miles of non-farmland, much of which is fine for homes.

It’s not as dire as you may think, if you run the numbers. And if you are truly concerned about supplies of land and water, at least in California where all of the farmland is irrigated, then stop subsidizing corn ethanol on land where irrigation is required.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:57:13 +0000

Sprawl / low density housing is a huge threat to farms and ranches. If you don’t see too many farms in your area, it is because residents have priced them out of business. If they are in your area, then those close to residential areas have issues with escalating land prices and taxes and a cost effective means to raise livestock. Farms cannot be forced into small 50 or even 500 acre areas and still be economical. If you want a low cost food supply, they must be managed in 1000+ acre tracts. If you don’t like that idea then more of our food source will come from non-US areas that might clear rain forest to obtain their land. Yes, spawl impacts everyone, not just deer.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:56:35 +0000

So we can’t have low density homes because in low density communities the deer survive but their predators stay away, and lime disease becomes a problem? Oh, and because there is “precious little we have left” of open space?

I respectfully disagree. There is plenty of open space in the USA, and we can hunt deer to thin their numbers.

If you are truly concerned about open space, address the underlying issues of human population growth.

You might also consider the unintended consequences of urban infill and greenbelts, which is to force more people into the exurbs, such as the Hudson River Valley.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:46:51 +0000

Jeanne, that’s just not true. Low density housing (sprawl) has many negatives such as destroying our open spaces (what precious little we have left) which affects wild life due to habitat destruction. This comes back to bite humans as well. Low density housing is the reason why the Hudson Valley, NY is the worst place in the country for lime disease. Already, there is not enough open space to support predators who would prey on deer. Deer in turn carry ticks, which carry lime disease. Deer, by the way, are a huge pest. Good luck growing any kind of garden. It will be eaten before it has a chance. Other wildlife is crammed into our backyards, too. Further north, in the adirondacks, housing sprawl has pushed people into Bear territory, and vice-versa. I could go on, but my point is that car pollution is only one of many many arguments against low density housing.

By: Jeanne Stockdale

Jeanne Stockdale — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:46:31 +0000

I never thought of this! If cars are green, this removes one of the biggest arguments against low density housing! Keep up the good work.