Re: Urban sparwl increases

["JS M" <jbiggs50@hotmail.com>]

Statistics usually manipulate the truth, or outright lie, especially when 
used by the big media groups.  However, if the US is comprised of 2.3 
billion acres, a great amount of it is undevelopable (under lakes, on 
mountaintops, etc.).  I question the statistics quoted more because there is 
no definition of "development" in the article.  Is development building, or 
re-zoning, or letting land go vacant?  Definitions become important when 
people discuss a particular piece of land.  Someone screams "No 
development!" when no one has actually defined the term.  Is development the 
construction of parks for public enjoyment?
jm


>From: WMSteed@aol.com
>To: rforce@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Urban sparwl increases
>Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:37:21 EST
>
>
>In a message dated 12/8/99 11:06:40 AM, rforce@moscow.com writes:
>
><< NEARLY 16 MILLION ACRES OF LAND WERE CONVERTED TO DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN
>1992 AND 1997 -- A RATE OF 3.2 MILLION PER YEAR, THE AGRICULTURE
>DEPARTMENT SAID MONDAY. BETWEEN 1982 AND 1992, THE DEVELOPMENT RATE WAS
>1.4 MILLION ACRES A YEAR. >>
>
>According to my data, the United States is comprised of 2,315,817,600 
>acres.
>Therefore, 16 million acres converted in five years is 69 hundredths of one
>percent, or 138 thousandths of one per cent per year.
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com