🚀 go-pugleaf

> "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote
>
> Population growth needs to STOP if we want to see any real balance
> between Man and nature. Our economy could function fine in a
> steady-state if people stopped demanding a rising GNP each year like
> robots. When will we get (electable) leaders with the courage to leave
> "Growth!" out of their speeches?

If you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that population growth worldwide is 
slowing down, and demographers expect population to begin to decline in less 
than half a century. The problem in California is that people want to move 
here from somewhere else, not that they're making too many babies. You're 
environmentalist-wacko anti-human cliches are so nineties.

Paul DeRocco wrote:
> > "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote
> >
> > Population growth needs to STOP if we want to see any real balance
> > between Man and nature. Our economy could function fine in a
> > steady-state if people stopped demanding a rising GNP each year like
> > robots. When will we get (electable) leaders with the courage to leave
> > "Growth!" out of their speeches?
>
> If you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that population growth worldwide is
> slowing down, and demographers expect population to begin to decline in less
> than half a century. The problem in California is that people want to move
> here from somewhere else, not that they're making too many babies. You're
> environmentalist-wacko anti-human cliches are so nineties.

True. The US is the only 1st world nation expected to have
significantly positive population growth in the next century. That is
only because of our liberal immigration policies. Japan will quickly
die. I think they are already on a negative slope. All of the first
world geriatric welfare economies are going to be in big trouble within
most of our lifetimes. A couple needs to have two children to keep the
population stagnant or slightly negative (accidental death and early
life disease being the negative factors shortening life expectancies).

60 million Californians by 2040, and about 30% will be illegal immigrants, 
or children of them.

Much of California's growth comes from migration, not births. Yes, some of 
us are born here, but most of us come from somewhere else.

Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.

Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
<jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:

>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
>
>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.

And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.

The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
drinking water.

Maybe "Oath of Fealty" paints a more accurate picture of our future
than anyone yet realizes?

In article <8rhsl1pp1ohumgagbbncmi7sdm50vll8qe@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztl�n wrote:
> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
> drinking water.

I can't see those icebergs going through the Panama Canal.  Will they tow
them around the cape?  ;-)

- Dan

"Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
news:8rhsl1pp1ohumgagbbncmi7sdm50vll8qe@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
>>
>>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.
>
> And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.
>
> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
> drinking water.


60M people in California would be 1.66 acres of land per person

North Dakota will pay you to move there if you have kids and they have a 
very high tech school system with lots of computers.   They have been losing 
population as kids move away after graduation.

The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of 
jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of 
California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to and 
from work.

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Qq-dnX7Ii8fTWcPeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
> "Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
> news:8rhsl1pp1ohumgagbbncmi7sdm50vll8qe@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
>> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
>>>
>>>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.
>>
>> And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.
>>
>> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
>> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
>> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
>> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
>> drinking water.
>
>
> 60M people in California would be 1.66 acres of land per person
>
> North Dakota will pay you to move there if you have kids and they have a 
> very high tech school system with lots of computers.   They have been 
> losing population as kids move away after graduation.
>
> The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of 
> jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of 
> California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to 
> and from work.
>

   Ultimately urban planners want to plan for a shrinking city.  They are 
also frequently anti-population. 

In article <kIz7f.217$m81.164@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote:

> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Qq-dnX7Ii8fTWcPeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
> > news:8rhsl1pp1ohumgagbbncmi7sdm50vll8qe@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
> >> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
> >>>
> >>>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.
> >>
> >> And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.
> >>
> >> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
> >> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
> >> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
> >> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
> >> drinking water.
> >
> >
> > 60M people in California would be 1.66 acres of land per person
> >
> > North Dakota will pay you to move there if you have kids and they have a 
> > very high tech school system with lots of computers.   They have been 
> > losing population as kids move away after graduation.
> >
> > The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of 
> > jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of 
> > California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to 
> > and from work.
> >
> 
>    Ultimately urban planners want to plan for a shrinking city.  They are 
> also frequently anti-population. 

Sometimes it works.  The thing about this thread is that there are not 
going to be 60 million in 2040.  This is a microcosm repeat of the world 
population bomb scare of the 70s.  The other thing to remember is that 
SoCal is going South American.  The 10 million will be living the good 
life and the 35 million will be box dwellers of the Asunscion hillsides 
or Mexico City edge cities.  That's it, 45 million only about 8 million 
more than we see now.  Why?  Collapsing public ammenities, fiscal 
implosion, high prices, insane planning, aggressive defense of personal 
property rights, double demographics.  That last needs more; first the 
most recent batch of new Kalifornians won't reproduce or attract like 
the last batch, second the population is aging/educating/richer.  For 
tiny evidence look to Portland where bad planning and high housing 
prices are killing the schools.  Do it now for a whole state.  Oh and 
does anybody seriously think technology isn't going to revolutionize 
agriculture such that picking peppers isn't going to displace 200 hand 
laborers with a GIS coordinator and a CSU Davis engineer and a robot?  
Kill the entry level opportunities towards exploitation and 3/4ths of 
the projected population increase disappears.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-53E9F5.18044825102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <kIz7f.217$m81.164@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,

> the last batch, second the population is aging/educating/richer.  For
> tiny evidence look to Portland where bad planning and high housing
> prices are killing the schools.

The problems with Portland schools have nothing to do with zoning or housing
prices - and everything to do with rural politicians trying to grab all of
Portland's money.  They (rural Oregonians) are more than willing to cut off
their own noses if they can hurt Portland in any way.

"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message 
news:tsch-53E9F5.18044825102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <kIz7f.217$m81.164@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>
>> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Qq-dnX7Ii8fTWcPeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>> > news:8rhsl1pp1ohumgagbbncmi7sdm50vll8qe@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
>> >> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
>> >>>
>> >>>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.
>> >>
>> >> And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.
>> >>
>> >> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
>> >> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
>> >> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
>> >> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
>> >> drinking water.
>> >
>> >
>> > 60M people in California would be 1.66 acres of land per person
>> >
>> > North Dakota will pay you to move there if you have kids and they have 
>> > a
>> > very high tech school system with lots of computers.   They have been
>> > losing population as kids move away after graduation.
>> >
>> > The number of people in California is determined largely by the number 
>> > of
>> > jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of
>> > California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute 
>> > to
>> > and from work.
>> >
>>
>>    Ultimately urban planners want to plan for a shrinking city.  They are
>> also frequently anti-population.
>
> Sometimes it works.  The thing about this thread is that there are not
> going to be 60 million in 2040.  This is a microcosm repeat of the world
> population bomb scare of the 70s.

Native-born Americans do not reproduce themselves anyway. 

"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message 
news:11ltmlc4fln8nb5@corp.supernews.com...
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
> news:tsch-53E9F5.18044825102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
>> In article <kIz7f.217$m81.164@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>
>> the last batch, second the population is aging/educating/richer.  For
>> tiny evidence look to Portland where bad planning and high housing
>> prices are killing the schools.
>
> The problems with Portland schools have nothing to do with zoning or 
> housing
> prices - and everything to do with rural politicians trying to grab all of
> Portland's money.  They (rural Oregonians) are more than willing to cut 
> off
> their own noses if they can hurt Portland in any way.
>
>

  Baxter is paranoid too. 

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:48:36 -0700, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
>news:8rhsl1pp1ohumgagbbncmi7sdm50vll8qe@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
>> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
>>>
>>>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.
>>
>> And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.
>>
>> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
>> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
>> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
>> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
>> drinking water.
>
>
>60M people in California would be 1.66 acres of land per person

Yeah, but not 1.66 acres of DESIRABLE land. You planning on dumping
the next 30 million immigrants into to Mohave?

>The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of 
>jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of 
>California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to and 
>from work.

I would *love* such a law! ;)

In article <uisul1ppno8kut3retao5a3kbhld98175o@4ax.com>,
 Scott en Aztl�n <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:48:36 -0700, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >"Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
> >news:8rhsl1pp1ohumgagbbncmi7sdm50vll8qe@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
> >> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
> >>>
> >>>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.
> >>
> >> And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.
> >>
> >> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
> >> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
> >> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
> >> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
> >> drinking water.
> >
> >
> >60M people in California would be 1.66 acres of land per person
> 
> Yeah, but not 1.66 acres of DESIRABLE land. You planning on dumping
> the next 30 million immigrants into to Mohave?

Actually, yes. That's exactly where I expect the market to accommodate 
the demand.  Thanks for pointing this out.  We are also going to 
accommodate a lot with radical socio/cultural changes that tolerate much 
less personal space and much lower quality of life conditions.  The SFV 
can easily absorb additional millions as a million move out and several 
million move into their house and garage and convert the garden shed and 
park a tailer in the driveway.  This is a heterodyning process.  

Remember, I also do not believe the 60 million number at all.  It is a 
scare number to force people into doing something now.  A classic 
planner control tactic.  

> 
> >The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of 
> >jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of 
> >California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to and 
> >from work.
> 
> I would *love* such a law! ;)

We could clean up the environment, save tens of billions, reduce 
congestion and generally cure most of Kalifornia's ills by enforcing two 
existing laws and reinterpreting another.  1, license registration and 
insurance on automobiles.  There are portions of LA where 90% of the 
traffic is in violation of one or more of these laws.  2, residential 
zoning and legal occupancy restrictions.  3, return to the definition of 
resident for education purposes to mean legal resident.  My children 
attend public school in California and the waste and expense of 
providing "universal" education is built into the system as are the 
reasons for poor testing performance.  

So there you have it.  There exist rules that would achieve most of the 
stated goals of a sustainable, pleasant state but we choose not to apply 
them.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
news:jkK7f.386$2y.287@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Native-born Americans do not reproduce themselves anyway.
>
They have somebody else's kids?!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
news:VkK7f.388$2y.305@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:11ltmlc4fln8nb5@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
> > news:tsch-53E9F5.18044825102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> >> In article <kIz7f.217$m81.164@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >
> >> the last batch, second the population is aging/educating/richer.  For
> >> tiny evidence look to Portland where bad planning and high housing
> >> prices are killing the schools.
> >
> > The problems with Portland schools have nothing to do with zoning or
> > housing
> > prices - and everything to do with rural politicians trying to grab all
of
> > Portland's money.  They (rural Oregonians) are more than willing to cut
> > off
> > their own noses if they can hurt Portland in any way.
>
>   Baxter is paranoid too.
>
Nope.  The Urban-Rural "divide" in Oregon is well documented.  Here's just
one of nearly 900 google hits:
---------
Saxton: Lawmakers must bridge Oregon's rural divide

Bridging the gap between Oregon's urban and rural divide is the subject of
Ron Saxton's commentary.


Let's think about this.

I've often talked about the importance of bridging Oregon's urban-rural
divide.

More accurately, it's a divide between Portland and the rest of the state.
Often called the two Oregon's.

It's a terrible problem that continually frustrates our ability to work
together as one state to address our many serious challenges--like providing
a quality education for all Oregon's children.
 http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=59386

"Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
news:uisul1ppno8kut3retao5a3kbhld98175o@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:48:36 -0700, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
> wrote:

>>The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of
>>jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of
>>California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to 
>>and
>>from work.
>
> I would *love* such a law! ;)

The job loss would be by companies moving out of state.  With employees 
taking two or three hours to get to work and repeating that time going home, 
their productivity would be so low that companies would have to relocate to 
where there are sane, rational laws.

Your job would most likely also go away with the collapse of the California 
economy.   You might still be able to get a job as a farm worker along side 
all the illegal immigrants where you would dreams of making a minimum wage 
some day.

You must remember that your jerk off fantasy of 19th century transportation 
will probably result in the reality of doing terrible 19th century labor. 

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:F6SdnSqv29tFU8LenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
> news:uisul1ppno8kut3retao5a3kbhld98175o@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:48:36 -0700, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>>The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of
>>>jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of
>>>California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to 
>>>and
>>>from work.
>>
>> I would *love* such a law! ;)
>
> The job loss would be by companies moving out of state.  With employees 
> taking two or three hours to get to work and repeating that time going 
> home, their productivity would be so low that companies would have to 
> relocate to where there are sane, rational laws.
>
> Your job would most likely also go away with the collapse of the 
> California economy.   You might still be able to get a job as a farm 
> worker along side all the illegal immigrants where you would dreams of 
> making a minimum wage some day.
>
> You must remember that your jerk off fantasy of 19th century 
> transportation will probably result in the reality of doing terrible 19th 
> century labor.
>

19th century transporation = 19th century  labor!!  Wow!!  What a glorious 
future Baxter has. 

In article <11lv70tn8rkuje1@corp.supernews.com>,
 "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:

> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
> news:VkK7f.388$2y.305@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:11ltmlc4fln8nb5@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
> > > news:tsch-53E9F5.18044825102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > >> In article <kIz7f.217$m81.164@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > >
> > >> the last batch, second the population is aging/educating/richer.  For
> > >> tiny evidence look to Portland where bad planning and high housing
> > >> prices are killing the schools.
> > >
> > > The problems with Portland schools have nothing to do with zoning 
> > > or housing prices - and everything to do with rural politicians 
> > > trying to grab all of Portland's money.  They (rural Oregonians) 
> > > are more than willing to cut off their own noses if they can hurt 
> > > Portland in any way.
> >
> >   Baxter is paranoid too.
> >
> Nope.  The Urban-Rural "divide" in Oregon is well documented.  

Now gee, why is it, do you think, that the exurbanites of Orgeogon 
distrust the urban centers?  High crime, deteriorating schools, 
congestion, property rights, taxes?  Huh?

In article <F6SdnSqv29tFU8LenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
> news:uisul1ppno8kut3retao5a3kbhld98175o@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:48:36 -0700, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> 
> >>The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of
> >>jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of
> >>California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to 
> >>and
> >>from work.
> >
> > I would *love* such a law! ;)
> 
> The job loss would be by companies moving out of state.  With employees 
> taking two or three hours to get to work and repeating that time going home, 
> their productivity would be so low that companies would have to relocate to 
> where there are sane, rational laws.
> 
> Your job would most likely also go away with the collapse of the California 
> economy.   You might still be able to get a job as a farm worker along side 
> all the illegal immigrants where you would dreams of making a minimum wage 
> some day.
> 
> You must remember that your jerk off fantasy of 19th century transportation 
> will probably result in the reality of doing terrible 19th century labor. 

One need only look at HQ relocations of major corporations from 
California to see the clear and obvious trend.  Oh and part of the 
reason there is a trend?  The idiots who have the power to do something 
are in absolute complete denial unparalleled in modern history.  Royal 
France is the closest thing that come to mind:

   ..."a report released today by PPIC, the fiercely nonpartisan Public 
Policy Institute of California, points out, the exodus never happened - 
or happened in such tiny numbers that it was insignificant."

"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message 
news:tsch-D80F74.13413126102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <11lv70tn8rkuje1@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:VkK7f.388$2y.305@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> > news:11ltmlc4fln8nb5@corp.supernews.com...
>> > >
>> > > "Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:tsch-53E9F5.18044825102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
>> > >> In article <kIz7f.217$m81.164@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> > >
>> > >> the last batch, second the population is aging/educating/richer. 
>> > >> For
>> > >> tiny evidence look to Portland where bad planning and high housing
>> > >> prices are killing the schools.
>> > >
>> > > The problems with Portland schools have nothing to do with zoning
>> > > or housing prices - and everything to do with rural politicians
>> > > trying to grab all of Portland's money.  They (rural Oregonians)
>> > > are more than willing to cut off their own noses if they can hurt
>> > > Portland in any way.
>> >
>> >   Baxter is paranoid too.
>> >
>> Nope.  The Urban-Rural "divide" in Oregon is well documented.
>
> Now gee, why is it, do you think, that the exurbanites of Orgeogon
> distrust the urban centers?  High crime, deteriorating schools,
> congestion, property rights, taxes?  Huh?

   Perfect answer.  No one wants to be incorporated into any city.  You end 
up with new urbanist planners, high crime and vastly more expenses, plus 
people like Baxter to deal with. 

In article <_9S7f.554$2y.7@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote:

> "Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote
> > "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote
> >> > "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote 
> >> > > "Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote
> >> > >
> >> > >> the last batch, second the population is 
> >> > >> aging/educating/richer. For tiny evidence look to Portland 
> >> > >> where bad planning and high housing prices are killing the 
> >> > >> schools.
> >> > >
> >> > > The problems with Portland schools have nothing to do with zoning
> >> > > or housing prices - and everything to do with rural politicians
> >> > > trying to grab all of Portland's money.  They (rural Oregonians)
> >> > > are more than willing to cut off their own noses if they can hurt
> >> > > Portland in any way.
> >> >
> >> >   Baxter is paranoid too.
> >> >
> >> Nope.  The Urban-Rural "divide" in Oregon is well documented.
> >
> > Now gee, why is it, do you think, that the exurbanites of Orgeogon
> > distrust the urban centers?  High crime, deteriorating schools,
> > congestion, property rights, taxes?  Huh?
> 
>    Perfect answer.  No one wants to be incorporated into any city.  You end 
> up with new urbanist planners, high crime and vastly more expenses, plus 
> people like Baxter to deal with. 

I just love the weird anti-reality world Baxter inhabits where it is the 
exurbs trying to grab Portland's money.  In TRuth Portland does think it 
is their money.  Baxter and Parker are just unbelievable in their 
ability to ignore the world around them.  Exurbanites fight to prevent 
being acquired by cities.  Cities are constantly seeking new and higher 
funding.  Transit does not save energy.  Kyoto is socialism.  Global 
warming is small, inevitable and exogenous.  Their only recourse is the 
basest lowly insult.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-D80F74.13413126102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <11lv70tn8rkuje1@corp.supernews.com>,
>  "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
> > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:VkK7f.388$2y.305@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > > news:11ltmlc4fln8nb5@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:tsch-53E9F5.18044825102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > > >> In article <kIz7f.217$m81.164@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > > >
> > > >> the last batch, second the population is aging/educating/richer.
For
> > > >> tiny evidence look to Portland where bad planning and high housing
> > > >> prices are killing the schools.
> > > >
> > > > The problems with Portland schools have nothing to do with zoning
> > > > or housing prices - and everything to do with rural politicians
> > > > trying to grab all of Portland's money.  They (rural Oregonians)
> > > > are more than willing to cut off their own noses if they can hurt
> > > > Portland in any way.
> > >
> > >   Baxter is paranoid too.
> > >
> > Nope.  The Urban-Rural "divide" in Oregon is well documented.
>
> Now gee, why is it, do you think, that the exurbanites of Orgeogon
> distrust the urban centers?  High crime, deteriorating schools,
> congestion, property rights, taxes?  Huh?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-D80F74.13413126102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <11lv70tn8rkuje1@corp.supernews.com>,
>  "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:

> > >
> > Nope.  The Urban-Rural "divide" in Oregon is well documented.
>
> Now gee, why is it, do you think, that the exurbanites of Orgeogon

There are very few places in Oregon that meet the definition of "exurb".

> distrust the urban centers?

Most of the people outside the Willamette Valley cities such as Portland
were either born in rural Oregon, or came from California cities.

>High crime, deteriorating schools,

The school situation is state-wide.

> congestion,

The highest congestion is in rural areas between the Valley and the Coast.

>property rights, taxes?

These affect the entire state.  Any problem with rural property rights is a
result of actions spearheaded by those same rural property owners.  As to
taxes, there is no state property tax, nor state sales tax. And do explain
why rural people are so against letting the city people tax themselves.

>Huh?

That pretty much sums you up.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
news:_9S7f.554$2y.7@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>    Perfect answer.  No one wants to be incorporated into any city.  You
end
> up with new urbanist planners, high crime and vastly more expenses, plus
> people like Baxter to deal with.
>
People are voting with their feet - they're leaving the rural areas and
going to the cities.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-6326B7.15575026102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <_9S7f.554$2y.7@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>
> I just love the weird anti-reality world Baxter inhabits where it is the
> exurbs trying to grab Portland's money.

Not trying - they're doing it.  Studies show that for every dollar Portland
sends to the State in taxes, they get $.70 back.

>In TRuth Portland does think it
> is their money.

In other words, the old "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too".
That certainly seems to be the sentiment that rural Oregon is operating on.
I'd also like to know why rural Oregonians are so concerned about Portland
taxing itself?  Multnomah County passes the ITAX, and the rest of the state
gets pissed off.

"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message 
news:hFR7f.578$m81.165@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:F6SdnSqv29tFU8LenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>

>
> 19th century transporation = 19th century  labor!!  Wow!!  What a glorious 
> future Baxter has.

Does Baxter actually have a paying job.   I thought he has been unemployable 
for years since they kicked him out of the lumber company programming job. 

"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:11m0a3nce0iq65b@corp.supernews.com...
> People are voting with their feet - they're leaving the rural areas and
> going to the cities.

Sure, that's why suburbs are closing down all over the place and cities like
Philadelphia and Detroit are booming.

By the way, got any references to support your asinine assertion?

"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:11m0a0o8mnnfg4a@corp.supernews.com...
> Most of the people outside the Willamette Valley cities such as Portland
> were either born in rural Oregon, or came from California cities.

Got any references or are you going to suggest another BS "rudimentary"
Google search?

60 million people in California by 2040 - I don't think so!

The official projection by the California Department of Finance is
only 51,538,596 by 2040.

In article <5ut1m19s76h67kkec8qa2jmg5s3d7ulve9@4ax.com>,
 Jerry Rioux <jerry_rioux@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 60 million people in California by 2040 - I don't think so!
> 
> The official projection by the California Department of Finance is
> only 51,538,596 by 2040.

And they've been aggressively ratcheting those projections down with 
every update for at least the last three years.  The biggest change is 
in discovering the error of forward projecting fertility.

Non-Hispanic Whites: 1.62
Hispanic White: 2.80

Turns out that second number is only first generation fertility and does 
not compound.  More: 
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/DRU_Publications/Projections/P1.htm

Scott en Aztl�n wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> 
>>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
>>
>>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.
> 
> And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.
> 
> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
> drinking water.
> 
> Maybe "Oath of Fealty" paints a more accurate picture of our future
> than anyone yet realizes?

I love the diving-board idea, but the net seemed superfluous.

-- 
Cheers,
Bev
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SAVE GAS, FART IN A JAR

Yes, they have.  The state has started to trend its fertility
assumptiosn for minority groups to merge with the white and asian
rates.  I expect the projections to continue dropping for awhile.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:07:46 -0700, Robert Cote <tsch@adlph.net>
wrote:

>In article <5ut1m19s76h67kkec8qa2jmg5s3d7ulve9@4ax.com>,
> Jerry Rioux <jerry_rioux@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 60 million people in California by 2040 - I don't think so!
>> 
>> The official projection by the California Department of Finance is
>> only 51,538,596 by 2040.
>
>And they've been aggressively ratcheting those projections down with 
>every update for at least the last three years.  The biggest change is 
>in discovering the error of forward projecting fertility.
>
>Non-Hispanic Whites: 1.62
>Hispanic White: 2.80
>
>Turns out that second number is only first generation fertility and does 
>not compound.  More: 
>http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/DRU_Publications/Projections/P1.htm

Those who naively believe that people will only live in the coastal
areas of California need to have a dose of reality.  Millions and
millions of people are moving to California's Inland Empire and
Central Valley.  Here are some median home sales prices  some of these
"undesireable" places to live.

Riverside County: $399,000 
Stockton: $385,000 
Sacramento County: $371,000 
San Bernardino County $350,000 
Modesto: $346,000 
Bakersfield: $272,000
Fresno: $265,000
Desert Hot Springs: $260,000 
Yucca Valley: $215,500 

These figures  were reported by the California Association of Realtors
for September 2005 and include single family homes, town homes and
condominiums.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:03:06 -0700, Scott en Aztl�n
<scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
><jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
>people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
>good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
>North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
>drinking water.

Jerry Rioux wrote:
> Those who naively believe that people will only live in the coastal
> areas of California need to have a dose of reality.  Millions and
> millions of people are moving to California's Inland Empire and
> Central Valley.  Here are some median home sales prices  some of these
> "undesireable" places to live.
> 
> Riverside County: $399,000 
> Stockton: $385,000 
> Sacramento County: $371,000 
> San Bernardino County $350,000 
> Modesto: $346,000 
> Bakersfield: $272,000
> Fresno: $265,000
> Desert Hot Springs: $260,000 
> Yucca Valley: $215,500 
> 
> These figures  were reported by the California Association of Realtors
> for September 2005 and include single family homes, town homes and
> condominiums.

Do you have a URL?  I once looked at their website and couldn't find anything. 
The local fishwrap publishes the numbers for local communities, but I'm 
interested in everything.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
================================================================
I didn't break it!  It was doing that before I broke it... er...

The recent CAR press release with the regional and county sales price
figures is online at:
http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU2MTE=

The figures for all homes sold are online at:
http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU2MTI

Jerry

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:46:56 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>Jerry Rioux wrote:
>> Those who naively believe that people will only live in the coastal
>> areas of California need to have a dose of reality.  Millions and
>> millions of people are moving to California's Inland Empire and
>> Central Valley.  Here are some median home sales prices  some of these
>> "undesireable" places to live.
>> 
>> Riverside County: $399,000 
>> Stockton: $385,000 
>> Sacramento County: $371,000 
>> San Bernardino County $350,000 
>> Modesto: $346,000 
>> Bakersfield: $272,000
>> Fresno: $265,000
>> Desert Hot Springs: $260,000 
>> Yucca Valley: $215,500 
>> 
>> These figures  were reported by the California Association of Realtors
>> for September 2005 and include single family homes, town homes and
>> condominiums.
>
>Do you have a URL?  I once looked at their website and couldn't find anything. 
>The local fishwrap publishes the numbers for local communities, but I'm 
>interested in everything.

"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message 
news:djkiac$54v$2@blue.rahul.net...
> Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
>
> Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.


I'm not sure growth is so good, but I'm convinced that it's inevitable. 
Growth needs to be managed, that much is certain.

Jerry Rioux wrote:
> The recent CAR press release with the regional and county sales price
> figures is online at:
> http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU2MTE=
> 
> The figures for all homes sold are online at:
> http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU2MTI

Exactly what I wanted, even though it's scary -- thanks!

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:46:56 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote:
...
>>>Desert Hot Springs: $260,000 
>>>Yucca Valley: $215,500 
>>>
>>>These figures  were reported by the California Association of Realtors
>>>for September 2005 and include single family homes, town homes and
>>>condominiums.
>>
>>Do you have a URL?  I once looked at their website and couldn't find anything. 
>>The local fishwrap publishes the numbers for local communities, but I'm 
>>interested in everything.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"I'm not proud.  We really haven't done everything we could to protect
  our customers.  Our products just aren't engineered for security."
   --Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

In article <uey8f.22432$RG4.11930@fe05.lga>,
 The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote:

> Jerry Rioux wrote:
> > The recent CAR press release with the regional and county sales price
> > figures is online at:
> > http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU2MTE=
> > 
> > The figures for all homes sold are online at:
> > http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU2MTI
> 
> Exactly what I wanted, even though it's scary -- thanks!

Also try www.dqnews.com with zipcodes and trends.  

> 
> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:46:56 -0700, The Real Bev
> > <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> ...
> >>>Desert Hot Springs: $260,000 
> >>>Yucca Valley: $215,500 
> >>>
> >>>These figures  were reported by the California Association of Realtors
> >>>for September 2005 and include single family homes, town homes and
> >>>condominiums.
> >>
> >>Do you have a URL?  I once looked at their website and couldn't find 
> >>anything. 
> >>The local fishwrap publishes the numbers for local communities, but I'm 
> >>interested in everything.