🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3901A9FA.1C640489@clark.net>,
  klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <38F888ED.D1203223@clark.net>,
> >   klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> >
> > (snippage)
>
> <snips>
>
> > >
> > > The chances of The Rich subdividing their "rurban" ("rural
suburban")
> > > estates so as to slap up high-density low-rent housing is just
about
> > nil and
> > > you know it.
> >
> > I never said they would. That's why you switched. I never brought up
> > low-rent vs. high-rent (though I note that you assume all
high-density
> > development is low-rent, which is false).
>
> The issue of whether the rent is high or low is another red-herring.

I just said that!
>
> The issue is how much concrete gets slapped down. Outside of the
highway
> itself, you don't get a lot of concrete slapped down unless there's
> high-density housing. In Montgomery County, the sort of housing you're
> imputing to the discussion (requiring that sort of concrete to park
that
> number of cars) is almost exclusively low-rent, insofar as low-rent
housing
> exists in Montgomery County Maryland. These properties are zoned "low
> density residential" which means single-family mansions on acres of
lawn.
>
> Hence, unless the landowners all suddenly go barking mad,

How? By selling property that's now much more valuable due (and a bigger
tax burden) due to an adjacent new road? Happens all the time.

> you're not
going
> to see much new concrete in the area, other than for the road itself,
and we
> already agree that existing regulations regarding new-road
construction will
> probably result in _less_ runoff impact on the NW Branch than occurs
> _naturally_.

No, we don't agree on that yet.
>
> >
> > >
> > > By the time they do that, the Singularity will long since have
come
> > and gone
> > > and natural watersheds will either be the rule globally (nothing
> > remotely
> > > human left) or it won't much matter in any case (nothing remotely
> > human
> > > left).
> >
> > But what if there isn't enough cold dark matter and the universe
expands
> > forever without a new singularity? (I've got an argument against
> > everything, don't I?)
>
> Wrong singularity. See http://earthops.org/joy/ for some links.

The link didn't work. But no fair stealing the word from the
cosmologists.

>
> >
> > >
> > (your travelogue snipped)
> > > > > I just can't imaging them building a lot of
> > low-rent
> > > > > apartments with lots of parking spaces and no flood abatement
> > right
> > > > there!
> > > >
> > > > Your imagination isn't very good evidence.
> > >
> > > For one, it's a registered historical landmark, I'm pretty sure,
also
> > it's
> > > bi-county agency property.
> > >
> > > May I also recommend that you get your Heavy Sarcasm detector
> > recalibrated.
> >
> > I was dead serious.
>
> You don't know the Maryland/National-Capital Park and Planning
Commission
> very well then...

No, I don't. But your imagination is still not good evidence.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > (more snippage to save bandwidth)
> > > >
> > > > What is the point of all this? What does the price of these
homes
> > have
> > > > to do with anything? I don't see anything about the permeability
of
> > the
> > > > soil or the percentage of impermeable surfaces in the watershed
yet.
> > >
> > > The point is that there _will be no paving over of the watershed_.
> > Whatever
> > > will ever happen along that line _is already done_.
> >
> > I'll need to take a look at a map myself before I believe you.
>
> Why don't you do that. And why don't you go out and actually look _at
the
> terrain_ to make sure the map accurately describes it.

I'll stick with the best, most up-to-date map I can find. If we always
had to ground-truth every map we ever made, maps would always be
worthless. But point taken.
>
> > >
> > > <snips>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This business about "immense concrete expanses ruining the
> > precious
> > > > > Northwest Branch of the Anacostia is a bunch of misleading
hooey,
> > and
> > > > it is
> > > > > about one thing and one thing only, seen in the context of a
State
> > and
> > > > > County where there are some of the finest roads and finest
civil
> > > > engineers
> > > > > and some of the most restrictive environmental laws and codes
in
> > the
> > > > > country.
> > > >
> > > > I understand your point now. You have dropped your hydrological
> > issue
> > > > and moved to a rather wordy new argument -- that the watershed
is
> > > > already developed.
> > >
> > > That _is__ the hydrological issue!
> >
> > Then why the hell did you throw all that crap about geological
> > conditions at me when all the soil and rocks are covered with
concrete?
>
> They're not covered with concrete! They're in-general deforested, with
> short-cut lawns. And that _is_ just about as impermeable as concrete,
as
> it's heavy clay soils atop a basalt shield formation. The point has
been
> made and I will concede this, that the root structures of the turfs do
in
> fact impede _surface flow_ to some degree but that is not the same as
> permeability; permeability involves the ability of the ground to
_absorb_
> water, which most of the time in this climate it cannot much do. The
soils
> in the area generally require no more than one inch of precipitation
in a
> three hour period to reach saturation.

...which is why we abandoned the geological descriptions long ago and
moved to flow rates. THAT is the hydrological issue.
>
> >
> > > There's not going to be "massive
> > > concretization" out there. It's just not going to happen. If
there's
> > an
> > > issue here, it's about deforestation so that rich fscks can have
three
> > acres
> > > of lawn... which retains runoff nowhere near as well as does
forest or
> > even
> > > scrub.
> >
> > What deforestation? If there is more deforestation for lawns, isn't
that
> > new development?
>
> No it's not _new_ development, which you appear to impure _will_
happen.
> It's _existing_ development which may or may not be _recent_.

Okay. But you shouldn't (if indeed you are) use a developed watershed as
a baseline for a healthy one.
>
> Once again I must point out to you that you cannot make your
judgements
> based on _maps_ because _the map is not the terrain_. You might make
good
> judgements on a combination of maps and recent aerial/satellite
photography,
> or you might make good judgements based on recent maps and personal
> surveying of sites, but maps alone do not cover the whole picture.
They
> don't generally delineate land-use issues such as forestation, turf
cover,
> haying areas, dirt-heap mountains, etc etc etc.

Agreed.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your characterization of the area may be accurate, but
incomplete.
> > I'll
> > > > get back to you after I look at the maps for myself.
> > >
> > > The Map Is Not The Territory. You will have to go see for
yourself, on
> > no
> > > map could I find the vast majority of this recent development.
Which
> > is
> > > ongoing I might add.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is _entirely_ about rich-ass bastards who are absolutely
will
> > > > (and
> > > > > financially able) to throttle the rest of the State of
Maryland
> > and in
> > > > fact
> > > > > by derivation the Greater Washington Metropolitan Area...
simply
> > > > because
> > > > > they don't want their precious tranquillity shattered by a
road
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > area has desperately needed for 30 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any argument not directly addressing _that_ is primarily
bullshit
> > and
> > > > a red
> > > > > herring.
> > > >
> > > > I'll check the maps and get back to you.
> > >
> > > The Map Is Not The Territory. You will have to go look for
yourself as
> > > almost none of this recent development appears on any maps I could
> > find. If
> > > you're really serious about this, commission a photosurvey
overflight
> > or get
> > > some this-week satellite shots.
> >
> > I'll find an up-to-date map.
>
> You may have to wait a year or two. By which time your information
will
> _still_ be out of date compared to onsite surveys.

Okay, okay. But I respectfully decline to accept your observations, nor
my own for that matter, as a complete picture.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <snips>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just tell me where you got the 99.2% number. A quick
citation
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Smokescreen, bullshit, red-herring.
> > > >
> > > > Now we finally get to the bottom of you.
> > > >
> > > > YOU brought up the 99.2% number.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > NIMBY Rich-boy shill.
> > > >
> > > > I don't live anywhere near the area, so you can't call me NIMBY.
I
> > am
> > > > not rich either. But it's clear that you're getting frustrated.
> > >
> > > Yes, because you're trying to beat a dead horse
> > >  which is in fact completely a straw-man to the issue.
> >
> > You brought up the rocks and the 99.2%, and you still insist on
using
> > "NIMBY" where it clearly doesn't apply. so don't tell me about a
dead
> > horse.
>
> non-sequitur.

You brought it up, and now you call it a non-sequitur (sic).
>
> NIMBY clearly applies to the rich bastards of Batchellors Forest, the
upper
> drainage of the NW Branch of the Anacostia River. YOu are getting very
far
> afield of any arguments here whatsoever.

Again, YOU brought up NIMBY, and you are talking to ME, not the rich
bastards.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Remainder snipped, since it's misdirection, and a troll off of
the
> > > > real
> > > > > issue here... wealthy elitists perfectly willing to choke the
rest
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > State's east-west heavy traffic needs,
> > > >
> > > > Don't you just hate rich people! Why, poor people just love to
have
> > big
> > > > highways go through their neighborhoods! They don't complain,
they
> > just
> > > > roll over like good little poor people.
> > >
> > > Hah, tell that to Doug Willinger and the other I-95 into DC folks.
> >
> > Were they wrong?
>
> "Highways for the white man through black neighborhoods". Got Marion
Barry
> into office and made the career of the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Those poor
people
> definitely did not get a highway through their neighborhoods and they
> definitely jammed up traffic into the District on a straight-through
route,
> which may or may-not have been a Good Thing.

Thanks for making my point.

>
> >
> > Do you think every highway that goes through an existing
neighborhood is
> > a good one? Would you want a highway in your backyard? Are you
NIMBY?
>
> Actually, I practically _do_ have a highway through my back yard, and
I
> really do like that because if I want to go anyplace, I have about six
fast
> ways to get there.

Good. Not everyone wants the same thing you want.
>
> I don't think that because a highway goes through somemone's back
yard, it's
> good; I think that if a highway is desperately needed, I really think
that
> it's a hell of a lot more important to see 10,000 well-served than to
> pussyfoot around and do nothing so that 1 won't be inconvenienced.

There's your "do nothing" straw man again! Nobody said "do nothing."

> Well, of
> course, sufficiently large cash bribes might change my attitude.

Weren't you just complaining to me about the corrupt Maryland
politicians earlier! ;)
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Did it ever occur to you that a highway might be a bad idea no
> > matter
> > > > what the wealth of the neighborhood it slices up?
> > >
> > > It occurred to me and I as quickly dismissed it; it was well known
> > that
> > > there was a desperate need for this exact highway some 30 years
ago.
> >
> > But you admit that the wealth issue is a bunch of political crap?
>
> No, I admit that wealth and politics are inextricably intertwined in
the
> exceptionally Corrupt State of Maryland. The ICC will not be built for
the
> sole reason that there's too much money invested and paid-out for it
to
> _never_ be built... until even _more_ money can be made.

You may be right. But that does not change the fact that there are good
reasons not to build it that have nothing to do with money.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > and clearly with enough money
> > > > to keep
> > > > > Governor Parris Glendenning in their hip-pocket.
> > > >
> > > > What happened to all the soil talk?
> > >
> > > It's no longer germane to the discussion.
> >
> > Why not? Why was it germane before? You sure seemed sure of
yourself.
>
> I'm still sure of myself. But compared to rich people paying off the
> Maryland Democratic establishment so that they won't have a highway in
their
> back yards, it pales into insignificance and barely merits a mention
in a
> sidebar.
>
> >
> > > But I still stand by my
> > statements
> > > that as regards the NW Branch of the Anacostia (not Paint Branch
no
> > any
> > > other) outside of the connector itself, you may lay your fears of
> > massive
> > > concretization to rest. It's not going to happen to any degree so
as
> > to
> > > significantly impact the NW Branch.
> >
> > Why should I believe you? Do you have an independent source?
>
> I am an independent source

That's an oxymoron.

>... but more importantly, your own eyes are
an
> independent source.

Nope. I am no more capable of analyzing the situation with a site visit
than you are.

> I keep telling you to go and look and you keep
refusing;
> thus you are begging the question.

To go and look is not enough evidence for anyone.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's awfully odd, isn't it. The sites that every other
> > > > ecology/watershed
> > > > > site points to, which has the soil permeability figures, is
> > suddenly
> > > > > offline. The other sites still point to it... I guess when you
> > have
> > > > enough
> > > > > money, you can do anything.
> > > >
> > > > Even cut off the free flow of information in the internet age?
> > That's
> > > > straight out of the X-Files. Don't get paranoid.
> > >
> > > I'm not being paranoid, I'm looking at 350 years of Corrupt
Politics
> > As A
> > > Given in Maryland. Ask Spiro T. Agnew if you don't believe me.
> >
> > I didn't say Maryland wasn't full of corruption -- it is. I say they
> > can't go around supressing information on the web. That should be
> > obvious.
>
> Really? It's not. Especially when this sort of money, and Democratic
Party
> politics, is involved.

I think you're talking about state government sites only. I thought you
meant any sites.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >I bet one could even, if they had enough
> > > > money,
> > > > > get the Governor to permanently shitcan the idea of a freeway
> > through
> > > > the
> > > > > backyard of rich people, and then sell the reserved/purchased
> > lands
> > > > back to
> > > > > the developers at just the right cost for them to make an
unholy
> > > > bundle of
> > > > > cash, with a healthy chunk of that going to the future
Governor of
> > > > Maryland,
> > > > > the Kathleen Kennedy (Townsend).
> > > >
> > > > Throwing out unsupported accusations only makes you look even
more
> > > > paranoid.
> > >
> > > No, it makes me someone who's eminently familiar with Maryland
> > politics and
> > > Democratic PArty politics.
> >
> > You keep expecting me to take your word for everything. Sorry, the
world
> > doesn't work that way.
>
> Actually, you keep begging the question.
>
> And in any case, the question is not whether or not _you_ take my
word, but
> whether sanyone else does. You're putting on a pretty poor showing,
and in
> fact you're making this all about you and me and whether I even give a
damn
> whether you believe me or not. I don't.

You are not a sufficient source. I am not a sufficient source. Whether I
or anyone else believes you about anything does not change that.
>
> the issue is the issue, not personality.

Absolutely.
>
> > >
> > > Being wary when you're in bear-country isn't paranoia, silly --
it's
> > how you
> > > don't get et y a grizzly.
> >
> > But you're more than "wary" -- you're claiming that there's
definitely a
> > grizzly right behind the next tree. Show me the grizzly, and I'll
> > believe you.
>
> The problem with that is if you're close enough to see it, it's
already got
> your head in its mouth.

Then can you possibly know it's there?

> Welcome to Maryland and the Democratic Domain.


>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't care if the soil around the NW Branch Anacostia
headwaters
> > is
> > > > so
> > > > > goddamned absorbent that it sucks enough to make the damned
river
> > run
> > > > uphill
> > > > > and backwards.
> > > >
> > > > You used to.
> > >
> > > That was before I went out and tramped around. There is a lot of
> > berming and
> > > other flow-control engineering, you'd be totally astounded at the
> > stuff just
> > > to the northwest of the intersection of Layhill Road and Bel Pre
Road.
> > It's
> > > like the Army Corp of Engineers On Speed went through there. I
don't
> > think
> > > you have much to worry about.
> >
> > I'm glad, but I prefer more scientifically reliable assessments.
>
> Then go get your goddamned maps out. I recomment the Montgomery County
land
> office.

Okay, okay. I thought maps were useless too, but if you say so.
>
> > I'm
> > sure you are telling the truth about what you saw, but you only used
> > your eyes, and you only saw a little bit of the whole picture. Plus
> > you're clearly biased.
>
> And you're not?

Of course I'm biased. Never said I wasn't.

> Troll.

That's just rude. I've stuck with you much longer than most people
would.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > This is all this blockade of the ICC is about, all it's
> > > > ever
> > > > > been about, but never so much more so than now... it's the
rich
> > > > looking out
> > > > > for the rich, and to hell with everyone else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Go look for yourself, it's apparent as the nose on your face.
> > > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
>                     "We look through a glass but darkly:
>                  What we see is more colored by our beliefs,
>                than what we believe is colored by what we see."
> Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth:   Meow.
http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.