|
Posted by My Land of Misery on July 14, 2007, 9:57 pm
> Land developers:
>
> In your rush to accommodate population growth (often called "economic
> growth"), do you sometimes draw a blank on what to name your latest
> subdivision? Many of those trendy names like "River's End" are getting
> stale. No need to worry about a lack of creativity. Just fall back on
> an old standard: name your development for whatever piece of nature it
> replaced or destroyed.
>
> Some examples:
>
> If grassland once existed where Yukon Denials and 6,000 sq. ft.
> castles stand, don't mourn that cheap remnant of nature. Just call it
> THE MEADOWS. Average people won't notice. They're too busy pushing
> paper and drawing debt so they can afford your creations. Money is the
> judge and jury for everything that's right.
>
> If hundreds of oak trees were reduced to dozens, call that development
> THE OAKS. A very common name, that one. Many oak trees fall to the
> dozer as the U.S. population grows by 3 million annually. Revel in the
> glory of world population growth that exceeds 70 million per annum
> (net gain). Think of all the homes that will be needed, even if you
> aren't personally building them. The sound of hammers ringing in the
> morning is like.....victory.
>
> If your "master planned community" just invaded 500 acres of wetlands
> or vernal pools, call it THE LAKES. The existence of an artificial
> pond can justify that title. Just make sure you can steal water from
> somewhere to fill it. Of course there's no shortage of water, even in
> the desert. All it takes is imagination and total lack of concern for
> anything else.
>
> If you just won a battle against Godless environmentalists and pushed
> 50 homes into national forest boundaries, call that piece of paradise
> THE PINES. Pray it doesn't suffer the recent fate of a Lake Tahoe
> community where homes have blocked natural brush-clearing fires.
>
> It's easy to divide, conquer and pretend the landscape is fine by
> using name-psychology. It also makes potential homeowners believe
> they're not really destroying wilderness. After all, if you surround
> wilderness on all sides by development and leave a pocket in the
> middle, can it really be considered nature?
>
> Ringing an area with sprawl, then cutting to the core is a good
> strategy for your long term plans. Nature is wasted space begging to
> be filled with houses. If it stays empty, some dirty animals might
> find a stronghold and the ESA may be invoked. Too bad they dumped Mr.
> Pombo but you have plenty of conservative allies. Funny thing about
> the word "conservative." Most people of that ilk think conservation is
> beneath them. They're all about consumption.
>
> Home-builders have decades of expansion to look forward to. Sure, it
> has to end sometime (finite planet) but you can make a buck now, so
> who cares about the future? The California State Department of Finance
> released a report saying California's population may reach 60 million
> by 2050. Third-world America is well on its way. This means white
> flight to the hills and they must be developed!
>
> Developers, you must always focus on what really matters for human
> progress. If the land doesn't get MORE CROWDED every day, we are
> failing our children. At some point, all but the harshest habitat will
> be vanquished, paved, and renamed, and you can bask in the glory of it
> while sitting in 5 MPH traffic.
>
> E.A.
Had a good chuckle with the above comments. I had a weird idea years
ago of finding some land in Johnson County, Kansas not already annexed
by one of the many growing communities like Overland Park and
Olathe. The name idea: Missouri City, only because there is Kansas
City, MO, Kansas City, KS and Missouri City, MO.
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>
> Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless population growth.
And that despite a multi-billion-dollar abortion industry. Go figure.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap