To: Tom Clarke who wrote (68575 ) 12/24/1999 10:29:00 PM From: Michael M Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
Great idea! Some good news and some bad news, though. First of all, be careful of playing into hands of radical environmentalists who would love nothing better than to limit every "family of four" to an eighth of an acre. By the time you eliminate land unsuitable for building along with lakes, rivers, flood zones and the like, maybe each "family" is down to, say, 3,000 sq. feet. Then we got to account for streets, highways, railroads and runways. And, parking lots and more parking lots for all the stores and schools and hospitals and stadiums and playgrounds and parks and golf courses! How much space is the typical family down to now? Less than a thousand square feet would be quite a generous estimate. Now, how about land for waste disposal? Perhaps a farm here and there? Maybe every family of four has a total of 200 sq. ft. to exist in. I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out. Oh, don't forget the Texas Dwarf Spotted Cuckoo habitat that's being encroached on. Really prime 100 sq. ft. lots for typical families will be worth even more than prime land in Silicon Valley. The rest of the world will consist of widely scattered theme park attractions ( less than .00000001 percent) which families will be allowed to visit four times within a lifetime. The remainder will remain in a pure natural state FOR THE CHILDREN. The good news is, a great deal of money now spent on long-range atomic weapons systems can be turned into a peace dividend. Given the convenience of proximity to irksome neighbors, dull kitchen knives should be sufficient to elevate incidents involving a barking dog to true great war status in no time. Just one request - If we HAVE to do this, can we do it in California or the north shore of the Med instead of Texas? :-) Mike