Re: "The Economic Benefits of Open Space"

[Emery Graham <"egraham"@ci.wilmington.de.us>]

Trevor,
Its seems like the poor are in somewhat of a pinch. We can't develop the
countryside because we need to preserve the natural environment and we
don't want
high density housing too near the park because it harms the natural
environment.
Are we at the point where we're being forced to choose between the natural
environment and affording the poor families in our nation a decent, safe, and
sanitary living environment?

Emery

trevor burrowes wrote:

> Peter B. Meyer wrote:
> >
> > ....... when we provide more open space, we add to the "open
> > space" the relatively rich would provide for themselves anyway
>
> Good point. And this open space is an absolute good, enriching the
> environment we all share, however disproportionately (or unfairly) the rich
> benefit. The rich benefit unfairly in uncounted ways which have less
> positive relevance than open space to the lives of the general public.
>
>  - and to
> > make room for that open space, we need to pack the relatively poor into
> > denser housing -- and move them further away from the open space since
> > they can only afford to live on low cost land...
> >         HOW TO WE CHANGE THIS PATTERN?
> > That's the puzzle for those of us who would like to see more public
> > green space available...
> >         HOW ABOUT WORKING FOR INTENSE LAND USE REQUIREMENTS ALONG
PARKLANDS?
>
> Since a dense population near it could harm parkland through overuse, pets,
> traffic, runoff, etc., such developments would have to have very
> progressive standards of design. Village Homes in Davis, California is one
> of few examples I know of such development done well.
>
> trb