[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

NFC: Re: Native Fish Conservancy Digest V2 #887

Of course that is not exactly what I had in mind. It seems there is a
premium in my area for houses that overlook the regional preserves,
unfortunately from the regional preserve hiking trails (where the dog
walkers make a living terrorizing the local fauna and pooping everywhere
you step) these houses stick out like a sore thumb from the ridgeline,
there used to be some sort of rule that was followed where the houses
could not be visible from the ridgeline, what happened to that? They
used to blend in or were not permitted, I think local politics has
elected persons who don't care about this sort of thing, all in the name
of progressive social issues (bribes, coercion, corruption). Is that
cynical and sarcastic enough? My point was that we should try to
construct public works that blend in with nature in a harmonious
fashion, and was curious what might be required for this to happen. We
are not going to have less people on this planet, but we can give a hoot
about the attitude people have towards natural surroundings and the
health they want to enjoy. What I was after was what sort of building
code would describe this? I don't expect any miracle, but we do need a
plan, otherwise there is nowhere to begin. I would rather protect the
area entirely from intrusion. However, housing is going to be built
somewhere, more than likely not replacing cement and asphalt. So even if
we manage to protect this one area, what about all the others? Where
will people build, and what sort of edifices will they construct?
Arlus

> Your taxes might also be well spent on this great idea to provide a wildlife
> sanctuary in the form of oil wells up in Alaska?
> 
> Sorry, for being so sarcastic. I just would never trust humans to do the
> right thing in a situation like this. Human fixes or "improvements" rarely
> ever work.
> 
> Jeremy
>