810a9b32
XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
On 2011-02-15, Phlip wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:00 pm, Brent wrote:
>> On 2011-02-15, Phlip wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 14, 7:44 am, Brent wrote:
>>
>> >> > Curitiba has 50 square meters of park for every inhabitant.
>>
>> >> Which means cramming people into even smaller spaces because of
>>
>> > And your actual evidence the Curitibanos live in sardine tins is..?
>>
>> I'm sorry you can't do math.
>
> So, you have none, so you resort to flaming.
I didn't flame. You rejected math and then slapped a strawman argument
on me. The math is clear. If population and area are held constant, and
significant area is dedicated to parks, then the area in which those
people actually live is smaller than with less park land.
I know you snipped it because the math simply and easily shows the flaws
of central planning. Central planners get what they think are wonderful
ideas and force them into being at the point of a government wielded gun
but rarely even think of the most basic problems they will cause.
Your idea of large areas of dedicated park land has a fundamental
problem of reducing the land space available for things that are not
public parks or forcing the city to cover a greater area than it would
otherwise. Both of which have negative consequences on quality of life,
environment, the economy, and so on. It's great for people who love
parks, but for people who really don't care much for parks well, they
are still forced to live with the results, which might be a smaller home
than they would have had if so much land not been off limits.
It's the basic flaw of central planning. The seen and the unseen. The
seen is all the wonderful parks. The unseen is the family that cannot
afford enough living space because land prices were driven up due to the
supply being diminished to have lots of parks.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
