Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
I hope this bridge idea dies. We need to contain the mess that already is of the sprawl of Utah and Cedar Valley. We don't need more incentive for people to build out there when there is plenty of land on the west side. We don't need more incentive for people to build out there when it requires more a lot more public money and infrastructure to support those fools who decided to move over there in the first place.  |
That smacks of social engineering, imo. Besides, in Utah there's no way to stop sprawl. Legislature passing an urban growth boundary? Pffft.
What about those fools, who in 1945 decided to move "all the way out" to Holladay. Gasp!
It's called growth. It happens. We can't legally stop it. Either we plan for it (as the MPOs so wisely do) or we don't. Plus, if you look at world population projections, we'll never see the world double in population ever again. The growth will die down, quite a bit over the next hundred years.
(Now, to be fair: I do support Portland's UGB, simply because the Willamette Valley has the most fertile farmland in the world. But honestly, what along the Wasatch Front is worth saving? It's hardly a bread basket. And with more responsible landscaping and the uncoming avalanche of electric cars, what's the harm of a bit more sprawl?)