Would you ban building homes in a pristine area to protect the environment?

fuzzybuddy

fuzzybuddy

SF VIP
Location
The Sticks, Northeast PA.
We are just like rabbits- procreating away. We are chopping down entire forests ever second. We are killing off most of our wildlife to build homes. So the question is: Would you ban building homes in a pristine area to protect the environment?
 

Definitely. Governments are very good at showing concern for the environment, but money and profit come first. It's up to the public to keep up the fight to stop all this destruction.
 

Yes and a big problem here in NM is trying to build developments where there isn't enough water to support existing developments let alone 1000 new homes & associated businesses, & trying to keep big oil & gas & mining from destroying land in the process of prospecting for more.
 
Yes, as long as the government offered a scheme to buy privately owned property at market prices at the time the restriction goes into effect.

I would also support an effort to prevent people from rebuilding in areas that are prone to natural disasters every few years.
 
Well, as we so often see.... in humanity....give'em an inch, and they'll take a mile.

I would support such measures, with strict guidelines !!

Our friend Gary lives [in the woods] but he seems to have done so in a very responsible,un-intrusive way. It appears he did not ask nature to get the hell out of his way. He IMO [blended] in with it. Again opinion, but that is entirely different than "development" of an entire area......or even building a gargantuan spread, with swimming pools. tennis courts, etc. That....I would like to stop. But that....is being very selective, and of course would be challenged.

Probably better?...to leave it as it is, and perhaps challenge each case individually as they occur.
 
So many people rebuild in flooded out areas (around here for sure) and expect the results to somehow be different the next time.
Such insanity!! And a major waste of money.
 
Where I used to live was a brook. Most of the time it was a small stream, but in March/April with the snow melt, it always overflowed its banks. There is a house that was built ON the brook. Yup, on one side of a basement wall was the brook, on the other side was the house's cellar. So this guy got flooded out each year. And every year, he was on TV after getting washed out, saying, "Of course, I'm going to rebuild". Finally some insurance company said , "No, you're not". So yeah, it dumb to re build in a flood plain, year after year.
 
I guess my answer is, "it depends." If an individual owns the "pristine land" and has the right to build on it, who am I to "BAN" anything? Sometimes people get too emotional without stopping to consider the actual impact, and frankly I'm tired of people pushing their agendas.
 
Bonnie said:
So many people rebuild in flooded out areas (around here for sure) and expect the results to somehow be different the next time.
Such insanity!! And a major waste of money.
Click to expand...

Yes. And on top of that they get to rebuild with federally (taxpayer) subsided flood insurance money. It's a racket.
 
I guess that you could call me an animal lover and a tree hugger. I really enjoy taking walks through the pathways that the county parks have created. I have seen deer, rabbits, squirrels and even nocturnal animals on those paths. I guess some call it “getting back to nature” or whatever, but these animals play a very big role in our environment. The insects, well, they also play their part by being food for so many animals and different species of birds, even though they are also pests. In nature, very little gets thrown away.
 
Aunt Bea said:
Yes, as long as the government offered a scheme to buy privately owned property at market prices at the time the restriction goes into effect. I would also support an effort to prevent people from rebuilding in areas that are prone to natural disasters every few years.
Click to expand...

I agree. It just seems so stupid to keep rebuilding areas that flood every year or two. This is only going to get worse as time passes, and the oceans rise. I wonder what people are going to do in another 100 years or so, when much of the Gulf Coast, Florida, and the big Eastern cities are all under water. If the bulk of the climate scientists are correct, the US will lose as much as 17% of its land mass, and over 150 million people will be displaced.
 
oldman said:
I guess that you could call me an animal lover and a tree hugger. I really enjoy taking walks through the pathways that the county parks have created. I have seen deer, rabbits, squirrels and even nocturnal animals on those paths. I guess some call it “getting back to nature” or whatever, but these animals play a very big role in our environment. The insects, well, they also play their part by being food for so many animals and different species of birds, even though they are also pests. In nature, very little gets thrown away.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of the same way. I love the forest and the critters around us. I keep the immediate area around our house mowed....perhaps 1 acre....and the rest of our 40 acres belongs to the critters. They usually get in my garden, but leave more than enough for the two of us. I've pretty much given up on doing any hunting....I would rather watch the deers. About the Only time I get the guns out anymore is the annual cleaning and test firing, and haven't "dispatched" anything other than a few armadillos that have begun to invade our area....that is one critter that serves NO purpose, IMO, other than to spread Leprosy.
 
RadishRose said:
Armadillo's spread leprosy? Yikes!
Click to expand...

Yes, they carry this bacteria on their shells. Whenever I get one, I carefully pick it up with a big pair of channel lock pliers, dump it in my burn pit, douse it with diesel fuel, cover it with dead wood, and cremate it. Then, I rinse the pliers with gasoline, before I put them up. Picking up an armadillo with bare hands is a sure recipe for some severe health problems.

https://www.livescience.com/52792-armadillos-leprosy-bacteria-spreading-southern-us.html
 
Don M. said:
Yes, they carry this bacteria on their shells. Whenever I get one, I carefully pick it up with a big pair of channel lock pliers, dump it in my burn pit, douse it with diesel fuel, cover it with dead wood, and cremate it. Then, I rinse the pliers with gasoline, before I put them up. Picking up an armadillo with bare hands is a sure recipe for some severe health problems.

https://www.livescience.com/52792-armadillos-leprosy-bacteria-spreading-southern-us.html
Click to expand...
[FONT=&quot]Most people are immune[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Only a small number of people, about 5 percent of the population, are susceptible to infection with the bacteria. The infection primarily affects the skin and nerves, and can cause symptoms such as skin lesions, nerve damage and deformity if not detected and treated early.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Studies have found that 95 percent of people are immune to the bacteria; even if people are exposed to these germs, they do not get sick.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leprosy — which is usually called by its modern name, Hansen's disease — is curable with antibiotics, and has a low risk of being spread among people.[/FONT]
 
Aunt Bea said:
Yes, as long as the government offered a scheme to buy privately owned property at market prices at the time the restriction goes into effect. I would also support an effort to prevent people from rebuilding in areas that are prone to natural disasters every few years.
Click to expand...

Like the lower elevations in New Orleans. The native Indians of New Orleans, who used to live in the higher elevations, warned the white people about it but they didn't listen and still don't. It will only get worse with global warming. I had a hard time feeling sorry for the victims of Katrina, especially after they swore to rebuild even after going through that extreme disaster.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top