Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

The Rich Have Priced the Outdoors out of Everyone Else's Hands

By Barbara Ehrenreich, Barbaraehrenreich.com. Posted June 30, 2007.


As mansions increasingly eat up the coasts and hillsides, an old saying rings true: "If a place is truly beautiful, you can't afford to be there."
Advertisement

I took a micro-vacation last week -- nine hours in Sun Valley before an evening speaking engagement. The sky was deep blue, the air crystalline, the hills green and not yet on fire. Strolling out of the Sun Valley Lodge, I found a tiny tourist village, complete with Swiss-style bakery, multi-star restaurant, and "opera house." What luck -- the boutiques were displaying outdoor racks of summer clothing on sale!

But things started to get a little sinister -- maybe I had wandered into a movie set or Paris Hilton's closet? -- because even at a 60 percent discount, I couldn't find a sleeveless cotton shirt for less than $100. These items shouldn't have been outdoors; they should have been in locked glass cases.

Then I remembered the general rule, which has been in place since sometime in the '90s: If a place is truly beautiful, you can't afford to be there. All right, I'm sure there are still exceptions -- a few scenic spots not yet eaten up by mansions. But they're going fast.

About ten years ago, for example, a friend and I rented a snug, inexpensive, one-bedroom house in Driggs ID, just over the Tetons from wealthy Jackson Hole. At that time, Driggs was where the workers lived, driving over the Teton Pass every day to wait tables and make beds on the stylish side of the mountains. The point is, we low-rent folks got to wake up to the same scenery the rich people enjoyed, and hike along the same pine-scented trails.

But the money was already starting to pour into Driggs -- Paul Allen of Microsoft, August Busch III of Anheuser-Busch, Harrison Ford -- transforming family potato farms into vast dynastic estates. I haven't been back, but I understand Driggs has become another unaffordable Jackson Hole. Where the waitstaff and bed-makers live today I do not know.

I take this personally. I need to see vast expanses of water, 360 degree horizons, and mountains piercing the sky -- at least for a week or two of the year. According to evolutionary psychologist Nancy Etcoff, we all do, and the need is hard-wired into us. "People like to be on a hill, where they can see a landscape. And they like somewhere to go where they can not be seen themselves," told Harvard Magazine earlier this year. "That's a place desirable to a predator who wants to avoid becoming prey." We also like to be able to see water (for drinking), low-canopy trees (for shade), and animals (whose presence signals that the place is habitable.)

But the gentrification of rural American has a downside for the wealthy too. The more expensive a resort town gets, the further its workers have to commute to keep it functioning. And if your heart doesn't bleed for the dishwasher or landscaper who commutes two to four hours a day, at least shed a tear for the wealthy vacationer who gets stuck in the ensuing traffic. It's bumper to bumper westbound out of Telluride every day at five, or eastbound on Route 1 out of Key West, for the Lexuses as well as the beat-up old pick-up trucks.

Then there's the elusive element of charm, which quickly drains away in a uniform population of multi-millionaires. The Hamptons had their fishermen. Key West still advertises its "characters" -- sun-bleached, weather-beaten, misfits who drifted down for the weather or to escape some difficult situation on the mainland. But the fishermen are long gone from the Hamptons and disappearing from Cape Cod. As for Key West's "characters": With the traditional little "conch houses" once favored by shrimpers going for a million and up, these human sources of local color have to be prepared to sleep with the scorpions under the highway overpass.

In Telluride, even a local developer is complaining about the lack of affordable housing. "To have a real town," he told the Financial Times, "Telluride needs some locals hanging out" -- in old-fashioned diners, for example, where you don't have to speak Italian to order a cup of coffee.

When I was a child, I sang "America the Beautiful" and meant it. I was born in the Rocky Mountains and raised, at various times, on the coasts. The Big Sky, the rolling surf, the jagged, snow-capped, mountains: All this seemed to be my birthright. But now I flinch when I hear Woody Guthrie's line, "This land belongs to you and me." Somehow, I don't think it was meant to be sung by a chorus of hedge fund operators.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: wealth, nature, vacation

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of thirteen books, including the New York Times bestseller Nickel and Dimed. A frequent contributor to the New York Times, Harpers, and the Progressive, she is a contributing writer to Time magazine. She lives in Florida.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
If the rich fully concentrate themselves in exclusive towns, it'll be easier for angry mobs
Posted by: zyxwvut on Jun 30, 2007 12:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to finish them off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pacifica... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Pacifica... Posted by: owleyes
» It's your idea...YOU ORGANIZE Posted by: veggiegrrrl
So let's sing it ourselves
Posted by: Rune on Jun 30, 2007 12:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are right, Barbara, Woody Guthrie's song wasn't meant to be sung by a bunch of happy motoring tourists. But this would be a good time to remember how that song ends and make a point of letting its message inspire us while there is still something to this land and our people that can inspire.

. . .

As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.

In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?

Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So let's sing it ourselves Posted by: marykmusic
Think America is bad, come to Ireland.
Posted by: strahlungsamt on Jun 30, 2007 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a former emigrant who returned to Ireland after almost 20 years, I am shocked at how much this land has changed for the worse. There are now over 30,000 new millionaires in Ireland. Most of these are because their property prices rose over tenfold in the last decade and have sold their gardens to build new houses on or their farms as golf courses/stud (horse) farms.

What shocks me more than anything is the totally materialistic attitude people now have. Suddenly everybody drives an SUV and even Stretch Limos are a common site on the streets of Dublin at night. Cocaine rules the nightlife and ,believe me, nothing destroys culture faster than cocaine.

When I was a child back in the 70s, we used to go to places like Glendalough during the summer. For those who don't know, Glendalough was an early Christian monastery with a famous round tower from the 5th century AD. I remember how mystical that place used to be, these rough stone churches hidden deep in the forest next to the most picturesque lakes anywhere.

Last year, I went back to Glendalough for the first time in over 2 decades and boy was I disappointed. Now there are tasteless rich people's homes build right next door, a multimedia show, signs in multiple languages and a boardwalk around the lake so no-one has to get their Pradas dirty. Not to mention cappucchinos and a sports bar.

As for the Working Class, where have they gone? The class which produced Sean O'Casey and Brendan Behan has been pushed out in favor of multiculturalism. The once great Dublin Homour is gone and the few Working Class stiffs left are now outright hostile. Even the smoking ban was just a ruse to clear them out of the pubs and bring in the Yuppies instead.

What amazes me even more is how nobody else sees this. It seems everybody is too busy making money to care about the world around them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Loose women in the 60s? Posted by: Ellie1
I live in a
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Jun 30, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fairly wealthy area that is spectacular in its beauty. Truly at this juncture I cannot afford to own around here, but have taken steps to be able to in the future. I think it is disingenuous to suggest that it is impossible for folks who are of average means to live in a wealthy area. I have some friends who since they were 18 saved their pennies religiously...they are now in thier early thirties and have bought a 60 Acre farm in a fairly expensive area........It is all self discipline about what you do with your money..... Of course this article begs an even more important question..... Why would you want to live in an area that is overrun with snotty attitudes etc? There are plenty of beautiful places around that have no rich folks.... The downside for the "Progressives" is that there is only rednecks..... Oh well... keep whining.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I live in a Posted by: MSharp
» sausage... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» no, it's not a country club Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: I live in a Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: I live in a Posted by: owleyes
The chicken and the egg...
Posted by: EagleMB on Jun 30, 2007 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, the beautiful areas remain beautiful because the rich fold pay to keep it that way. Have you ever noticed that the grass is greener and the streets are cleaner as you drive from LA into Beverly Hills? This is the same old arguments we got from the Mexicans. That is, that we “stole the good land” and left them the shitty land. Of course, the land we are accused of stealing is only good because was we built on it.

If you want to wake up to a mountain then go to a national park.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes we are... Posted by: EagleMB
» calling somebody stupid isn't nice Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Too bad, so sad.... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Let's clarify... Posted by: EagleMB
This is a global problem with real consequences
Posted by: janvdb on Jun 30, 2007 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was born in Colorado. A native. I've seen natives pushed out of every one of the most beautiful old mining towns in the mountains. Just go down the line and name them -- Aspen, Telluride, Crested Butte, Steamboat Springs, Pagosa Springs, Glenwood Springs, Breckenridge. In every one, the natives have moved out as the rich and their Mexican workers (who live packed tightly together in cabins and garages due to shocking housing costs per sf) have moved in.

As the rich discover these mountain towns, life gets so expensive and the company so unpleasant that these factors overwhelm the pleasure of the scenery, the natives cash out and move along.

Solutions? A lot of people think that more restrictive land use planning will help. This actually promotes the process of land price increase. Land: you can save it for the rich, you can let the poor ruin it -- or people can all start having fewer kids.

We need both lower population growth and lower money supply growth.

Global interest rates are too low; this inflates stock and real estate markets. Millions of new workers are joining global labor markets; this undermines the value of labor.

All asset classes have shown shocking rates of price appreciation in the last 10 years. London apartments are for multimillionaires only. We are in a global asset price bubble due to too many people, which runs down the value of labor, and too-lax monetary policies, especially in the US, China and Japan, which have pushed up the value of real and financial assets.

As the value of labor falls and asset prices rise, you will get the Aspen-ification of the world.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too many people
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Jun 30, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is not that the rich can afford the very best. That has always been true and probably will be so long as there are people.

The problem is not that there is too much disparity in distribution of wealth, though that is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed, particularly in this country.

The principal problem is that there are too many people on this planet and like any population that has overpopulated its environment humans have spoiled too much of this planet. The planet may be on the verge of doing something about this problem, however.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too many RICH people Posted by: IntnsRed
» Too many POOR people Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Too many RICH people Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: How can wealth be distributed equally? Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
Insurance Consequences for us All
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 30, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One point she didn't mention was that often these beautiful areas are at high risk for natural environmental disasters. For instance, coastal homes can be in danger of waves during storms. In Cali, people INSIST on building homes in the hills where wild fires have been part of the environmental cycle for centuries. If a rich person makes an insurance claim because they knowingly built in a high risk area for its beauty, and the rest of our rates go up - no problem. What the heck, we exist for their benefit anyway. But Lord help the waitress who munches on a candy bar on her way to her 2nd job. That evil person might raise health insurance rates enough to cost one of the real "fat cats" designer golf tees!

She also didn't mention the power elite networks the "in" people have in wealthy areas. I made the mistake of moving to the Monterey Peninsula a few years ago. If you weren't in one of their "circles" you would get absolutely nowhere in terms of employment. The snobbery was incredible. One of the first things people would ask is where do you live. If you said Carmel they curtsied. If you said Seaside or Salinas people would actually groan in disappointment and the next time you had better come in through the service entrance. They was a saying "If you really love the peninsula, make the ultimate sacrifice - LEAVE" I did!!!!!!!! The biggest mistake in my life was moving there in the first place!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Insurance Consequences for us All Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
Greed
Posted by: tomnc on Jun 30, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America should wake up. Look what greed of 17 families in Mexico who control most of the wealth got us-20 million illegal aliens. Look at what greed got Venezuala-Hugo Chavez. Look at what greed got us: a dot.com collapse, a savings and loan collapse, an about to be speculative home collapse, high priced gas, and coporations out of control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE NEW 'OUTDOORSY SET'
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 30, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's enough room out there for all of us. It's the monstrosities called houses people build that destroy the landscape. Then they don't go outside because that's where the critters and bugs are so they stay in their clmate controlled safe, clean huge boxes and nothing can bite them or their kids. They miss all the fun and spoil things for the rest of us. No, I'm not jealous. Some things are there for all of us to enjoy. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What the hell Posted by: owleyes
» RE: THE NEW 'OUTDOORSY SET' Posted by: mjabele
» RE: THE NEW 'OUTDOORSY SET' Posted by: Trazom
I saw this sprawl recently in coastal Maine
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jun 30, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw this sprawl recently in coastal Maine where very rich folks have vacation homes (empty 8 months out of the year because of the cold weather) on the coast. So the beach towns cost California prices and they are full of seasonal-use homes. People like me who would LOVE to live on the coast ALL SEASON are completely priced out. And because the coastal towns are seasonal, there are very few jobs other than professional positions (doctors, accountants). The rest of the jobs are seasonal/service/low paying.

So, on a personal level, it's disappointing because I really wanted to leave the sprawl of California and find a small working coastal community back east.

In a way, though, taking my selfish interests out...if the beaches of Maine were all-year-long, their beauty would also be long gone with traffic, billlboards, beach garbage from tourists, fast food, Starbucks, malls, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where were you looking...? Posted by: mjabele
» Saco to Bar Harbor... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Sedona
Posted by: marykmusic on Jun 30, 2007 8:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't afford to live and own a business there. It's too expensive. I live a half hour away. as do most of those who work there for low wages.

If you want to experience the beautiful Red Rocks, go to Sedona. But if you want to spend money on metaphysical items and psychics, go to the surrounding towns. The best psychics have left Sedona because it's just too expensive to work there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sedona and Flagstaff too Posted by: Mamarianne
38 yeras in Sedona and Crested Butte
Posted by: JPHickey on Jun 30, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From ‘69 to ’89 I lived at the end of the road up near 9,000’ in Crested Butte, Colorado. Fortunately the quaint old mining town with a delightful ski area hadn’t made it – yet! I consider myself very lucky, indeed. Since then, Crested Butte soon was on the yuppie map. Actually cretins from Texas and Kansas were the major investors, and they were so dense that Telluride took off much faster with prices headed toward Aspens. Moral to the story, sometimes dense mentalities actually do a favor in disguise.

Personally I believe that the unwarranted transfer of wealth to the advantaged class during the past 25 years or so made the exploitation of beautiful places possible, while the poor has gotten poorer, naturally.

In ’89 I moved to Sedona, Arizona, another uniquely beautiful place which also has a reasonably mild climate year ‘round. At that time there wasn’t a single million dollar mansion in town, and 2,000 sq. ft. brick ranchers were doing for less than $90k. Now there isn’t one of the same old houses left for less than $450k. So I’ve seen what too much money in the wrong hands can to, and a million dollar place is just about too hum-drum to qualify you for the right social circles.

Since I’ve been an activist throughout this period, I’ve more or less had my finger on Sedona’s pulse. Until around 2000, the retirees (who could afford to retire here, as there is little employment other than tourism), were often active in local politics supporting conservation, and social justice concerns.

Since 2000 million dollar + mansions have been popping up faster than mushrooms after a summer rain. Most of those are vacant most of the time, but the people who do make Sedona their primary home town, apparently don’t give a fig what happens locally, as they don’t need community or other people, since they financial resources to call their own shots. They don’t join organizations, attend meetings, or even read the local newspaper. Many do flit in and out of the little airport in their own small jets, whenever they please.

Well-to-do retirees here don’t even seem to have much of a society, as they are engrossed in their own narcissistic pleasures. They are “the people who don’t need people”. Now, certainly all wealthy retirees haven’t transcended the desire for community and social living, but in less than a year, their mansions are back on the market, because there is so little “there left in Sedona as far as community goes.” Certainly realtors find this endlessly amusing and delightful.

I still contend that the concentration of wealth in the hands of the advantaged class has been happening for about ¼ century now, and at this point even the town administrators, teachers, the fire chief, or other essential personnel can afford to live in Sedona any longer, while most of the McMansions remain empty most of the year (trophy homes I guess).

Fortunately, real estate sales are really slumping at long last, but most of it is owned free and clear, owners really don’t have to sell anyway. There are actually some foreclosures cropping up, though, in case you want to come on down and bid! Some banks are still holding out for the amount owed, however, which is still in the mid six figures up.

As for me, I been living the champaign on a beer budget for years. I love to networking, and keep a focus on being a “what you see is what you get” type guy. There are always some like us lurking in the woodwork regardless of social or income trends. I find the narcissistic, triviality of the moneyed set pathetic, and I wouldn’t want to be like them for any price! Add in an energy crisis, and who knows, the current crop helpless and narcissistic rich might damn well be glad to learn a trick or two from an experienced survivor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Opportunity knocks Posted by: eddie torres
Land developers and other unsavory characters
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jun 30, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's so much more than the rich at fault here.. land developers are the scum of the earth..truly a group that doesn't care how they ruin a neighborhood.. pack as many houses on a lot as they can..tear as many trees down so they can to make room for more house..

where does nature go that we've displaced??.. when a bear or mountian lion roams into our neighborhood, we say what is THAT doing here..can't be..they're saying DINNER!!!! and we are outraged..!!!!

Towns do not have enough funds available to buy land out from under developers..the Fed's have to make more of an effort to aid in this aspect.. I've seen beautiful little towns ruined by developers for$$$$.. and town planing boards paid off big time to let it happen!!

want to halt global warming.. halt land developers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Crappy houses on crappy land Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Appalachia prices going sky-high
Posted by: harpy on Jun 30, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because developers are buying up the family lands, cutting down the trees, building big cabins and charging huge prices for them. The local people can't afford the hyper-inflated rates, they cause property tax rates to rise, and then the "vacationers" look down their noses at the people that have lived here for generations. They don't even know how to say the word Appalachia (it's apple-latch-uh, not apple-lay-chu, it's a Cherokee word, no long a sound). The noise and traffic is terrible, and water runoff from hills that have been denuded of natural trees and vegetation is causing problems. The Smokey Mountains have become one of the most polluted areas in the country due to car exhaust, and the outlets have pushed out the original crafts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Land Trusts
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jun 30, 2007 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out if there are any Land Trusts in your town/county and if so, get involved. In this dog-eat-dog world where everything is fair game for development, land trusts buy up land to keep it pristine in perpetuity.

Yes, sadly, rich developers are buying land and building country clubs. But land trusts are buying land and keeping it wild.

Here's an example of a Bay Area land trust that is buying up coastal space.

http://www.openspacetrust.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Depends on the socio-eco-ethics of the rich
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jun 30, 2007 1:44 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Depends on the eco-ethics of the rich.

Beatrix Potter (who wrote Peter Rabbit) bought 4000 acres of farmland in England in the early 1900s and donated to a land trust to keep it open space (Lake District) forever.

Didn't Rockefeller buy and donate Mt. Desert Island (Bar Harbor, Maine) which is now a National Park?

Don't a few rich folks like Oprah and Bill Gates do amazing things for community and build schools and hospitals?

Let's not slam all rich folks. SOME rich folks are generous and do great things for the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Thanks! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» pissing in the wind. Posted by: veggiegrrrl
you MUST pay for nature, they insist
Posted by: DaBear on Jun 30, 2007 3:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What they can't build mansion upon the uber elites now charge fees for working stiffs to access. The "Adventure Pass" is another despicable double tax that the rich impose on everyone so nature can become Disnified. Just so that the ladder behind them is tucked up to keep the riff raff out. None of the funds actually go to the purposes and upkeep the proponents promised (per the GAO).

I just bought the damned "pass" recently because after spending 90 days in jail for "tresspassing" on lands my taxes pay for, I couldn't afford to resist as openly as in the past. Nature, it seems, requires payment. If you don't have money, sit in the urban cesspool and choke, or so the uberclass says.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» DaBear Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Ninety days for trespassing!! Posted by: plantland
Typical...
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Jun 30, 2007 3:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...babbs, poor little girl stuck in the 60s and not able to cope with competition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sorry, typo...i mean who HERE? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Revolution! Posted by: zooeyhall
» Revolution! Law of the jungle? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Human nature
Posted by: willymack on Jun 30, 2007 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's our nature to soil, pollute, and defile every enviornment we inhabit. It's our nature to covet what others have, even when we don't really need it. It's our nature to overpopulate our world and overuse its bounty, heedless of the consequences. It's been said that humanity is the only species on Earth capable of changing its very nature. Will we do this in time or watch our "civilization" fall off the cliff of history as so many others in the past have done? We'll find out all too soon, I fear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Human nature Posted by: scryberwitch
Similar picture in Briain but with some hope for the future.
Posted by: moflard on Jul 1, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live near the Yorkshire Dales National Park in Britain, a truly beautiful area of limestone pavements, gentle hills and verdant valleys. And they locals have been having exactly the same problem - the rich townies moving in, buying weekend homes pushing up prices and refusing to help the local economy. In at least one case, a townie tried to sue the local farmer for making too much (agricultural) noise in the morning - can you imagine? In Cornwall it's even worse - entire villages are now deserted during the week and at off-season simply because the yuppies have priced all the local people out of the area.

However there is some hope here in Britain. Recently the Yorkshire Dales authority has passed a resolution that states new build houses can only be bought by people who already live and work in the Park area. Other National Parks are looking at this development with great interest and it may well spread. It will also slow down the rate of build in the Park, as developers hate building affordable homes, when they can rake in the profits building only "executive" properties.

And as for those who say "the rich keep the landscape pretty" I'm afraid that in Britain this doesn't apply as it isn't a wild landscape but a man-made one. One made by the workers (does that sound a bit too Marxist, maybe I should have said proletariat).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's right Posted by: moflard
» RE: That's right Posted by: albrechtkrausse
same thing in Nebraska
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 1, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You would think that Nebraska is far enough out of the way for this not to happen, but the same thing is going on here.

FatCat execs and stock brokers from Omaha are coming out and buying up scenic property along the Niobrara River in northern Nebraska. Twenty years ago this was mainly grazing land belonging to local ranch families. Maybe at the most worth about $100 /acre. Now you got McMansions (occupied at most on the occasional weekend) along the bluffs overlooking the Niobrara. Prices have gone to $10,000/acre and higher. Natrually the local ranchers decide to sell, and how the hell can the guy working at the local feed store earning seven bucks/hr even attempt to buy any of this?

And what I really place the blame on is the worsening income disparity in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not sure this is the best angle on income disparity
Posted by: smchris on Jul 1, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmm. How to start.

I think this is a lot of pissing over the property value of vistas. Yes, income disparity is a foundational problem of the "postmodern" world -- but is the outdoors one of the best handles upon which to grasp it? Personally, this week in particular, I would concentrate on something like access to health care and "Sicko".

How many people actually care about the _outdoors_ anymore? I live well inside a metro beltway in a large apartment complex but I have discovered that if I duck behind a block of garages there is an urban wilderness no one else ever visits. Acres of swamp fed by a brook that comes in from the country, trees, shrubbery and a hidden glen the size of a football field where I can sit on a log and read. Over the years I've counted: turtles, carp, frogs and toads, garter snakes, white and gray cranes, ducks, Canadian geese, a wild turkey, three fox sightings, squirrels and chipmunks, muskrats, more deer than I can count (some of which came within feet of me) and a memorably close and aggressive encounter with a large fisher. I'm not too big on birds but the woodpeckers, cardinals and red-tailed hawk stand out.

All there just for me because nobody else among the hundreds a block away care to look behind the garages. I've been thinking about writing a "Walden" sort of thing actually. From my angle people don't particularly go out of their way to look for the outdoors that is under their own noses. So I'd rather we concentrated on other areas of economic disparity -- like whether our HMOs would approve a lifesaving therapy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can one person suggest how to realistically protect land from the McMansion folks?
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jul 1, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet