In article <ero61m$9db$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
kludge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn <orfairbairn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >And -- just HOW does the air****t "lower values" so the "poor" can
reside
> >there?
>
> Who said it did?
>
> If you were going to build an air****t, would you build it in an area
> where land was _expensive_ or an area where land was _cheap_? Think
hard,
> and remember that air****ts take a lot of land.
Small air****ts don't take up a lot of land. Yes -- they were built where
land was cheap, until the other seekers of cheap land surrounded them.
The the greedy real estate developers get into the act and want that
nice, flat, easily-buildable piece of property and start agitating the
neighbors about noise, "safety," etc. It is only recently that they have
become more brazen in telling local governments that the land is
"valuable" as a housing or commercial development.
>
> >Studies on the matter have shown inconclusive results, at best. What's
> >your true agenda?
>
> Merely to point out the correlation. Not causation, just correlation.
> --scott
|
