metres from any residential property in the country....or would you rather set a limit on the [population/] size that any city can grow to.[and scale back those that have ballooned to an inhuman size and density]
or couldnt you care less if the whole planet is concreted over...as long as YOUR morally grubby little family can afford to live in a nice leafy haven?
2007-07-18 06:51:14 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
Like most people, I only care if my "grubby little family can afford to live in a nice leafy haven". I bet you do too, if you would admit it to yourself.
2007-07-18 06:57:04 · answer #1 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be great to get 500m around each property.... Unfortunately I live in the UK and we are never going to be allowed to have anything as grand as that... only if its where the mp's decide to live. They seem to have a rule of their own
I would say by reading your question that maybe you live in an perhaps over populated or busy city... I feel for you I really do. You have my sympathy. Im lucky enough to live in a town coastal but very busy and growing by the day unfortunately due to the demand for accommodation everywhere that is now happening in the UK; and its unfortunatley too, only going to get worse, as the planners allow for more building to go on... on flood plain areas as well.
The last part of your question made me feel your unhapiness. You should know there are many many bitter people out there who feel as you do, And I hope that some of the answers you get to your question will open your eyes to the fact that YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
I wish you well and you and your family happiness.... we are all in the same boat.... and theres only a chosen few with access to the life boats.....
2007-07-18 17:28:31 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd prefer to do neither. High-density population areas are better for the environment because they're a more efficient use of energy. If everything is grouped close together it requires less travel and less energy transporting people and materials around. Yes a city is mostly paved, but the area around the city can remain pristine.
2007-07-18 14:13:13 · answer #3 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the first suggestion is best. What a wonderful world it would be. Of course this is so, in many countries around the world. I was born in Australia, and at that time every house had one quarter of an acre around it anyway, apart from the parks. Unfortunately the UK is overpopulated, and there needs to be space to accomodate all the people.
2007-07-18 14:03:38 · answer #4 · answered by Frankie S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Passing laws is not the answer. Let the free market decide.
2007-07-18 22:36:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋