There are those who would say that we need to reduce the density of cities and spread people out more. City folks have the infrastructure of electricity, water, sewer, cable, paved streets, and services. (They also contribute mightily to foul air--here in Fort Worth we've had Ozone days for the pastweek.)

People who live out in the county in many areas want the infrastructure without the crowding. That demand causes more impact on the place they choose to move to as water lines are dug, phone lines run, etc.--but I find it troubling that we would state that people shouldn't be permitted to build in these places. If it is "private property," are you wanting to require that landowners keep it wild so you can look at it? It doesn't work that way. People who own wild land and who decide to sub-divide are trying to profit from their foresight--and I'm not defending or objecting to that here, just acknowledging it. What sellers and buyers of this land should be required to do is to meet rigorous standards so that living out there is more self-sustained than those in urban areas. The biggest strain on county budgets is to come in along after these folks build their houses and put them onto a grid. And the biggest problem with counties having these in place ahead of time is that people don't need to think about their impact on the special place they've chosen to live.

A friend of mine lives in the Sonoran Desert, about 15 miles west of Tucson. She is a former park naturalist, and is involved with the AZ-Sonoran Desert Museum. When she designed her straw bale house she built in a water collection system from the roof that stores water in a cistern under the back patio. Her yard is composed of adobe structures, native plants, native gravel, and a small 5' by 10' patch of bermuda for her little dog that is now blind and deaf. When the dog dies the grass will probably go away. The grass and the rest of the garden are watered from the cistern. Because the straw bales insulate so well, she has very low heating and cooling bills. The toilets and shower are set to use very little water, and what she wishes is that before allowing anyone to build anywhere in the county (not just in the countryside) is that they be required to show an attempt to conserve water and power.

If one is building in a forest and wants the forest nearby the dwelling, then the dwelling should be one that won't burn. Make it an earthen house of some sort, or adobe over a tire and dirt, etc. Concrete, strawbales and adobe, lots of non-traditional materials are available. Put it partly underground. There are lots of inovative solutions.

Meanwhile, as an urban dweller, I've just done a major retrofit of a house built about 25 years ago. The long-term tenants (this was rented for the last 15 years before I bought it) paid astronomical electric bills because they had an outdated heat and AC system and little insulation. Add to that lots of incandescent lights and your bill goes high. I put in an efficient heat pump, put in insulation, and converted most of the fixtures to flourescent. If TXU ever gets around to sending out a power bill (they've not sent on in months, due to deregulation, they say) I'll get an idea if there is any savings involved. I think I will be paying less than half of what the former residents paid. This doesn't benefit just me, it means generators aren't cranking so hard somewhere else, polluting so I can burn a bunch of lightbulbs.

How can we dictate to others how they should live in places we consider sacred because they are more "natural" than where we live in the cities? Why don't we treat our cities as sacred places also, and live in a way that impacts others less and makes our cities more beautiful? Surely these measures will be felt more in the city.

Okay, I'll get off of my soap box.

SRS