10-26-2021, 06:50 PM
(10-26-2021, 05:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(10-26-2021, 04:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, this comes back to my original question, do they really not understand the implications of where they are locating? Sociologically, I'd really like an answer from them on this. They do seem in earnest...would they care to understand the implications of carbon free rural living?
So, let's agree that one would really need a car to live in this development -- or a car share on site. But if you are not driving more than once or twice a week (you are retired, for example, or working from home) the location is not unreasonable. If you are not looking for city life, you can enjoy the Grand (kayak, canoe), nearby trails (hike, cycle), community gardens and generally quiet life. And much of that activity is low impact on the environment.
Or what implications am I missing?
Canoeing the grand, cycling (unless you're willing to cycle on road), hiking, all require a car to do in that location. And driving not more than once or twice a week is a pretty limited number of errands to run. I don't know anyone who stays in their home 6 out of 7 days of the week.
And limiting a development to those who work exclusively from home or are retired does not seem to be something they expect.
I mean, I could be wrong, but I'd take out a pretty large bet that the vast majority of folks here will own a car and drive it nearly daily.