"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1067196014-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> >
> > Ah but we are talking about a growing population and
> > what effect that would have. If you build high rises
> > to house these people, wouldn't that translate to the
> > need for more police? As a matter of fact, a high
> > rise apartment can house an awful lot of people in a
> > very small area. Wouldn't that translate to more
> > policemen, which then translates to finding a place
> > for these policement to operate from. And the more
>
> Hardly expect that to be the case. A big building has
> it's own security. And for just a small number of
> additional police staff, it's not worthwhile to have a
> new station.
Are you just guessing, or do you know that for a fact? It would seem to me,
that we are not only talking about security, but also about the number of
crimes committed. Now, unless you are saying that for some unkown reason,
people in high rises do not commit as many crimes per capita, then anyone
else, then I would agree with you. But I doubt that to be the case. I
suspect that the per capita crime rate of people living in high rises are no
different that people living in low rises. And since a high rise has more
people living in it, I would suspect that if you have a lot of high rises,
the crime rate for that small area would be much higher by square miles,
then say a neighborhood of single family homes. Which requires, or should
require more police.
>
> > > In high rises? Where does this come from??? Now we
> > > just don't have to close these schools.
> >
> > A growing population, which is how this thread got
> > started, requires more schools, unless that growing
> > population is accomplised without a growing student
> > population.
>
> But in older neighborhoods downtown, there are too many
> schools. Increasing the poopulation density there will
> just keep the schools going. I doubt if there will be a
> need for more construction.
Are you saying that the population increase will occur only in the downtown,
because I find that diffiult to believe. It would seem to me, that the
population increase would result in more people living away from the center
city. That being the case, since your solution is to build high rises to
house these people, there would be more high rises away from the city core.
Besides, it would seem to me that there is not a whole lot of land to
accommodate much more people in the city core, unless you build higher high
rises. So, while the city core may not require additinal schools, the areas
with the population growth would certainly need more schools, alsong with
more policie, more fire stations, and a whole host of other facilites,
including more retail centers, all of which requires some permanent
structure.
>
> > > Let's see just what is our disagreement. I claim
> > > that building to higher densities does not require
> > > as much funding for more infrastructure as building
> > > on prime ag land. You disagree. Just what is you
> > > opinion here?? Nitpicking on my statements does not
> > > clarify your ideas.
> >
> > Let me suggest that when anyone of us responds to a
> > posting we are responding to what the writer has
> > said, or at least what we think they are saying. As
> > to your current question (above) I am not sure what
> > you are trying to say. Are you saying that the cost
> > per square foot (other than land cost) for
> > constructing a high rise is less than it cost per
> > square foot to build a single story house. I also
> > don't understand your statement "building to higher
> > densities does not require as much funding for more
> > infrastrucure, as building on prime ag land" means.
> > Can you be a little more specific.
>
> Briefly your comments while enthusiastic quite often
> don't seem germane at all. The main problem with
> building on prime ag land is that you can't reuse the
> land for agriculture. And the advantage of having an
> increase of people in Honolulu is that the demand for
> new infrastructure is less..
How do you arrive at that conclusion? The more people you have, even if it
is all crammed into the city center, still requires more infrastructure.
>
> > > Please Jerry, when you live close to work and there
> > > is no good parking in high density areas, then you
> > > take the bus. So buses might come more often to
> > > service high rise areas. In contrast, you don't
> > > have to spend the money for more roads in ag areas.
> > > Even electrical and water systems are planned for
> > > very long range and are overbuilt for future
> > > capacity. So adding a high rise does not over tax
> > > the system. On the other hand putting 10,000 people
> > > in a area zoned ag does tax the system and creates
> > > costly changes in infrastructure for the area.
> > >
> > Ah, I see, you are assuming that the high rises are
> > close to where you work. So, you are going to force
> > builders to only build high rises close to where
> > people work.
>
> Is your statement really germane at all? It's relative.
> Anywhere in Honolulu is closer than having new homes in
> the middle of a cane field in leeward Oahu.
Who said anything about leeward Oahu. Where are the people on Oahu building
their homes. Are they building them on windward side of Oahu, or just
spreading out on the leewqrd side of the island. I would suspect that the
big growth is occuring on the leeward side of the island. Am I wrong?
>
> > live. That does happen you know. As for the
> > capacity of the electrical and water system, what you
> > say may be true, but the question should be, how big
> > a population can they support. And didn't I just
> > read that you folks on Oahu are under some sort of
> > water restrictions? Now, that to me means you don't
> > have enough water to support the current population
> > on the island.
>
> Yes. New residential developments on prime ag land in
> the leeward area do not have a sufficient connection to
> the water from the Koolaus because they have been zoned
> as ag. The current supply of water would have been
> sufficient except that homes and golf courses have been
> built. For new developments in the Leeward area, we
> have started desalinization projects, since it is also
> true that the projected long term population growth is
> reported to be so large that the Koolaus will not
> provide for much more needs even if they are fully
> exploited.
>
So, the water restrictions are only for homes on the windward side of the
island?
Now Oi and ag lands 
