[Magdalen] immigration / migrant situation --->Re: Professionalpanhandlers; was Loaned out.

[Jim Guthrie]

Roger writes:

>I don't think you have the full answer there.  The population density of the
>USA is about 85 per square mile.  This compares with 56 in Sweden, 47 for
>Finland, 44 New Zealand, 9.4 Canada and about 8 in Australia.  I agree that the
>transport infrastructure needs attention and it was folly to ignore it for so
>long.

But nationwide population density is mostly irrelevant, I think -- it's the
density in existing concentrations that's important. After all, the nations you
cite (and others) have a fair amount of farmland.

New York City and its close-in suburbs, actually has a pretty good social safety
net, despite efforts to dismantle it. It's actually written into the state
constitution, which is unique in America. And, yes, you can find horror stories
on the streets, but the reality is they try harder there than many smaller
cities and towns.

You also have fast-growing places where wealth is accumulating very fast -- Salt
Lake City is a great example of a place that got its infrastructure ducks in a
row and is now the fourth-fastest growing Knowledge Economy city in the Country.
Here in Scranton-Wilkes Barre with the same population, the place has gone to
rack and ruin because the politicos have zero vision and the infrastructure has 
been crumbling since the 1920s.

>size of individual plots in the suburbs.  They tend to be larger than
>elsewhere, thus meaning more street distance between houses with the
>proportionate increase in servicing them.

Depends on the age of the suburbs. Large plots (with attendant high property
taxes for all in the taxing area - a feature few here understand) have become
more and more common, but really don’t count when it comes to density either.

Cheers,
Jim