This is becoming a more urban country and this trend has been going on for decades. The topic of the loss of population in rural areas has been a subject of concern for many wildlife and conservation groups for years. It seems somewhat counter intuitive because you might think that getting people out of the rural areas would mean they were better protected and that the wildlife folk/conservation groups would applaud. It is a mixed bag, however. Farmers, fishermen and hunters have fewer children interested in those areas to replace them when they are gone. For people who don't like hunters, that might sound like a good idea but only if they realize that things must be kept in balance and many creatures that have no natural predators but man can throw things out of balance and create problems that ripple through large areas.

Some of the saddest issues these groups have been struggling with include a lack of connection to the land by the past couple of generations who are no longer raised on the farm, have families on the farm, spend time as children being allowed to explore, etc. Groups in S. Chicago and many other urban areas have extensive programs that attempt to fill the gap left by the urbanization of our children. There are tons of workshops aimed at volunteers and teachers to assist them in teaching urbanized children about nature. Sadly, many children have to learn what they DO learn in a classroom setting and lack the experiences their parents and grandparents have. And like all classrooms, they can only hit the high points so a true understanding of what nature is, and how man fits into it, is hard to "teach." Most of the volunteers for wildlife programs, when surveyed, list their childhood experiences in rural areas as why they want to reconnect with the land. The kids coming up now, sadly, often don't have that experience and aren't likely to ever have that experience. I am not writing this to be argumentative. It is just an observation of a trend that has been going on for a long time and likely will not reverse itself. For the people who see this as a wonderful thing the news is met with delight. For those of us who feel a strong connection to the land and wild things, there is a certain amount of grief involved. But either way, it isn't going to change the trend.

I have strong doubts about the political will to do anything about this in the near future.

For example, check out 62 O.S. 895 on OSCN (I'd post the link, but it's down now, for now it can be found here: http://www.okplanning.org/images/APA%20OK%20legislative%20issues/SB708%20ENR%20_2_.pdf), which was passed last May. The legislature will continue to throw up roadblocks like this, even if the cities want to reverse course.

For what its worth, I wrote my comment for the law review on the statute, but it was more about the legal standards in the statute and it won't be published for some time.

This is becoming a more urban country and this trend has been going on for decades. The topic of the loss of population in rural areas has been a subject of concern for many wildlife and conservation groups for years. It seems somewhat counter intuitive because you might think that getting people out of the rural areas would mean they were better protected and that the wildlife folk/conservation groups would applaud. It is a mixed bag, however. Farmers, fishermen and hunters have fewer children interested in those areas to replace them when they are gone. For people who don't like hunters, that might sound like a good idea but only if they realize that things must be kept in balance and many creatures that have no natural predators but man can throw things out of balance and create problems that ripple through large areas.

Some of the saddest issues these groups have been struggling with include a lack of connection to the land by the past couple of generations who are no longer raised on the farm, have families on the farm, spend time as children being allowed to explore, etc. Groups in S. Chicago and many other urban areas have extensive programs that attempt to fill the gap left by the urbanization of our children. There are tons of workshops aimed at volunteers and teachers to assist them in teaching urbanized children about nature. Sadly, many children have to learn what they DO learn in a classroom setting and lack the experiences their parents and grandparents have. And like all classrooms, they can only hit the high points so a true understanding of what nature is, and how man fits into it, is hard to "teach." Most of the volunteers for wildlife programs, when surveyed, list their childhood experiences in rural areas as why they want to reconnect with the land. The kids coming up now, sadly, often don't have that experience and aren't likely to ever have that experience. I am not writing this to be argumentative. It is just an observation of a trend that has been going on for a long time and likely will not reverse itself. For the people who see this as a wonderful thing the news is met with delight. For those of us who feel a strong connection to the land and wild things, there is a certain amount of grief involved. But either way, it isn't going to change the trend.

Excellent post. You covered so much it's hard to discuss all of your points, but in my own situation, we have spent a lot of quality family time in our outdoors, visiting state parks, wildlife refuges, and national forests. I can only speak for my own family, but despite the fact that we're urbanites, we greatly value our state parks, national parks, wildlife refuges, and national forestland. Many of our most meaningful family vacations have been spent in these areas.

Similarly, our daughter enjoys horse riding, and we have visited organic farms operated by friends, and have emphasized the importance of our rural treasures with our daughter. We're as likely to take a vacation to the Ouachitas in southeastern Oklahoma as we are to fly to NYC.

Though we're not hunters, per se, we appreciate and value our state's -- and nation's -- natural wonders.

Though we're not hunters, per se, we appreciate and value our state's -- and nation's -- natural wonders.

You certainly don't have to be hunters for that. In fact, I would say it's just the opposite.

You certainly don't have to be hunters for that. In fact, I would say it's just the opposite.

I think you're very wrong there. I don't hunt, though I do make a point to befriend people that do. It gets me some deer in the freezer come fall, after all. The people I know that hunt don't have the typical liberal environmental ethos that I do, but they do have a respect and appreciation for nature. They have different viewpoints about how and what should be done with it, but a respect and appreciation all the same.

I don't know really what this has to do with the topic.

But I will say that in my experience there are a relatively few nice hunters that are respectful to property owners and ask permission to enter land that isn't theirs and even abide by the owners' decisions.

On the other hand there are a good many people who disrespect the land owner, the wildlife, and the environment.

I have strong doubts about the political will to do anything about this in the near future.

For example, check out 62 O.S. 895 on OSCN (I'd post the link, but it's down now, for now it can be found here: http://www.okplanning.org/images/APA%20OK%20legislative%20issues/SB708%20ENR%20_2_.pdf), which was passed last May. The legislature will continue to throw up roadblocks like this, even if the cities want to reverse course.

For what its worth, I wrote my comment for the law review on the statute, but it was more about the legal standards in the statute and it won't be published for some time.

Here's the OSCN link. It was too late to edit the original post.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=463751

Very interesting article today:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-24/news/sns-rt-us-usa-housing-reboundbre83n0sk-20120424_1_housing-rebound-high-gas-prices-robert-shiller


Maybe no housing rebound for a generation: Shiller

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Housing market is likely to remain weak and may take a generation or more to rebound, Yale economics professor Robert Shiller told Reuters Insider on Tuesday.

Shiller, the co-creator of the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index, said a weak labor market, high gas prices and a general sense of unease among consumers was outweighing low mortgage rates and would likely keep a lid on prices for the foreseeable future.

...

He said suburban areas in particular might endure further price declines as high gas prices increase demand for "walkable cities."

Archdaily.com has a great infographic on this subject here: http://www.archdaily.com/230276/infographic-burbs-going-bust/

(I would post the graphic here, but it apparently exceeds my "quota". If somebody else could post it, that would be great.)

Here you go:

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1335547997-suburbs2.jpg

To comment on that last section - suburbia can't be retrofitted because of the street layout. It is cost prohibitive to change a suburban road network into a usable grid.

Here is the article that formed the foundation for the graphic.

http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/commoncurrent/38937/census-and-experts-confirm-death-sprawl-us

My wife, who talks with her hordes of suburban friends, is actually getting very worried about this trend. Several of the people she socializes with live in exurbia and many are contemplating walking away from their homes, not because they CAN'T afford them but because they don't WANT to afford them; the exurban lifestyle isn't what they hoped it would be. They all want to move to traditional urban neighborhoods. From our stand point she is getting concerned that by the time we are ready to move these people will have left their homes (thus driving down suburban prices even more) and buying traditional neighborhood homes (where we want to move) thus driving up those prices. Last week she asked me the unthinkable, should we go ahead and buy our traditional urban house now?

Revisiting this thread, in today's news, from the Associated Press:

Cities Outpacing Suburbs for Growth

By HOPE YEN, KRISTEN WYATT

updated 2 hours 38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — For the first time in a century, most of America's largest cities are growing at a faster rate than their surrounding suburbs as young adults seeking a foothold in the weak job market shun home-buying and stay put in bustling urban centers.
New 2011 census estimates released Thursday highlight the dramatic switch.
Driving the resurgence are young adults, who are delaying careers, marriage and having children amid persistently high unemployment. Burdened with college debt or toiling in temporary, lower-wage positions, they are spurning homeownership in the suburbs for shorter-term, no-strings-attached apartment living, public transit and proximity to potential jobs in larger cities.

READ MORE

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47992439/ns/today-money/#.T-yIKRzIyjQ

Newcastle is still within 20 miles of several large employment bases (Dell, FAA, downtown OKC, OU) so its not an exurb in the truest sense. The commute there is comparable distance wise to the Northern half of Edmond.

The trends are happening here, maybe just not to the extent you see in much larger cities. You can drive around newer neighborhoods on the outskirts of town with a ton of still-empty lots.

When I think of exurbs in OKC, I'm usually thinking of areas north of Edmond, east of Choctaw, south of Norman, and west of Yukon. I can only speak from experience but I know of at least 3 people that have put off moves to areas near Wellston, McCloud, and Blanchard respectively due to gas prices/commuting issues. Logan county was ranked as I think the 73rd fastes growing county in the U.S.