• Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Defense is a surprisingly large use of land. How is that? Can anyone explain the most land intensive uses of the Armed Forces? Like tank training areas maybe?

    • kalpol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Mikitary bases are pretty big. Air force, army, national guard, naval air stations, naval bases, there is a lot going on there.

      • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Can’t forget that military bases are communities where people live, too. Not just barracks and mess halls for individuals, but there are full neighborhoods and shopping centers for families.*

        *My knowledge on this is limited, I just remember visiting a family member on base when I was younger.

  • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Can we put the 100 largest landowning families in Florida, then saw it off from the rest of the country?

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      no need to saw, when invasive species and the ocean is taking over. because florida loves to import all the illegal exotic animals, they got plenty reptiles, giant snails, giant rats. the latter 2 both carry nasty parasites.

  • aphonefriend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    So nice of the 100 largest land owning families to have the same amount of land as the entire urban or rural housing population of the rest of the country. I assume it’s to fatten themselves up for the rest of us just like the cows.

    When do we get to eat them again?

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    How nice for the Reed family/Green Diamond to be split into ‘private family owned timberland’ and ‘corporate timberland’.

    • folaht@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Probably ignored as that would skew the data making think that the US is still one big wilderness.

  • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    It’s quite interesting that “rural highways” is one of the categories identified, but not any other sort of improved road. The data source has a base granularity where one square is 250,000 acres (~100,000 hectares), and then additional state data is factored in for increased precision. It supposingly being USDA data, they might primarily care only about those highways used to connect farms to the national markets.

    That said, I would be keenly interested in the land used for low-volume, residential streets that support suburban and rural sprawl, in comparison to streets in urban areas. Unlike highways which provides fast connectivity, and unlike dense urban-core streets that produce value by hosting local businesses and serving local residents, suburban streets take up space, intentional break connectivity (ie cul de sacs), return very little in value to anyone except to the adjacent homeowners, essentially as extensions of their privately-owned driveways.

    It may very well be in USDA’s interest to collect data on suburban sprawl, as much of the land taken for such developments was perfectly good, arable land.