I would like to think that there are certain limits as to how far the city of Las Vegas is allowed to expand. In certain areas it wouldn't really be possible to extend Las Vegas any further with the mountains beginning to start, but in other areas the suburbs(if need be) could extend indefinitely. At the moment I like the way there is a definite boundary between city and desert with no ribbon development. Is this just a coincidence that at the moment the is no scattered ribbon development just outside the city, or are there certain authorities in place to make sure that this divide is kept? I've noticed that in Bolder Colorado, that the city purchased the land around surrounding itself, and dedicated it pretty much to be left as is. Quite frankly, I wouldn't like to see Las Vegas expand any more.
I guess most of the people on this site just think about sex! You must have meant to say 'where would it expand to'? Well, you probably would have said the same 50 years ago!!
well no.. 'what' is kind of my point even if the technical term would be where. what im saying is what is the limit you think is right? is 40 casinos ok but 41 is not ok?
just did a real quick glance at the threads on the site. there are about 90 and only 2 are specifically for sex. my last post was about a brittish law about free speech and free thought. maybe your just looking at the sex posts. but thats ok whatever floats your boat.
It must be all the sex adverts I see on this site. The point is, is that there is no such thing as overthinking! gererally speaking
You know what its like to deliver water and energy to people in the desert?.. Did you know that Lake Mead is running low/ shrinking?..
i cant see a town supporting the housing estates without more casinos. where are the jobs coming from? there are already enough fast food restaurants there.
