Tucson or Albuquerque ?
dcor...@javanet.com
Hi,
We have been offered the chance to spend a year at either the UNM in
Albuquerque or the UofA in Tucson and are looking for opinions as to which city
would be the best to live in for 10 months or so. We are leaning towards
Albuquerque because there seems to be more of interest in the general area but
the warmer weather seems like a more welcome change to the New England
winters we've been experiencing. Thanks.
Dave
Jeb Bolding
Funny,
I moved from New England (Northern Vt.) to Abq. I also looked at Tucson.
From personal experience I'd say there is more to offer in Abq. Not that it
is a great town, it's not. But if you like to hike, see mountains, ski, ride
motorcycles, I think there is more variety in northern New Mexico than in
Tucson.
Brenda Nelson
Good grief, are y'all talking about the same "Tucson" that I'm sitting in
right now - "Tucson" as in "Arizona"?
On Thu, 23 May 1996, Jeb Bolding wrote:
> >> We have been offered the chance to spend a year at either the UNM in
> Albuquerque or the UofA in Tucson and are looking for opinions as to which
> city
> would be the best to live in for 10 months or so. We are leaning towards
> Albuquerque because there seems to be more of interest in the general area
> but
> the warmer weather seems like a more welcome change to the New England
> winters we've been experiencing. Thanks.
> Dave<<
>
Listen, kids, my Fella lives in Alb., I live in Tucson. I love Alb., but
as for there being "more" of interest there? Apart from a year-round river?
> Funny,
>
> I moved from New England (Northern Vt.) to Abq. I also looked at Tucson.
> From personal experience I'd say there is more to offer in Abq. Not that it
> is a great town, it's not.
Albuquerque, not a great town? It sure is! But then, so is Tucson!
> But if you like to hike,
Say, what? No hiking around Tucson? He must not have tried very hard.
I've never run out of places to hike.
>see mountains,
??? Albuquerque has one mountain range, the Sandias. Tucson is
SURROUNDED by mountain ranges. The Catalinas. The Rincons. The Tucson
Mountains. That range I can never spell, the Tortallitas. The
Santa Ritas. Slightly further afield, there's the Chiricahuas. The
Boboquiviris (can't spell that one, either). I could go on and on...
> ski,
Huh??? We have skiing in the Catalinas. "SKI THE LEMMON!!!" If you want
more'n a day trip, there's a whole raft of ski areas just north.
> ride motorcycles,
I see plenty of people on 'em around here. If it's riding on the desert
that you're talking about, tho, personally, I'd as soon you stayed back
east to do it. Motorcycles tear up the ecosystem something fierce out here.
> I think there is more variety in northern New Mexico than in Tucson.
Jeb, dear, there isn't a single eco-zone they have in the environs of
Alb. that doesn't occur around Tucson. <Sigh> Except for the Rio. (We
used to have a year-round river in Tucson, too; until the late '30's,
when the population level rose enough that the water table fell, and the
Santa Cruz dried up.)
> jeb
> jbo...@basis.com
Well, I don't know what ol' Jeb is judging by. Probably took one look at
the Sonora and tucked tail. He's from Vermont, you know. <Nudge, wink,
grin> However, I'd like to point out that Tucson was the first city of its size
in the nation to have its own symphony, ballet, opera, and civic
theater. Tucson's cultural spectrum runs from the cowboy to the grunge,
from the Native American to the best imports from Europe, Africa, and Asia.
Albuquerque began as a Native American settlement. So did Tucson. They
have old Spanish missions. So do we. They have Mexican food. So do
we. They have lots of streets and buildings with Spanish and Indian
names. So do we.
I will not stoop so low as to compare the quality of the U of A to UNM - I
am, like I said, dating an Albuquerque man <G> - but the U of A *is*
larger and more diversified than UNM.
Truthfully, Albuquerque and Tucson are more alike than they are
different. The general ambiance is the same. Albuquerque is the only
place outside of Arizona that, when I go there, I don't get homesick for
Tucson.
There are notable differences. Albuquerque has real winters. It snows
there. Not like it does in, say, New England, but still, cold white
stuff falls from the sky and makes driving hazardous. In addition,
Albuquerque (indeed, all of New Mexico) is a quite different type of
desert than our Sonora. For one thing, they are sadly lacking in
cactus. Oh, they have it, but in no great amount or variety, and what
they do have is kinda pathetic-lookin', by Sonoran standards. Down here,
the desert is lush. The Sonora has been called the "Breadbasket" desert,
because of the profusion of edibles that grow in it.
There. I feel a lot better now. <G>
Brenda
*************************************************************************
I only *work* at the University of Arizona. My opinions are my own.
*************************************************************************
Bretherton
"We have been offered the chance to spend a year at either the UNM in
Well, obviously it depends somewhat on what you are doing (the two
Universities have different strengths) and what you enjoy (Albuquerque is
in the Chihuahuan desert, Tucson in the Sonoran), etc. But none of that
matters. There is only one thing that matters and that is this:
No person currently living in America can spell Albuquerque.
Some people _can_ spell Tucson.
So, if it were me, I'd go with Tucson. You'll find your correspondence
and phone calls much less frustrating...
"And could you spell that for me, sir?"
"Yes, it's A-L-B-U-Q-"
"Did you say, 'Q'?"
"Yes"
"Like that guy in Star Trek?"
"Yes."
"Yes."
"Wow. Cool. So it's A-L-B-Q-"
"No, A-L-B-U-Q-"
"Oh, right. After the 'U'."
"Yes. A-L-B-U-Q-U-"
"Another 'U'?"
"Yes. Q-U-E"
"What happened to the A-L part?"
"Look, just forget it. Send it to my brother."
"Where is that?"
"Tucson."
"Okay, that would be T-O-O..."
Bruce
Bruce A. Mann
Albu..er..uh...whatever, New Mexico
Tere
On Thu, 23 May 1996, Jeb Bolding wrote:
>
> Funny,
>
> I moved from New England (Northern Vt.) to Abq. I also looked at Tucson.
> From personal experience I'd say there is more to offer in Abq. Not that it
> Tucson.
>
> jeb
> jbo...@basis.com
>
>
Hmmm. Well, I don't know Jeb. I'm sure you have all those things in Abq.
Of course, we have them in and around Tucson, too. Although we are not in
N AZ, that is splendid also (Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Chaco Canyon,
Canyon de Chelly, Lake Powell, etc.). The U of A is a great institution.
It is
centrally located. There are daily events ranging from poetry readings to
lectures to mime to sports. We also have Kitt Peak observatory nearby.
Artist and spiritualist communities of Bisbee and Tubac. Yearly Bisbee
poetry festival. Mt. Lemmon - right outside of town - has skiing. We have
loads of
cultural events representing our diversity of cultures. The Christmas
celebration by the Pascua Yaqui (SW side of town) is an unforgettable
spiritual experience. The O'odham (just down Ajo Way) fair is just great.
San Xavier del Bac Mission in SW Tucson is a working mission that
originated in the
1500s. Native artisans recently renovated the dome paintings, and it's
breathtaking. The fry bread sold outside the mission cannot be beat. And
hikes,
can't beat the beauty and number of trails around Tucson. In fact,
there's a whole book devoted to Tucson area trails (Tucson Hiking Guide
by Leavengood).
One of my favorite festivals is "Tucson Meet Yourself" held on
weekends downtown. Lost of music, all sorts of food from different ethnic
groups. Tucsonans come out in droves to meet each other and play.
We have true desert scenery here (saguaros and ocotillos). The
city is environmentally conscious and bicycle friendly. We have a large
community of artists, writers, and musicians. We're not far from the
beach across the border (Puerto Penasco/Rocky Point).
Oh, one thing we DON'T have is snow, sleet, etc. in winter, which
Abq does. I spent a weekend in Abq in January one year. It's a lovely
city but I couldn't abide the biting winds and snow. Here in Tucson if
you miss snow you can go up into the nearby mountains and visit it.
And of course we have the most beautiful sunsets in the world, and Tucson
IS a great town with cultural offerings and restaurants to match a city
much larger.
O.K., guess I've used enough bandwidth, but it couldn't be said in less.
And there's much more I haven't written about.
Tere
Cat Mountain
Tucson, AZ, USA
Desert Rat
Brenda Nelson <b...@gas.uug.arizona.edu> wrote:
. In addition,
***Albuquerque (indeed, all of New Mexico) is a quite different type of
***desert than our Sonora. For one thing, they are sadly lacking in
***cactus. Oh, they have it, but in no great amount or variety, and what
***they do have is kinda pathetic-lookin', by Sonoran standards. Down here,
***the desert is lush. The Sonora has been called the "Breadbasket" desert,
***because of the profusion of edibles that grow in it.
OK, You were doing fine and I was whole heartedly agreeing with you, I
love Tuscon and I love Alb. but I don't live in either so what the
hell... but I do live in that "kinda pathetic-lookin' by Sonoran
standards" desert and I take offense at that remark (not much offense
but some) our desert is gorgeous to but the Chihuahuan desert chooses
to make you search out the beauty rather than just handing it to you
:)
***There. I feel a lot better now. <G>
***Brenda
****************************************************************************
***I only *work* at the University of Arizona. My opinions are my own.
****************************************************************************
***
***
Later,
Desert Rat
Robert O. Dahl
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960524...@nevis.u.arizona.edu>,
Tere <t...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
She's lying, It's no good here and there's nothing to do.
Robert
--
Robert O. Dahl
http://www.indirect.com/user/ottar
Gad Zukes!
In <4o27dn$r...@kona.javanet.com> dcor...@javanet.com writes:
>
>Hi,
> We have been offered the chance to spend a year at either the UNM
in
which city
>would be the best to live in for 10 months or so. We are leaning
towards
>Albuquerque because there seems to be more of interest in the general
area but
>the warmer weather seems like a more welcome change to the New England
>winters we've been experiencing. Thanks.
> Dave
>
Hello - I have lived in Albuquerque and live near it now (sort of)-
spend a lot of time there, too. And, I have spent a lot of time in
Tucson. Both are great cities and similar in many ways. Both have
plenty of outdoor recreation opportunities. I think Tucson is
physically prettier than Albuquerque but it's a close call. Both have a
good cultural life, lots of interesting sights nearby, interesting
fauna and flora. It snows in Albuquerque only once in a while, and it
is true that when it falls, the traffic is a disaster. But this is rare
and you just stay home until it melts. There's skiing in the Sandias
and in points north and south, when there's snow. It wasn't a good ski
year this past winter. I am a UNM alumnus. I think it's a great school.
I have friends who attended U of A and they think it's a great school.
My advice - visit both cities and see for yourself. Be prepared though,
many people who come here from the Northeast don't like the desert at
all. - J.
Lou Kipnis
ot...@indirect.com (Robert O. Dahl) wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960524...@nevis.u.arizona.edu>,
>Tere <t...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 1996, Jeb Bolding wrote:
>> >
>> > I moved from New England (Northern Vt.) to Abq. I also looked at Tucson.
>> > From personal experience I'd say there is more to offer in Abq.
[snip]
>>
>> Hmmm. Well, I don't know Jeb. I'm sure you have all those things in Abq.
>> Of course, we have them in and around Tucson, too.
[snip]
>> The U of A is a great institution.
>> It is
>> centrally located. There are daily events ranging from poetry readings to
>> lectures to mime to sports. We also have Kitt Peak observatory nearby.
>> Artist and spiritualist communities of Bisbee and Tubac. Yearly Bisbee
>> poetry festival. Mt. Lemmon - right outside of town - has skiing. We have
>> loads of
>> cultural events representing our diversity of cultures.
[snip]
>
>She's lying, It's no good here and there's nothing to do.
Perfect! Me and all my neighbors are packin' up and movin' on down.
Uh, you got a golf course, a really BIG outlet mall? No? OK, we'll
build 'em. All those cacti are just a waste of space anyway. ;)
--
Lou
lki...@cybernex.net
Tere
On Sun, 26 May 1996, Robert O. Dahl wrote:
>
> She's lying, It's no good here and there's nothing to do. > > RobertRobert,
Are you one of those curmudgeons we value so highly? If so, did you know
that you, too, could become a tourist attraction :) ?
If you don't wish to hold that position, you might try getting out,
rubbing elbows with your fellow Tucsonans, and having some fun. I'm sure
that will help your disposition. You could start out with something
nonthreatening like a Tucson Toros game or a walk on one of the Saguaro
National Forest trails, and work your way up to the symphony, or
theatre, or Chicago or Club Congress. >
David Sewell
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960527...@nevis.u.arizona.edu>,
Tere <t...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 May 1996, Robert O. Dahl wrote:
>>
>> She's lying, It's no good here and there's nothing to do. > > Robert
>>
>
>Are you one of those curmudgeons we value so highly? If so, did you know
>that you, too, could become a tourist attraction :) ?
No, no, Tere. [Imagine here an inverse-smiley, signifying that
tongue is not in cheek.] Robert is just upholding an a.c.u.s.
tradition of long standing, of saying mean, nasty, horrible things
about one's favorite place in (usually futile) hopes of keeping
it from being overrun.
So, for example, when someone posts from someplace east of the
Mississippi saying, "I'm thinking about moving to southern Arizona
but I don't like creepy crawlers--are there really scorpions there?"
you're duty-bound to reply, "Yes, but they're not bad; this past
season we only found 6 or 7 in the house, and only one of those was
on the bed where it was hard to see, and luckily my wife managed
to swish it off the pillow before it could sting. Anyway, if you're
within 15 minutes of a hospital you don't have anything to worry
about even if they do get you."
Usually only a delaying tactic, though.
--
David Sewell * ds...@packrat.aml.arizona.edu | "Seekers for gold dig much
Dep't of Geosciences, University of Arizona | earth, and find little gold."
WWW: http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/~dsew/ | --Heraclitus
Doug Shakel
In article <4o27dn$r...@kona.javanet.com>,
dcor...@javanet.com wrote:
> We have been offered the chance to spend a year at
>either the UNM in Albuquerque or the UofA in Tucson and
>are looking for opinions as to which city would be the best
>to live in for 10 months or so.
I concur with most of the comparisons posted so far, and am
amused that most are coming from Tucson, with those
defending our region's honor, but NOT urging you come here.
(You'll be welcomed if you do, but PLEASE don't tell
everyone else to follow!)
Housing is probably cheaper in ABQ, especially since I
suspect your 10 mo. sojourn would be coincident with the
academic calendar, and that means that unless you snag a
place in Tucson during the next 10 WKS., you'll be in direct
competition with all those damn snow birds (whom we love for
their sales taxes and rental payments, but whose driving
would better be left back in (********) (your choice for
******)! Also, if yer gonna live in Albuquerque, you'd
better plan on living in a light brown house and your kids
will probably go to a light brown school, etc. (ABQ is VERY
big on "Santa Fe brown"!)
Both places have VERY nice neighbourhoods, and lots of tacky
ones, and by "back east" standards, much of the residential
portions of both cities largely look shabby and neglected.
What it has more to do with is "water ain't abundant", and
"Who needs all that grass anyway?". If those are issues,
try for Phoenix and ASU!
I've always thought ABQ & TUS were as close as one could get
to being twins in the mountainous regions of the US SW.
Even their mountains are relatively in the same place
relative to the town, which makes navigation in each easy
for folks from the other.
>We are leaning towards Albuquerque because there
>seems to be more of interest in the general area but
>the warmer weather seems like a more welcome change
>to the New England winters we've been experiencing.
The altitude & latitude DO make a difference; this means ABQ
gets much colder in winter than Tucson, but they miss our
DELIGHTFUL (AARRGH) 100's, 105, 107, etc. in summer (and
this May!) It snows about every third year in Tucson, but
I've seen as much as seven inches, IN TOWN. (Had a bit this
weekend up on the mountain top!)
Our mountains next to Tucson have a greater elevation change
between the summit and the valley floor and several of the
surrounding peaks are also higher in absolute terms than
anything in the Sandias (ABQ), which makes for greater
diversity in vegetation when you go up "the mountain", and a
greater cooling effect if you go up there to recreate.
Moreover, our Mt. Lemmon, in the Santa Catalinas, has an
adjacent Rincon Mts. "twin" that carries the same ecology
sans development.
Another factor: ABQ is the largest city in a smaller state,
so that makes for a different politial & economic dynamic,
especially when you're in a state with a REALLY small
capital. In Tucson it's real easy to get "second-fiddled"
to Phoenix in things like concert venues, national
newscasts, etc. But then, most Tucsonans probably prefer it
that way! (And it's just an hour and a half up the road to
PHX anyway, if ya just gotta!) Phoenix is both the capital,
the largest city, and the focal point for the largest metro
area in Az. (There are nearly twice as many people in metro
Phoenix than in ALL of New Mexico!)
I don't get Jeb's remarks that "if you like to hike, see
mountains, ski, ride motorcycles, I think there is more
variety in northern New Mexico than in Tucson." The Pusch
Ridge Wilderness of the Coronado National Forest and
designated wilderness in Saguaro National Park come right
down to the urbanized area (are (sometimes) great leverage
for maintaing lower densities of development along the
mountain/valley boundaries). And there's also plenty of
lower altitude trails in Catalina State Park and Tucson
Mountain Park.
I also think Tucson is probably the easier to get around
over long distances by bicycle, because we don't have that
grueling climb out of the flood plain up to the Univ. and e.
ABQ.
The other mts. Brenda was trying to spell are the Tortolitas
("little dove") and Baboquivari (a peak near/in the
Quinlans). Tucson is shorter to spell than Albuquerque, but
is probably mispelled just as often.
ABQ is closer to more better skiing, and it has a real
river, but TUS is closer to the sea (4hr to the beach at
either Kino Bay or Puerto Peñasco / "Rocky Point", Sonora,
Mexico). ABQ is closer to Colorado, TUS is closer to San
Diego. (New Mexico has to directly deal with Texas, Arizona
has to directly deal with California.) And in Tucson, it IS
possible to ski the Lemmon, then come back down and take a
dip in the pool (but it'd better be a HEATED pool!)
ABQ has more & better access to diverse intact SW native
american cultures & such, but Tucson has no shortage of same
(Tohono O'Odham, Yaqui). I don't think we have as many
really tacky "indian craft" knockoffs offered here, but
that's a "competition" I care not to get going.
With regard to the two Universities, as someone earlier
stated, both have their own distinctive strengths. (For
athletics, U.of A. HAS been on a roll for the last decade,
but don't count on ever being able to get tickets!) I
really think which city you come to would best be determined
by which U. is best when considered against the specifics of
your program/employment specialty.
--DWS
Brenda Nelson
On Mon, 27 May 1996, Doug Shakel wrote:
>(ABQ is VERY big on "Santa Fe brown"!)
>
> Both places have VERY nice neighbourhoods, and lots of tacky
> ones, and by "back east" standards, much of the residential
> portions of both cities largely look shabby and neglected.
> What it has more to do with is "water ain't abundant", and
> "Who needs all that grass anyway?". If those are issues,
> try for Phoenix and ASU!
One thing that I DO like better about Alb. - more of "Old
Albuquerque," the original town, has been preserved, than has "old"
Tucson. (Not to be confused with "Old Tucson," the movie set/amusement
park that had a big fire last year). Back in the 50's and 60's, the
Powers That Be in Tucson apparently decided that much of that historic
stuff was passe, and wouldn't it be great to make the city look like one
o'them nifty-neato California communities, oh, goodie! Much of the
oldest part of Tucson was torn down and replaced by some really, really
bad contemporary architecture. I love to go into the center of Alb.,
tacky tourist rip-off shops and all, because I'm nuts about the
buildings. Here in Tucson, there still are some of the old, old
buildings left standing, but in nowhere near the numbers there used to
be, and, by-and-large, the flavor of the old town has been lost.
> I've always thought ABQ & TUS were as close as one could get
> to being twins in the mountainous regions of the US SW.
I think that I'm never homesick for Tucson when I'm in Albuquerque
because the light has the same quality, and the air smells and tastes
more or less the same. Alb.'s air has a bit more of a sage scent,
Tucson's is heavier on the creosote; but they're close enough.
> Our mountains next to Tucson have a greater elevation change
> between the summit and the valley floor and several of the
> surrounding peaks are also higher in absolute terms than
> anything in the Sandias (ABQ),
Um, Kiddo, are you sure about that? I was told that Sandia Crest is
11,000+ in altitude - the Catalinas are only about 8,900 +/-, I think.
Somebody or sombuddies better look this stuff up - I could be wrong, it's
been known to happen. <Grin> But I do think that the Sandias are higher in
"absolute" terms. Enny of you instant eggsperts got hard data on this?
I'll see if I can find stats on the Catalinas today, in between doing
real work, if somebody else will pull the figures on the Sandias, okay?
> Moreover, our Mt. Lemmon, in the Santa Catalinas, has an
> adjacent Rincon Mts. "twin" that carries the same ecology
> sans development.
Yup. The Rincons are still wild, and kinda hard to get into.
> Tucson is shorter to spell than Albuquerque, but
But not, apparently, easier to pronounce. I started battling Easterners
who mispronounced Tucson as "Tuck-son" when I was around 8 years old.
<Sigh> They would condescendingly point out to me that the proper Spanish
pronounciation of T-U-C-S-O-N was "Tuck-son"; and I would point out to
them that "Tucson" is NOT a Spanish word, but an O'Odham one, meaning
(approximately) "Dark Water." Then I'd be made to go sit in the corner,
and contemplate my misdeed of daring to correct a grownup. <Wicked grin>
OLD JOKE:
A tourist, an Easterner, drives up to the pump at an all-night
gas station in Tucson, way late at night. As his gas is being
pumped, he begins to make small talk with the station attendant.
"So," sez the Easterner, "nice weather here in Tuckson!"
The gas station attendent is tired, and doesn't feel like
getting into it with this eastern dufus about how to pronounce
it correctly; so he just nods, and lets it slide.
A few minutes later, the Easterner continues, "Yup, nice place
you got here, I really like Tuckson!"
Again, the attendent figures that it's not worth the effort, and
simply nods agreement.
Finally, the Easterner says, "Er, I am pronouncing it right?
Tuckson?"
Figuring it's a lost cause anyway, the attendant says, "Yeah. Sure.
It's pronounced Tuckson."
"Hot DAMN!!!" Sez the Easterner, slapping his thigh in amazement,
"That's the first one I've gotten right since Albacoocoo!!!"
> ABQ has more & better access to diverse intact SW native
> american cultures & such, but Tucson has no shortage of same
> (Tohono O'Odham, Yaqui).
Er, you're dealing with vastly different cultures. Alb. is surrounded by
Pueblos, which are and always were fairly stationary in character.
Tucson's Tohono O'Odham, O'Odham, Yoeme [Yaqui] and various flavors of
Tinneh [Apache] moved around more. Their cultures are fairly intact,
they just never made big obvious pueblos. Native American culture is the
foundation of Tucson, and it's alive and well. You just hafta look a bit
harder for it.
I still say that the big differences between Alb. and Tucson are
(1) temperature
(2) the Rio Grande.
If 115 degrees in summer scares you, go to Alb. If you want 70-degree
winter days, come to Tucson. If the river's a big deal to you, choose
Alb. If not, come see Tucson.
>>>---> Brenda
Tere
Point taken, David. I guess I've certainly fallen down on the job. Let's
see.... Hmmm.... Did you hear that plague and rabies are way up in the SW
this year?>
Doug Shakel
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.96052...@argon.GAS.UUG.Arizo
na.EDU>,
Brenda Nelson <b...@GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 27 May 1996, Doug Shakel wrote:
>
>> Our mountains next to Tucson have a greater elevation
change
>> between the summit and the valley floor and several of
the
>> surrounding peaks are also higher in absolute terms than
>> anything in the Sandias (ABQ),
>
>Um, Kiddo, are you sure about that? I was told that Sandia
Crest is
>11,000+ in altitude - the Catalinas are only about 8,900
+/-, I think.
>Somebody or sombuddies better look this stuff up - I could
>be wrong, it's >been known to happen. <Grin> But I do
>think that the Sandias are higher in >"absolute" terms.
>Enny of you instant eggsperts got hard data on this?
>I'll see if I can find stats on the Catalinas today, in
>between doing real work, if somebody else will pull the
>figures on the Sandias, okay?
¡Mea Culpa! Mt. Lemmon, highest pt. in the Santa Catalinas
(NE of Tucson) is 9,157', while Sandia Crest (N of
Albuquerque) is 10,678'! Who'd of thunk it!
(But I think I'm still ok on my assertion re: total
elevation difference between town & pk.)
--DWS
Brenda Nelson
On Wed, 29 May 1996, Doug Shakel wrote:
=20
> =A1Mea Culpa! Mt. Lemmon, highest pt. in the Santa Catalinas=20
> (NE of Tucson) is 9,157', while Sandia Crest (N of=20
> Albuquerque) is 10,678'! Who'd of thunk it!
Oh, don't beat yourself up - everybody's allowed to be human. :^)
> (But I think I'm still ok on my assertion re: total=20
> elevation difference between town & pk.)
>=20
> --DWS
Okay, now that we know elevations, all we have to do is <GROAN!> a little=
=20
<UGH!> arithmetic...never my strong suite, however, so somebody check my=20
numbers, okay?
Okay, Tucson's elevation is anywhere from 2,500 ft. (+/-) to around 2,700=
=20
ft., depending on where you're standing in the valley...so let's split=20
the difference and call it 2,600 ft in elevation. Subtract that from=20
9,157 (Mt. Lemmon) and you get...<counting on fingers>...er...<taking off=
=20
shoes to use toes>...6,557 feet. 'Zat right?
Whereas Albuquerque's elevation is, lettsee...sign on I-25 says,=20
"Albuquerque, elevation 5,000 feet" as you enter the city from the=20
south...my Fella says that the elevation's around 5,300 where he is, which=
=20
is over on the northeast side of Alb., nestled up against the mountains. =
=20
Splitting the dif gives us 5,150 feet...anybody get heartburn from that=20
figure? Well, assuming the answer is "no," subtracting 5,150 from 10,678=
=20
equals...<counting on fingers and toes of my office-mates>...5,528 feet! =
=20
Which means that Doug's right, the total difference in elevation is=20
greater between Tucson and the summit of the Catalinas than between Alb.=20
and the summit of the Sandias.
I have to go take aspirin and lie down now - haven't done that much math=20
in one sitting since I don't know when. <Ooosh!> Somebody pass the=20
chocolate, please...
>>>---> Brenda =20
David Sewell
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960528...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>,
Tere <t...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>Point taken, David. I guess I've certainly fallen down on the job. Let's
>see.... Hmmm.... Did you hear that plague and rabies are way up in the SW
>this year?>
Yep. Plus the hantavirus has spread to French poodles, and a lot
of the resorts have had to close for disinfection.
--
David Sewell * ds...@packrat.aml.arizona.edu | "Where the earth is dry, the
Dep't of Geosciences, Univ. of Arizona | soul is wisest and best."
WWW: http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/~dsew/ | --Heraclitus
David Lion Salmanson
dcor...@javanet.com wrote: : Hi, : We have been offered the chance to
spend a year at either the UNM in : Albuquerque or the UofA in Tucson and
are looking for opinions as to which city : would be the best to live in
seems to be more of interest in the general area but : the warmer weather
seems like a more welcome change to the New England : winters we've been
One thing that hasn't come up in this discussion is that Intellectually
the U of A is a much better place to be than UNM. Now of course, it
depends on what you do and both towns were devestated by the closure of
their best bookstores (Books West/Southwest in Tuscon and Salt of the
Earth in Albuquerque) But, I still think Tuscon is more conducive to
doing more types of academic work in a friendly environment than Alb..
David Salmanson
Robert O. Dahl
In article <4oig4l$a...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, ds...@umich.edu
(David Lion Salmanson) wrote:
The U of Mich. is evidently the wrong place to go to learn to spell....
Neil
On 29 May 1996, David Lion Salmanson wrote:
> One thing that hasn't come up in this discussion is that Intellectually
> the U of A is a much better place to be than UNM. Now of course, it
> depends on what you do and both towns were devestated by the closure of
> their best bookstores (Books West/Southwest in Tuscon and Salt of the
> Earth in Albuquerque) But, I still think Tuscon is more conducive to
> doing more types of academic work in a friendly environment than Alb..
"S" before "C" except off of I-10. :)
Neil
bz...@musicb.McGill.CA
telnetting from McGill University
Montreal, Quebec
Neil
On Wed, 29 May 1996, Robert O. Dahl wrote:
[re: David Salmanson spelling Tucson incorrectly]
> The U of Mich. is evidently the wrong place to go to learn to spell....
Now, now, Robert. The New York Times does it on a regular basis. Putting
up with it is a part of what makes us Tucsonans. :)
David Laro
Neil (neil...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: On Wed, 29 May 1996, Robert O. Dahl wrote:
: [re: David Salmanson spelling Tucson incorrectly]
: > The U of Mich. is evidently the wrong place to go to learn to spell....
: Now, now, Robert. The New York Times does it on a regular basis. Putting
: up with it is a part of what makes us Tucsonans. :)
Neil, it took me five minutes to figure out your "s" before "c" except
off of I-10 quote, recently. finally got it. Ooookay!
David
Robert Lemm
Much more often than not, you will find that TRUE Albuquerqueans would prefer
that people go to Tuscon. Especially newbies that come from east of the
Mississippi River, and west of Kingman Arizona.
Go to Tuscon.
Bob
Neil
On 31 May 1996, David Laro wrote:
> Neil, it took me five minutes to figure out your "s" before "c" except
> off of I-10 quote, recently. finally got it. Ooookay!
Don't worry about it, David. It's a Tucsonan thing!
Neil
Umm, thanks for your "support", Robert, but I'll just have to counter it
by suggesting that people go to Albakurkee.
Go to Albakurkee.
Tere
On 31 May 1996, Robert Lemm wrote:
>
> Much more often than not, you will find that TRUE Albuquerqueans would prefer
> that people go to Tuscon. Especially newbies that come from east of the
> Mississippi River, and west of Kingman Arizona.
>
> Go to Tuscon.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
Maybe you are refering to Tuscany, Bob :)? No such thing as Tuscon W of old
Miss. here in the USA. Now Tucson, that's another story.
Tere
Yes, those reasons to avoid AZ just keep mounting! ;)>
Marty Halvorson
gal...@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Denis McKeon) wrote:
> Could be worse, though: Abiquiu, Tajique, Pojoaque - the postmistress
> of Pojoaque has a collection of over 100 misspellings of that name.
> (pronounced "Po-walk-eh" - it's a Spanish transliteration of a Pueblo name.)
Actually, from living very close by, I've always heard it
pronounced po-ho-AH-kay. Of course, when you say that fast, it
does (sort of) sound like po-walk-eh.
Abiquiu is pronounced ab-EH-que, which is *not* how it'd be
pronounced in Spanish. It's also sometimes spelled as Abique.
Where is Tajique? I've never heard of it. Perhaps it's spelled
some other way?
There are a number of Spanish place names in northern New Mexico
that are pronounced as though they were English, even by Spanish
speakers. Such as Cuba (cue-ba), Madrid (mad-rid), and Abiquiu.
Most are pronounced as though they were Spanish (Cerrillos
{sirr-E-yos} being the one most non Spanish speakers
mis-pronounce) The 'rr' in Spanish is considered a single letter
and is pronounced as a strongly trilled 'r', the "ll" is also
a single letter and is pronounced as though it were a "y".
Peace
Marty Halvorson
ma...@lanl.gov
Desert Rat
Neil <neil...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
***On 31 May 1996, David Laro wrote:
***> Neil, it took me five minutes to figure out your "s" before "c" except
***> off of I-10 quote, recently. finally got it. Ooookay!
***Don't worry about it, David. It's a Tucsonan thing!
Nope... must be an I-10 thing cause I just got it.... just now...
Later,
Desert Rat
Robert Lemm
Tere (t...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: Tere
: Cat Mountain
: Tucson, AZ, USA
Nuts! I hate when I do that! Perhaps the city would consider changing the
spelling? Albuquerque did a while back. There used to be another 'r' before
the first 'q.'
Bob
Tere
Bob,
>If consistent misspellings of Tucson have not had an impact by now, I
doubt you have much chance of getting your way on this one. We're a
stubborn bunch out here.
Anaya made an interesting case for putting the "r" in Albuquerque. Any
Albuquerqueans have an opinion? > > >
Bob Lemm
Neil wrote:
>
> Umm, thanks for your "support", Robert, but I'll just have to counter it
> by suggesting that people go to Albakurkee.
>
> Go to Albakurkee.
>
> Neil
> bz...@musicb.McGill.CA
> telnetting from McGill University
> Montreal, Quebec
You had me going for a second!
Very clever, Neil. People will easily detect the sarcasm you've displayed,
and by inference realize that you are truly suggesting that newcomers to the
great American southwest should purchase homes, and go to school in TwoSahn.
I must capitulate and agree with you, Neil: Tucson (is that bedder?) has
nowear neer the snoe fawl that Albakurkee gets (ABQ can get downright cold
at times), and the rainy and windy seasons in ABQ (oops... ABK) can get down
rite nasti. TwoSahn'z whether is bedder than Albakurkee, and Tucson's peeple
ackchu-wally want gnu populashun groth. True ABK'ians reeley don't want knew
groth.
Trust me. Neil's sneaky (almost subliminal?) suggestion is right...
newcomers really should move to Tucson.
Very, very clever, Neil.
Bob
Doug Shakel
In article
<Pine.A32.3.91.960527...@nevis.u.arizona.ed>On Sun, 26 May 1996, Robert O. Dahl wrote:
>>
>> She's lying, [SNIP]
>
>Are you one of those curmudgeons we value so highly? If so,
did you know
>that you, too, could become a tourist attraction :) ?
>
getting out,
>rubbing elbows with your fellow Tucsonans, and having some
fun. I'm sure
>that will help your disposition. You could start out with
something
>nonthreatening like a Tucson Toros game or a walk on one of
the Saguaro
>National Forest trails, and work your way up to the
symphony, or
>theatre, or Chicago or Club Congress. >
>
> Cat Mountain
> Tucson, AZ, USA
>
.. but didn't anyone notice that Tere was ALSO trying to
lead SW wannabees down a thorny path....?
..'cause it's Saguaro National PARK, but CORONADO National
Forest!
--D
Brenda Nelson
On 31 May 1996, Robert Lemm wrote:
>
> Much more often than not, you will find that TRUE Albuquerqueans would prefer
> that people go to Tuscon. Especially newbies that come from east of the
> Mississippi River, and west of Kingman Arizona.
>
> Go to Tuscon.
>
> Bob
And TRUE Tucsonans would prefer that people go ANYWHERE else but Tucson.
Please. Er, um, gee, I just heard they've discovered gold in Alaska...
<Wicked grin>
Brenda
***********************************************************************
I only *work* for the University of Arizona. My opinions are my own.
***********************************************************************~
Brenda Nelson
On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Bob Lemm wrote:
> TwoSahn'z whether is bedder than Albakurkee
Uh-huh...it is...as long as temps in excess of 115 degrees F don't bother
you, plus palpable humidity (but no real rain to enjoy) - which pretty
much describes now the last two summer (94 and 95) have been here.
> and Tucson's peeple ackchu-wally want gnu populashun groth.
Er, no. Actually, most of us don't. It's not that we're being unkind, or
unfriendly, or wanting to keep all the goodies for ourselves. It's that
the goodies are almost gone, including water, natural desert habitat, and
air quality.
Brenda
************************************************************************
I only *work* at the University of Arizona. My opinions are my own.
************************************************************************
Tere
Doug,
I KNOW! But thanks anyway. To me, it is a forest;)
Neil
On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Bob Lemm wrote:
> Trust me. Neil's sneaky (almost subliminal?) suggestion is right...
> newcomers really should move to Tucson.
[snip snip]
Aye theenk nawt, Bob. Aye em simplee trang two hulp mah felow North
Amurikuns owt, sow dey doant maek uh bad deesizun and moov two uh plaice
where they wil bee mizurubul. Tucsonans doant no ha two spull inglish.
Dis wood rezult in grate kanfyoozun and frustrashun for nyoo peepul in owr
byootifull sity... no wayt, I meen uglee sity. Gow to Albakurkee. Its knot
uglee, and peepul no ha two spull inglish.
Tex
LOL goodun Brenda!
Robert Lemm
Brenda Nelson (b...@GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: On 31 May 1996, Robert Lemm wrote:
: >
: > Much more often than not, you will find that TRUE Albuquerqueans would prefer
: > that people go to Tuscon. Especially newbies that come from east of the
: > Mississippi River, and west of Kingman Arizona.
: >
: > Go to Tuscon.
: >
: > Bob
: And TRUE Tucsonans would prefer that people go ANYWHERE else but Tucson.
: Please. Er, um, gee, I just heard they've discovered gold in Alaska...
: <Wicked grin>
: Brenda
Yep, yep. I heard the same thing. Start of a new gold rush. Lots of land
available too. Cheap. And they love newcomers! Low taxes. Go there, new people!
Bob
Robert Lemm
Brenda Nelson (b...@GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Bob Lemm wrote:
:
: > TwoSahn'z whether is bedder than Albakurkee
: Uh-huh...it is...as long as temps in excess of 115 degrees F don't bother
: you, plus palpable humidity (but no real rain to enjoy) - which pretty
: much describes now the last two summer (94 and 95) have been here.
: > and Tucson's peeple ackchu-wally want gnu populashun groth.
: Er, no. Actually, most of us don't. It's not that we're being unkind, or
: unfriendly, or wanting to keep all the goodies for ourselves. It's that
: the goodies are almost gone, including water, natural desert habitat, and
: air quality.
:
: Brenda
Your suggestion to have people move to Alaska (other thread) was probably
the best. Lots of water, great air quality, and wonderful tundra.
Bob
Gad Zukes!
In <4p1ff7$e...@natasha.rmii.com> rl...@rainbow.rmii.com (Robert Lemm)
writes:
DON'T MOVE! STAY WHERE YOU ARE! Seems neither Albuquerque nor Tucson
wants you! Try Texas! - J.
Robert O. Dahl
In article <4on7q9$5...@newshost.lanl.gov>, Marty Halvorson
<ma...@lanl.gov> wrote:
Marty,
I have heard that Abiquiu means: "Owl hoot" is this true?
Eric Anderson
> On 31 May 1996, Robert Lemm wrote:
>
> >
> > Much more often than not, you will find that TRUE Albuquerqueans would prefer
> > that people go to Tuscon. Especially newbies that come from east of the
> > Mississippi River, and west of Kingman Arizona.
Hmmmm...can we move that line to the eastside of Kingman? Donning asbestos...
Eric
Bob Knight
In article <4on7q9$5...@newshost.lanl.gov>, Marty Halvorson wrote:
>gal...@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Denis McKeon) wrote:
>
> Where is Tajique? I've never heard of it. Perhaps it's spelled
> some other way?
I believe it's on nm 14, south of I-40, on the way to Mountainair...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
b...@indirect.com P.O. Box 917
(505) 867-5863 (voice) Placitas, NM 87043
(505) 867-5880 (FAX)
Eric Anderson
Brenda Nelson wrote:
> unfriendly, or wanting to keep all the goodies for ourselves. It's that
> the goodies are almost gone, including water,
Well...that is a subjective statement. Yes, the water table has fallen quite
a bit. But the amount it has dropped, while having dramatic effects on the
surface, is neglible compared to the HUGE amount that is available in the
aquifer.
Also, if water is supposedly so scarce here, then how come it is cheaper than
almost anywhere in the country? Our average water bill is less than $20
(including sewage). My parent's water bill, who live in Calgary (hardly a
desert) is three times that amount. The high expense of maintaining a lawn
here is because it takes so much more water to do it here than elsewhere.
Water *rates* in Tucson are a pretty good deal.
Lastly, any water-rationing we are forced to endure is not because of a lack
of water (per se) but rather our capacity to pump that water. Though I can
imagine drilling more wells to increase our pumping capacity would drive the
cost up.
Tucson *never* needed CAP water--the politicians needed it.
However, I still practice and believe in water-conservation. Because even if
predictions say Tucson's aquifer will last 250 years, I would hope that
Tucson will be around longer than that. But it is a misnomer to say that,
right now, water is scarce here. Because it really isn't.
Eric
Tere
Eric,
There's a good book out on water issues in the desert called "Cadillac
Desert". Let us know if your opinion changes after reading up on the
subject.>
Brenda Nelson
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Eric Anderson wrote:
> Brenda Nelson wrote:
>
> > unfriendly, or wanting to keep all the goodies for ourselves. It's that
> > the goodies are almost gone, including water,
>
> Well...that is a subjective statement.
Eric. Sugarpie. Gimmie your hand, I wanna show you something.
<Leading Eric to the banks of the Santa Cruz>
Look down there into the riverbed. See much water? Nope? Damn
straight, kiddo. Yup, the Santa Cruz fills (temporarily) when/if the
monsoons come. The rest of the time, it's bone-dry.
Funnily enough, the Santa Cruz used to flow year-round. The water table
fell until in the late 30's, the Santa Cruz dried up.
Nothing subjective about that. The water table dropped so much that the
river went away. A whole *river*, just gone by-by.
So did the surface springs, and most of the associated raparian [sp]
zones that could be found around the valley.
> Yes, the water table has fallen quite
> a bit. But the amount it has dropped, while having dramatic effects on the
> surface, is neglible compared to the HUGE amount that is available in the
> aquifer.
That's kinda like saying that it doesn't matter if the guy living down on
south 12th is dirt poor, compared to the HUGE amount of money in Fort
Knox. Eric, I don't mean to sand your skin off about this, but the fact
is that the effect *on the surface* is the effect that counts. Yes,
there probably are gi-normous amounts of water in the aquifer - I'll
leave it to the geologists and such who frequent this forum to comment on
that. I remember this place from <ulp!> over 40 years ago. Walking
around in (what's left of) the wilderness, one encounters far less
surface water than one used to.
If our water is cheaper here than elsewhere, and I'll take your word that
it is, it's probably because of our weird political scene, and
city/county/state management by the Pod People from Outer Space, as much as
anything else. Government around here can - and frequently is - *so*
strange.
Take care, happy Friday!
Brenda
***************************************************************************
I just *work* for the University of Arizona. My opinions are my own.
***************************************************************************
Paul L. Madarasz
Tere <t...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote, perhaps among other things...
>Eric,
>
>There's a good book out on water issues in the desert called "Cadillac
>Desert". Let us know if your opinion changes after reading up on the
>subject.>
>
IMHO, _Cadillac Desert_ is a must-read for anybody who wants to
understand the Southwest. It's a real nuts-and-bolts companion to Ed
Abbey's poetic stuff; not as funny, a lot more scary.
--
Paul L. Madarasz
Tucson
Baja Arizona
"It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide!"
Eric Anderson
Tere wrote:
> Eric,
>
> There's a good book out on water issues in the desert called "Cadillac
> Desert". Let us know if your opinion changes after reading up on the
> subject.>
I doubt it, I'm pretty set in my ways.
However, this book is on my list. That is if I can ever get through The
Monkey Wrench Gang. I know I'll probably get flamed out of existance
for even suggesting it, but I do not find Abbey's writing style to be
particularly appealing (to me). And no, I'm not referring at all to the
*contents* of his writing.
BTW, I'm not sure which "opinions" you are referring to. That we have
HUGE amounts of water in our aquifer? That our water rates are
relatively inexpensive? That our water availability is directly related
to our ability to pump it (and not what is actually available)? These
are all matters of fact, not opinion.
Does Abbey deal with these issues?
Probably the opinion to which you refer is that I do not believe water
to be scarce here--at least at this time (and given our technology).
But, this is very subjective, depending on where you are looking.
As I said, I do believe in water conservation simply because I do not
believe in wasting it and that, even if it is plentiful, it is still a
precious resource. (Besides, I'm selfish and I don't want the price to
go up.)
Eric
Tere
On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Eric Anderson wrote:
> Tere wrote:
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > There's a good book out on water issues in the desert called "Cadillac
> > Desert". Let us know if your opinion changes after reading up on the
> > subject.>
>
> I doubt it, I'm pretty set in my ways.
>
> However, this book is on my list. That is if I can ever get through The
> Monkey Wrench Gang. I know I'll probably get flamed out of existance
> for even suggesting it, but I do not find Abbey's writing style to be
> particularly appealing (to me). And no, I'm not referring at all to the
> *contents* of his writing.
>
> BTW, I'm not sure which "opinions" you are referring to. That we have
> HUGE amounts of water in our aquifer? That our water rates are
> relatively inexpensive? That our water availability is directly related
> to our ability to pump it (and not what is actually available)? These
> are all matters of fact, not opinion.
>
<snip>
> Probably the opinion to which you refer is that I do not believe water
> to be scarce here--at least at this time (and given our technology).
>
> Eric
>
Facts often turn out to be opinions once new information is discovered
and new perspectives are gained. Hope you get a chance to read the book.
Ron Torres
Eric Anderson <er...@as.arizona.edu> writes:
[snip]
> Monkey Wrench Gang. I know I'll probably get flamed out of existance
> for even suggesting it, but I do not find Abbey's writing style to be
[snip]
>
> BTW, I'm not sure which "opinions" you are referring to. That we have
> HUGE amounts of water in our aquifer? That our water rates are
> relatively inexpensive? That our water availability is directly related
> to our ability to pump it (and not what is actually available)? These
> are all matters of fact, not opinion.
[snip]
>
> Probably the opinion to which you refer is that I do not believe water
> to be scarce here--at least at this time (and given our technology).
> But, this is very subjective, depending on where you are looking.
>
> As I said, I do believe in water conservation simply because I do not
> believe in wasting it and that, even if it is plentiful, it is still a
> precious resource. (Besides, I'm selfish and I don't want the price to
> go up.)
>
> Eric
Eric, you won't get any flames from me.
It's continually amusing to me how the vast majority of us
living here in the Southwest have been transplanted here at one
time or another, yet there are some (many of which contribute
to this newsgroup) who take these issues and use them as a tool
to try to keep others out.
In California, you see bumper stickers that say "Welcome to
California, now go home." Seems these people are everywhere
that love where they live (after they have relocated there
themselves), but then want others to stay where they are. You
see it on this newsgroup all the time.
I agree that prudent management of resources is always the best
avenue to pursue. But I also think it is pretty rude to
address people that live in other areas in such a way as to
send a message to them to "stay away", "stay where you are,"
etc. We are very blessed to live in a society whereby we can
freely move about and enjoy living where we choose to live.
Expecting a few flames . . .
--
Very Best Wishes!
Ron Torres
Realtor in New Mexico
Loving Living in the Great Southwest
Eric Anderson
Brenda Nelson wrote:
>
> > Well...that is a subjective statement.
>
> Eric. Sugarpie. Gimmie your hand, I wanna show you something.
>
> <Leading Eric to the banks of the Santa Cruz>
Ho hum...okay, if I must. But this is NOT what I'm talking about. My point
is, that regardless of the impact of a dropping water table, Tucson's aquifer
is nowhere near depleted and has enough water to last the city, at projected
demands, for 250 years.
> Nothing subjective about that. The water table dropped so much that the
> river went away. A whole *river*, just gone by-by.
No, not by-bye. It has gone underground. And yes, that is a dramatic effect
of the lowering water table but has nothing to do with the availability of
water for *human* consumption.
> > Yes, the water table has fallen quite
> > a bit. But the amount it has dropped, while having dramatic effects on the
> > surface, is neglible compared to the HUGE amount that is available in the
> > aquifer.
> That's kinda like saying that it doesn't matter if the guy living down on
> south 12th is dirt poor, compared to the HUGE amount of money in Fort
> Knox.
Do I assume that humans are the owner of Fort Knox in this equation? And that
the cute little animals are the poor guy down on 12th? On the face of it, this
would appear to be true. But then we get into this whole urban ecosystem
thing. Yeah, we're using a lot of water that native animals/plants could be
using. But we're also making much more water available through (yep) golf
courses, swimming pools, landscaping (un)natural lakes, etc., etc. I am
interested in studies of the urban ecosystem because it is my hypothesis that
the city of Tucson sustains a greater number and variety of "wildlife" then the
desert did before Tucson was here. Many of those are native species, many are
not. But who are you to say that this thriving ecosystem is no less valid than
a wilderness area?
> Eric, I don't mean to sand your skin off about this, but the fact
> is that the effect *on the surface* is the effect that counts.
No, it isn't. Not as far as us humans are concerned. This has been my whole
point all along. Of course, you want to turn this into a man has raped the
desert arguement. Well, guess what? I agree that we have raped the desert.
But that doesn't change the fact that we still have plenty of water for us to
drink and to sustain a growing population.
Though, in reality, we've not really *destoyed* the desert. We have simply
changed it. Replaced one ecosystem with another. Which is more valid? The
world changes all the time anyway. (No, I don't *like* the fact that so many
riparian areas are already gone, but the damage is done. And I blame myself,
and I blame you, and I blame everyone in Tucson. But what good does that do?
We're here and we're not going anywhere. The water table is going to drop even
further. Oh well. Nobody stopped me from moving here, I'm not going to stop
anyone else. We might as well conserve land and water as best we can but we
must also accept that we *will* have a large impact.)
> If our water is cheaper here than elsewhere, and I'll take your word that
> it is, it's probably because of our weird political scene,
Possibly. But left to the politicians, you'd think it'd be a whole lot *more*
expensive. I think the fact that it is plentiful and easily pumped has a lot
more to do with it, or did you skip economics?
> anything else. Government around here can - and frequently is - *so*
> strange.
Which equals Central Arizona Project. Talk about mismanagement of our water
resources!
Not sure what you think of me now, but rest assured I am probably not the
environmental ogre you imagine. Though I do have strong opinions regarding the
validity of humans as being part of nature. We are *natural*. Everything we
do is *natural*. That doesn't mean I believe in wanton destruction of the
environment. Afterall, that is not in *our* best interests. My basic tenant
is that we must do our best to keep the world healthy for humans. And if we
can manage that, then the rest of it will take care of itself.
Oh yeah, LITTERBUGS ARE SCUM!!!!
Eric
Robert Lemm
Ron Torres writes:
: I agree that prudent management of resources is always the best
: avenue to pursue. But I also think it is pretty rude to
: address people that live in other areas in such a way as to
: send a message to them to "stay away", "stay where you are,"
: etc. We are very blessed to live in a society whereby we can
: freely move about and enjoy living where we choose to live.
New people would be far more welcome if they would drop thier
predefined visions of how a neighborhood should look. Just because
their yard on Long Island had a lush green lawn, and beautiful
maples doesn't mean they should bring those ideas with them,
and they especially shouldn't act on their predispositions. It's
not that we want people to stay away just because we want it all
to ourselves; we just don't want them coming in to screw up the
far different beauty that nature has dealt the area.
They also come in and believe that because they are from a far
more sophisticated area of the country, they know how we need to
change things for our own good. Being mere idiots from the southwest,
we need to be shown how to live our lives, run our government,
develop all open space available in the cities, kill those nasty
snakes and scorpions. Who needs all that open space anyway?
The reason the messages you read tell people to "stay away" is
because we've witnessed their "wisdom" in the past and don't want to
see them come in and ruin more.
Bob Lemm
rl...@rmi.net
BerginTM
Well, hearty guffaws with you all! ;)
Yup, I am yet another "southwestern wannabe." Have been for over 10
years and, now, it might finally happen. My father and I plan on
roadtrippin' on through Tucson to Santa Fe. Get a feel for possible
relocation spots. I had my eye set on Santa Fe, but the elevation might
clash with m'Pop's health. So, hmmmm, Tucson? I'm diggin' the Tucsonian
humor here... ;) Tere indicates that there is much to do, if you
participate. I remember really, really loving the desert around Tucson,
but I never quite made it to the city limits. So, how are: Jobs?
Apartments? Scorpions? Rattlesnakes? Soccer (real football!) games?
With all the New Englanders, is there room for a coupla Californians?
Peace, T
Neil
Soccer:
There's the Tucson Amigos (semi-pro), the U of Arizona club soccer team,
and several metro leagues that are quite competitive that you can join if
you prefer to be in the middle of the action, rather than just sitting in
the stands paw-pawwing at the players. :) If you're interested, I can give
you the phone number for the league I played in up till last year. You'll
have to wait until I come back home though. Right now I'm sitting in
swamp-land.. er... Montreal.
[folks, it was so humid today that I swam to class; give me a Tucson
summer ANY day in place of this!]
Neil
telnetting from McGill University
http://u.arizona.edu/~neilends
Montreal, Quebec
Tere
Actually, it's TucsonANS. Now I feel better <g>.
Jobs pay less than you would like. Employers can fire you if they don't
like the look on your face (right-to-work state with REALLY weak labor
laws) and can treat you quite poorly because they know there are 10
zillion people waiting for a chance at a job, and probably willing to
work for less. Helps to have a job before you move here, otherwise can be
tough going. Having connections helps a lot. Lotsa scorpions,
rattlesnakes, black widows. Yes, we do have apartments here - some
pretty cheap if you don't mind a lot of sirens at night. Others
extremely pricey.
And I'd still rather be here than anywhere else.>
Don't know about soccer, but there's always the Tucson Toros.
DaveHatunen
In article <4phunm$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
BerginTM <berg...@aol.com> wrote:
> Well, hearty guffaws with you all! ;)
> Yup, I am yet another "southwestern wannabe." Have been for over 10
>years and, now, it might finally happen. My father and I plan on
>roadtrippin' on through Tucson to Santa Fe. Get a feel for possible
>relocation spots. I had my eye set on Santa Fe, but the elevation might
>clash with m'Pop's health. So, hmmmm, Tucson? I'm diggin' the Tucsonian
>humor here... ;) Tere indicates that there is much to do, if you
>participate. I remember really, really loving the desert around Tucson,
>but I never quite made it to the city limits. So, how are: Jobs?
>Apartments? Scorpions? Rattlesnakes? Soccer (real football!) games?
> With all the New Englanders, is there room for a coupla Californians?
> Peace, T
If you live in Tucson, you don't care whether you have a job...
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
DaveHatunen
In article <31BC74...@as.arizona.edu>,
Eric Anderson <er...@as.arizona.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Ho hum...okay, if I must. But this is NOT what I'm talking about. My point
>is, that regardless of the impact of a dropping water table, Tucson's aquifer
>is nowhere near depleted and has enough water to last the city, at projected
>demands, for 250 years.
I drew the groundwater contour maps for the UofA College of Agriculture
in the early 1970s for one of their publications. At that time
groundwater levels had dropped considerably over the previous couple of
decades. This was largely due to agricultural pumping, and crops were
being shifted as the cost of raising the water increased. In the 1960s
cotton was still the major crop in the Santa Cruz valley (Pima cotton),
and cotton is a heavy water user. In the 1970s, cotton crops were being
replaced by pecan trees.
With agricultural use declining, I would asume that the precipitous
drops have stabilized somewhat. It has always been known that the
aquifer had enough water for home consumption. If it weren't for the
groundwater mining that occured in teh past, the Santa Cruz would
probably still be flowing in a higher level channel, much like the San
Pedro River.
[...]
Yeah, we're using a lot of water that native animals/plants could be
>using. But we're also making much more water available through (yep) golf
>courses, swimming pools, landscaping (un)natural lakes, etc., etc. I am
I seriously doubt -- given the evaporation rate in southern Arizona --
that watering golf courses and landscaping makes any contribution to
groundwater levels, even assuming the water can penetrate the caliche.
Lakes can do so, except that artificial ponds used for property
enhancement are designed to NOT leak out the bottom (for obvious
reasons). The best recharge would be through the stream channels like
the Rillito, Pantano and Santa Cruz during the witner rainy season (I
would think that the summer monsoons are mostly too quick, although
much of the water in the upstream reaches of the Rillito and Pantano
obvioulsy goes int the ground, given the fact that these reivers manage
to peter down to nothing by the time they reach First Avenue.
>interested in studies of the urban ecosystem because it is my hypothesis that
>the city of Tucson sustains a greater number and variety of "wildlife" then the
>desert did before Tucson was here. Many of those are native species, many are
>not. But who are you to say that this thriving ecosystem is no less valid than
>a wilderness area?
Especially those tricky little English sparrows -- the ONLY birds that
ahve ever figured out you can get a drink through the louvres on a
swamp box.
[...]
R. MATRE
Well, maybe your water is fine, but the town of Organ outside Las Cruces,
NM just had to put in a pipeline from somewhere else because they ran out
of water.
BerginTM
P.S.
In anticpated reponse:
I hate lawns, they make me sneeze an' itch. The smell of freshly mown
green grass is the *one* smell to make me wretch. I don't golf, could care
less about the sport even after having grown up with the
Crosby...er...Pebble Beach Pro-Am nearby. And, as a native of California's
central coast, water rationing is an established lifestyle. 'Kay?
;) T
Brenda Nelson
On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Eric Anderson wrote:
> > Nothing subjective about that. The water table dropped so much that the
> > river went away. A whole *river*, just gone by-by.
>
> No, not by-bye. It has gone underground. And yes, that is a dramatic effect
> of the lowering water table but has nothing to do with the availability of
> water for *human* consumption.
badly depleted that the river can no longer achieve the surface. It
shrank. It didn't just decide to relocate, intact, to a less hostile
neighborhood.
> No, it isn't. Not as far as us humans are concerned. This has been my whole
> point all along. Of course, you want to turn this into a man has raped the
> desert arguement.
Er, well, actually, no, I don't - and please, I'd consider it very
gentlemanly of you if you'd refrain from attempting to read my mind, or
from putting words in my mouth from here on out.
As to the "rape" issue...<fighting womanfully to resist temptation>...no,
I'll leave it alone. This is the wrong ng for that.
And I hope I'm not reading you incorrectly on this (I apologize if I am),
but you seem to hold to the opinion that as long as we humans are okay,
well, that's all that matters...?
If that is what you think, then that's what you think. Look, there are
two kinds of people in this world - the kind that thinks humans are
somehow separate from the rest of the web, and have a right to do and
take whatever they think they want. Then then are those of us who see
the human species as an integral part of the web, having neither more nor
fewer rights to resources than do other life forms. Between these two
philosophies, there is a great gulf fixed. My personal feeling is that
no, we don't have a right to grab all the resources without a thought for
how it affects the four-footed people, or the crawling people, or the
people with fins or feathers, or the plant people. But that's just me.
> Well, guess what? I agree that we have raped the desert.
And, like, you're okay with that? <Sigh> Well, it's been said before,
that men have an entirely different philosophy on rape than women do...
> But that doesn't change the fact that we still have plenty of water for us to
> drink and to sustain a growing population.
Yes, yes, I know. Deeeeeep in the aquifer. <Sigh> Of course, given
that we have (or can develop) the technology to get it out, we still
can't be sure what the long-term effect of *that* action will be.
So it's okay to rape the deep aquifer in order to go on raping the desert...?
> Though, in reality, we've not really *destoyed* the desert. We have simply
> changed it.
I rather think that this is the argument that every cancer cell in a body
gives to every other cancer cell. "Actually, we're just changing the
body..."
> Replaced one ecosystem with another. Which is more valid?
It isn't a matter of "validity," Kiddo. It's a matter of not destroying
something wonderful and unique. If it isn't preserved, this thing will
become what that other poor misguided youngster is telling me I have to
accept - Tucson as the Bronx, complete with high-rise slums and
smokestacks. Except with temperatures in excess of 110.
> The world changes all the time anyway.
> (No, I don't *like* the fact that so many
> riparian areas are already gone, but the damage is done. And I blame myself,
> and I blame you, and I blame everyone in Tucson.
Um. Yup. It sure does. Interestingly enough, the riparian zones can
regenerate, it's been done here. (And I'm sorry, once again, I'm at away from
my reference materials. Don't take my word for it, do some homework and find
out for yourself.)
Look, while you're so busy apportioning blame, apply the biggest portion
of it to the developers, who care *only* about the bottom line on their
own balance sheets, and to those who feel compelled to go out and
actively recruit people to move here because they think that unrestrained
growth is *good*, and to the people who, having moved here, insist on
attempting to turn it into a facsimile of Indiana (or wherever it is
they're from).
My family moved here nearly half a century ago, because Mom had a
crippling form of arthritis. There are *real* good reasons for people to
move here. There are also *real* good reasons for people NOT to move here.
I am opposed to UNRESTRAINED growth. I am NOT opposed to someone moving
here for a good reason, and behaving responsibly once s/he's arrived.
Tell me, do you know anyone here in town with asthma? If you do, you
know that people having that ailment can suffer dreadfully here. Well,
when I was tiny (back when dinosaurs still roamed the earth <G>), out on
east Broadway was a place called the Asthmatic Children's Foundation (I
think. Don't swat me if I didn't get the name exact). They used to send
severely asthmatic children from all over to live here, because it used
to be so beneficial to asthmatics. Not any more. That's due in large
measure to the introduction of non-native species of plants - olive,
roses, mulberry, and lawn grasses, just to name a few.
It's all well and good to say that, oh, well, things would have changed
anyway, they always do, so let's just have at it! And then arrogantly and
blindly make radical changes with your eye on the short term and your own
desires.
It's quite another thing to attempt to adapt yourself to a place, and
make any changes with the long view in mind. To borrow a concept from the
Plains Nations (among others), to consider the effect of your actions
down to the seventh generation. Not something that Euro-American
Judeo-Christian types have ever been especially good at, IMHO.
> But what good does that do?
None, if you choose not to learn from past mistakes.
> We're here and we're not going anywhere. The water table is going to drop even
> further. Oh well. Nobody stopped me from moving here, I'm not going to stop
> anyone else. We might as well conserve land and water as best we can but we
> must also accept that we *will* have a large impact.)
Yes, I find that I agree with you. Those who can't hack it, leave; and
the rest of us stay, and cope. And while I cannot *stop* anyone else
from moving here, I sure-as-shootin' can attempt to *discourage* them
from doing so, and I see absolutely no reason why I - or anyone else on
this ng - shouldn't attempt to discourage people from moving here by
telling them the truth about the limitations of the environment, and
expressing our views about attempts to modify same.
Excuse me for pointing it out, but this is a free-speech issue, as much
as anything else.
> > If our water is cheaper here than elsewhere, and I'll take your word that
> > it is, it's probably because of our weird political scene,
>
> Possibly. But left to the politicians, you'd think it'd be a whole lot *more*
> expensive. I think the fact that it is plentiful and easily pumped has a lot
> more to do with it, or did you skip economics?
Number one, I'd appreciate it very much if you'd refrain from being
snide. Such behavior doesn't reflect on me at all, but it sure puts you
in a bad light.
Number two, there's reason to believe that it's not a matter of economics,
but a matter of the politicians being owned, body and soul, by wealthy
developers. It is in the best interests of the developers to keep the
water rates low.
> > anything else. Government around here can - and frequently is - *so*
> > strange.
>
> Which equals Central Arizona Project. Talk about mismanagement of our water
> resources!
>
> Not sure what you think of me now,
Hazarding a guess here, but offhand I'd say: male (your name gives
that away); youngish, but not a kid; probably of European descent (most
probably some flavor of Anglo); Judeo-Christian, probably Protestant (or
at least raised that way in childhood). Were most likely either an only
child, an only son, or an oldest son. Mom's fav. Got good grades in
school; at least *some* college education, I'm guessing a degree in business,
poly-sci, math, econ, or physics. Could be medicine, but I don't think
so. Play golf, probably tennis, too; consider yourself to be enlightened,
forward-thinking, and pragmatic. I'm betting Republican. Secretly feel
sorry for those of us who haven't the native insights to see things your way.
Feel bound and determined to set us to rights. Also, you really, really don't
like to be disagreed with, or have somebody stand up to you, and you can't
seem to keep from getting shrill when it happens.
In short, you believe yourself to be, by Divine fiat, at the top of the
food chain.
Hey, you asked.
> but rest assured I am probably not the
> environmental ogre you imagine.
There you go again, putting thoughts in my head and words in my mouth. I
don't imagine you to be an ogre at all. Just another person who thinks
that there's nothing wrong, that things are fine, technology will save us,
and we can keep on keeping on the way we are without having to change what we
do and how we think. Because, er, technology will save us.
> Though I do have strong opinions regarding the
> validity of humans as being part of nature. We are *natural*. Everything we
> do is *natural*.
At the risk of beating the analogy to death, yup, and cancer's natural, too.
As to whether or not everything that humans do is *natural,* that's
debatable, and grist for another ng - I suggest sci.anthro.
> That doesn't mean I believe in wanton destruction of the
> environment. Afterall, that is not in *our* best interests. My basic tenant
> is that we must do our best to keep the world healthy for humans.
Dear, it's not healthy to be so human-centered. It's called
"specie-ism," I believe. (Nor, by the way, is it "natural." Plenty of
cultures are not merely concerned about human interests.)
And if we
> can manage that, then the rest of it will take care of itself.
<Sigh> I rest my case.
> Oh yeah, LITTERBUGS ARE SCUM!!!!
Finally, something with which I am in *unqualified* agreement!
> Eric
Brenda
**************************************************************************
I only *work* for the University of Arizona. My opinions are my own.
**************************************************************************
Eric Anderson
DaveHatunen wrote:
> I drew the groundwater contour maps for the UofA College of Agriculture
> in the early 1970s for one of their publications. At that time
> groundwater levels had dropped considerably over the previous couple of
> decades. This was largely due to agricultural pumping,
This is *very* interesting. Makes it look as if those "productive" alternatives
(as opposed to golf courses) are even bigger water wasters. Well, I've always
associated the fact that the Santa Cruz doesn't flow through Tucson is more
likely because of intense agriculture to the south of here rather than all the
drinking water we pump in Tucson. And it looks like your informed experience
would support that.
> and cotton is a heavy water user. In the 1970s, cotton crops were being
> replaced by pecan trees.
Does this mean that pecan trees use less water, or that pecans are more
profitable (thus offsetting the cost of the water)? I've always assumed that
the high price of Arizona pecans had to do with the high cost of watering them.
> Yeah, we're using a lot of water that native animals/plants could be
> >using. But we're also making much more water available through (yep) golf
> >courses, swimming pools, landscaping (un)natural lakes, etc., etc. I am
>
> I seriously doubt -- given the evaporation rate in southern Arizona --
> that watering golf courses and landscaping makes any contribution to
> groundwater levels, even assuming the water can penetrate the caliche.
I agree.
Sorry, what I meant was that us humans have brought a lot of water to the
surface, thus making it directly available to other animals and plants. This
increased availability (along with other human byproducts, waste, etc.)
sustains, IMO, a greater variety and number of animals and (maybe) plants than
did the (dryer) desert that was here before. No, it's not anything like it was
before. And while people may lament over the "raping" of the desert, nature has
stuck a new balance that is just as precious, wonderful, and diverse as the old
balance. And the point I often try to make is that this new *ecosystem* we have
helped to create is just as valid as any that was here before. As I have also
said, I'm not into unnecessary "destruction" of the environment. But Tucson
*is* growing and I accept that more desert will be "raped" to accomodate this
growth. I also accept that there are better and worse ways to make these
accomodations. And, unfortunately, those people that are against growth also
seem to be against making any accomodations *at all*. (The theory being that if
we don't then people won't move here--which is hogwash.) The problem then being
that when the growth *does* occur, we aren't prepared for it (sound familiar?)
and both we and the desert suffer more than if we had been prepared.
> reasons). The best recharge would be through the stream channels like
> the Rillito, Pantano and Santa Cruz
Having had a glimpse of the Santa Cruz drainage from the air, it would seem to
me a terrible place to recharge water--we have devastated it, even by my
natural-human standards.
> Especially those tricky little English sparrows -- the ONLY birds that
> ahve ever figured out you can get a drink through the louvres on a
> swamp box.
A perfect example of nature adapting to *us* and thriving--I love it.
P.S. Please include email if you respond, I'll be gone for a couple of weeks
and would hate to miss out on a good debate.
Robert O. Dahl
> On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Eric Anderson wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> > That doesn't mean I believe in wanton destruction of the
> > environment. Afterall, that is not in *our* best interests. My basic
tenant
> > is that we must do our best to keep the world healthy for humans.
>And Brenda replied:
> Dear, it's not healthy to be so human-centered. It's called
> "specie-ism," I believe. (Nor, by the way, is it "natural." Plenty of
> cultures are not merely concerned about human interests.)
>
> > And if we
> > can manage that, then the rest of it will take care of itself.
> >Eric
You put your finger on it. Keeping the world healthy for humans means:
1) Controlling our own numbers so we don't keep breeding like rats and
continue to foul our own nest.
2) Maintaining healthy ecosystems and preserving them the way they are, as
we are not smart enough to know the repercussions of changing them.
3) Recognizing that we don't know horse hocky. We know only a little about
the living fabric of our world, the result of 4-1/2 billion years of
evolution, and the smartest thing to do is to disturb it as little as
possible.
4) Realizing that the brains we are so proud of, in retrospect, may turn
out to be an unsuccessful evolutionary experiment, and the reason we
eventually extinct ourselves.
Cheers,
RO
Brenda Nelson
On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Robert O. Dahl wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Eric Anderson wrote:
> >
> <SNIP>
> > > That doesn't mean I believe in wanton destruction of the
> > > environment. Afterall, that is not in *our* best interests. My basic
> tenant
> > > is that we must do our best to keep the world healthy for humans.
>
> >And Brenda replied:
> > Dear, it's not healthy to be so human-centered. It's called
> > "specie-ism," I believe. (Nor, by the way, is it "natural." Plenty of
> > cultures are not merely concerned about human interests.)
> >
> > > And if we
> > > can manage that, then the rest of it will take care of itself.
> > >Eric
>
> You put your finger on it. Keeping the world healthy for humans means:
>
> 1) Controlling our own numbers so we don't keep breeding like rats and
> continue to foul our own nest.
Yes!!!
> 2) Maintaining healthy ecosystems and preserving them the way they are, as
> we are not smart enough to know the repercussions of changing them.
Yes, Yes!!!!
> 3) Recognizing that we don't know horse hocky. We know only a little about
> the living fabric of our world, the result of 4-1/2 billion years of
> evolution, and the smartest thing to do is to disturb it as little as
> possible.
YES, YES, YES!!!!!!! Omigod, I am not alone, there's hope for the planet
yet.
> 4) Realizing that the brains we are so proud of, in retrospect, may turn
> out to be an unsuccessful evolutionary experiment, and the reason we
> eventually extinct ourselves.
And for the last time, yes. <Sigh of gratification>
> Cheers,
>
> RO
>
> --
> Robert O. Dahl
> http://www.indirect.com/user/ottar
P.S. And please, no jokes about "I'll have what *she's* having for lunch!"
<G>