Time-Driven System vs. Event-Driven System in Land Monitoring

| 78 Comments

Land use planning has always been a discrete or lumpy process, in part because land use decisions are interdependent, costly to reverse, and often involve large, indivisible investments in public infrastructure. In this context, planning support systems (PSS) are essential for the success of land use planning. One of the popular PSSs is land monitoring systems (see textbook, page 203) that contain an inventory of existing land use and an inventory of land available for future development.

Imagine that a region will use urban growth boundaries (UGBs) as a development control instrument. Planners could implement such development control in two types of land monitoring systems:

  1. Time-driven system: this system has been used by the State of Oregon. Under this system, UGBs must contain enough developable land to accommodate urban growth for a 20-year (or 10-year) period and must be re-examined, as part of process of periodic review, every 4 to 7 years. Urban area growth projections must be based on existing densities or the density of development that occurred since the last periodic review. This means the UGBs could be expanded every 4 to 7 years.
  1. Event-driven system: Under this system, UGBs are expanded not at predetermined times, but when the number of developable acres inside the UGB reaches a predetermined level of inventory-the reorder trigger level. For example, planners could set the reorder trigger level at 30,000 acres. This means that UGBs will be expanded when the area size of developable land within the UGBs falls below 30,000 acres.


So the questions are:

  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach? Do you think one of them is better than the other?
  • For event-driven systems, the determination of the reorder trigger level is a tricky task. What are the factors you would consider if you are asked to set the level?

78 Comments


The two systems should be judged based in what you want the goal to be for your UGB. If the purpose is to limit the speed of development than a time based system is better if the purpose is to ensure dense development than a event based system would be better. In my opinion I would prefer a UGB to be used to ensure dense development as well as massive development so I would be inclined to do something of the sort of a combination. Use a acre amount as well as a time and go by the acre unless the it happens before the time at which point you should wait for the time. The politics of setting the acreage would be very complicated and would have to do with largely politics and what the vision for the area is.

I think regular intervals of urban growth boundary reevaluation that the time-driven system requires would be beneficial. It would allow planners (and other officials) to accommodate changes in an urban area’s population and environment more readily. However, if growth projections are dependent on existing densities it seems unlikely that an area would become much denser. It seems that an event-driven system would create greater densities in an urban area. Whether one system was better than the other would depend on the reasoning behind the adoption of a UGB policy. Neither seems obviously better than the other.

An important aspect to consider in the expansion of a UGB in the event-driven system may be what infrastructure is needed to sustain a larger urban area. Then the UGB would be modified based on when these investments could be made.


The primary advantages of both the time-driven system (TDS) and the event-driven system (EDS) is that it doesn’t let rapid development go completely unchecked and it provides everyone with a general guideline as to where growth can occur. Unfortunately, that seems to be where the advantages end. Both systems fail to adequately adhere to long term sprawl prevention. If rapid development/growth is taking place in the metro fringe, both systems (as described by Yingling) will fail to stop or even really slow down development. Under the TDS, the faster development is going up, the faster land must be opened up for development at the periodic reviews to ensure a 20 years land inventory. With EDS, the same is true but without the burden of maybe having to wait another year or two for the review to open up more land assuming the acre count is tracked in a near real-time process. My primary problem with UGBs, however, is the huge potential for political favoritism and corruption. The decision of where the UGB will expand has drastic economic and quality of life implications and is undoubtedly in the hands of few.

An advantage to the time-driven system is that it requires those in control of land use decisions to be sensitive to the fact that the UGB may only be altered every 4 to 7 years. As a result, planners will be forced to intentional and take care with land development decisions. On the other hand, a disadvantage may be that planners would be unable to modify the UGB in a timely way, which may result in having to forgo land uses that would have heavily benefited the municipality. In terms of the EDS, an advantage would be that planners are able to sort of alter the UGB as they go. This approach would seem logical in that the UGB changes as you need more land. However, the dilemma of establishing the threshold for change seems to be a strong disadvantage. I would have concerns that the threshold may be determined by those who have the strongest political will. If I were forced to commit I would say that the event-driven system is superior. It has a greater capacity to respond to changes in the economic, social, and ecological environment. Whereas I feel that the time-driven system would be far more reactionary leading to a mismatch between our perceptions and reality.
Clearly, the establishment of the re-order trigger would be difficult. If the future of the free world rested in my hands (determination of the trigger level) the factors I would consider in its creation would be: population projections for the region, topography, demand for infrastructure projections, current density, as well as others.

As stated above, there are advantages to both time-driven and event-driven systems, however, I agree with Kara in that the method you choose may depend on your ultimate goal--and perhaps a mixture of the two would be a good solution. That said, with the limited knowledge that I have regarding each of these methods, it seems that the event-driven system would be more effective. If your ultimate goal is to address growth issues, the event-driven system would probably work best since it requires change when necessary, as opposed to the time-driven system which addresses growth after a certain amount of time regardless of what growth activities may or may not have taken place. If there was too much growth in a certain small amount of time with no mechanism to keep it in check (due to a time-driven system) then the attempts to control development could be for naught.

The TDS offers the advantage of requiring the planning body to very deliberate and intentional leading to the careful decisions about land use in the interest of preventing blunders. However, the TDS also has the downside of the possibility of a municipality having to forgo development that would be beneficial to the public interest in interest of complying with their growth boundary.
The EDS is advantageous in its ability adapt to land use development as it occurs in a community. The UGB becomes a sort of modify as you go operation. Planners are able to respond to the demands of the public and market by changing the UGB. However, a disadvantage may be that planners fall victim to powerful interests and modify the UGB haphazardly. I would choose the EDS because I feel that it has greater facility to respond to current needs and demands for a community, as our world is a rapidly changing place. In addition, the time-driven system would likely result it outcomes that do not match the reality.
If I were asked to determine the reorder threshold for an event-driven system the factors I would consider are: population projections for the region, topography, current land use, projection of infrastructure demands, auto-dependency, etc.

In general, I feel that urban growth boundaries are less effective as a smart growth tool than urban design standards and zoning codes that provide clear regulations about where and how land can be developed. In addition to the reasons listed by others, Urban Growth boundaries are only effective if there is a powerful regional governing body, otherwise they will just encourage disconnected leapfrog development. I believe that it is more important for a city to incentivize dense development in areas that they wish to grow and limit uses in sensitive areas or those disconnected from the urban fabric. In this respect, I feel that an Event Driven System of urban growth boundary shifts is better adapted to this method of planning. In this way key areas that have been identified by the city as potential growth corridors can be opened when development pressure is ready, rather than forcing development to occur in locations where it may not be wanted or needed.

I feel like the TDS shows greater teeth in regards to curbing development, and encouraging dense development over urban sprawl. My concern with EDS is determining whether it is effective at development control, especially if more land can be added once the size of developable acreage falls below the reorder trigger level. I am not sure if this process encourages dense development over urban sprawl. I do like the flexibility of the EDS, because there are significant benefits to development and you would hate to say no to a project because you cannot evaluate the TDS for another year. In determining the reorder threshold for an event-driven system, I would also consider population projections, current land use/zoning, planned infrastructure/capacities, pipelines, etc. I do not know enough about either system to say which one is preferable other than, as Kara said, the system selected (or combination thereof) should address the goals of the UGB.

I think one advantage of the time driven system is that the periodic reviews allow for in depth analysis of land use changes over time that can make for more accurate future projections. However, I do agree with Matt in that some development may have to take a back seat in order to deal with the UGB. One advantage of the event driven system is that it can be altered and updated on a more frequent basis because there is no timeline. However, coming up with the most beneficial level for the reorder trigger could pose some problems. As others have mentioned, this could become a political issue and some stakeholders may lose out. I would try and set the reorder trigger to a level that enhances dense development without hurting the livability of the area. Overall, I think it depends on the situation as each urban area is different. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages and it is important for planners to look at what issues are most vital and which method can address those issues the most.

I like the flexibility of the event-driven system. New priorities based on obtaining long sought-after funding for transportation (like the recent light rail next steps) could shift the timetable for development of desirable areas and create the need to respond more quickly than every 4 to 7 years. Political leaders or watershed districts may change some of the ground rules (emissions, storm water runoff) for growth. New information (environmental research) may reveal solid reasons to quickly put a moratorium on development in a particular area.

Although the methodical approach of time-driven UGB's may be less subject to abuse by vociferous special interest groups, I am concerned that it may have effects like inflating the market prices of housing right after a new time period starts. Also, if certain communities have an unexpectedly large influx of new immigrants, housing may be paralyzed by a 4-7 year timetable for expansion.

There isn't any discussion here about redundancy of services, creating more efficiency by virtue of out-lying communities working with each other. Maybe the trigger for the event-driven system (in addition to densities approaching target goals) has to include a component for verifying collaboration with the communities last built (e.g. water treatment plant capacity was planned to accommodate this growth).

To be most effective, UGB's should be continually evaluated. Placing an arbitrary time interval between assessments, moves away from the goal of UGB's, to control density, and encourage infill development and redevelopment. Sure, it's good to establish regular assessments, as done under the time-driven systems. However, those regular intervals aren't really that convenient to what might be happening with development. Markets react in much more sudden intervals than 5, 10, or 20 years. The event driven systems place more emphasis on the rate of growth, but to truly work it needs to be integrated into planning policies, environmental, and economic development goals. The TDR (transferable development rights) systems seem to be more effective at this, using the purchase of development rights in rural areas to provide density bonuses in area's where the city has planned for denser development. It appeases those rural owners looking to realize the equity on their land and allows for increasing development, but directs it to areas where redevelopment or infill development is needed.


The hybrid concept Kara discussed would be a reasonable fusion and could provide the benefits of both systems, but as she said it would depend on the local political climate. A hybrid system for implementing an UGB would provide the flexibility to adapt to new realities of the future (for example: changes in housing preferences, aging populations, collapse of local industries, or creation of a new transit system.) The time-based component would provide an overall blueprint of "Where we want to go", while the event-based component could trigger changes in the regional plan ("at this stage, we would want to encourage even higher density in the central core and first ring suburbs").

If I had to completely choose between the two, I would go for an EDS -- a TDS could restrict growth *too* much and like Kay mentioned, artificially inflate land values to an unrealistic level (driving housing costs up and pricing out the poor and eventually middle class.)

To determine the reorder trigger level in the event-driven system, I would consider several factors related to housing and land value. I recognize the benefits of high density. However, it is also important to have a range of housing prices. People should be able to afford to live in the neighborhood in which they work and have access to public transportation (which is often more prevalent within the core of the city). If a growth boundary is too restrictive, it can artificially inflate property values and cause exclusionary housing situation.

The factors that should be considered are: the amount of existing develop-able land, the amount of existing develop-able land with access to water and sewer infrastructure, the amount of available housing stock, population projections, the foreclosure rate, the economy, the fair-market value of homes, the change in housing prices.

The first thing that comes to mind is the time and energy required for these inventories. In order to have a good inventory, there is even more time, energy and money required, all three of which are limiting factors for many communities (especially smaller ones). Then, even if you have created a thorough inventory it is still hard to make projections/forecasts for future conditions. Both the time driven system (TDS) and event driven system (EDS) for land monitoring run into the above drawbacks, but it seems as though the TDS would run into more problems as it relies more heavily on projections/forecasts. If the projection/forecast is way off reassessment may not take place soon enough and unintended consequences will occur. On the other hand, an EDS would likely require more strict regulations and more frequent and tighter checks on growth and development than a TDS. Again, if projections/forecasts and a time horizon and corresponding event benchmank are not well determined or accurate, then reassessments may be required more frequently. Despite the apparent need for more resources to run the EDS, a more continual monitoring system is optimal, as problems will be averted more quickly. But again, the question of available resources arises. If a smaller community suddenly begins growing rapidly and is questioning how to grow sustainably what would be the best and most imperative tools to use given limitations of budgeting and staff?

--Andrea T.

I believe both of these systems would yield similar results. The TDS is slower to react to changes as Justin mentions but that also could benefit smart growth and curbing sprawl if the developable land is being consumed very quickly. Under the EDS, the UGB can be expanded much quicker which may not benefit compact development. I also agree with Erin's point that housing prices are a big factor which is why I favor the EDS. The flexibility of the EDS allows for added capacity in the event that additional building comes quicker than expected. Under the TDS, the UGB could be built upon quicker than expected which would raise housing prices for everyone within the boundary (to the detriment of lower income groups). TDS would be able to respond less quickly to this.

I believe both of these systems would yield similar results. The TDS is slower to react to changes as Justin mentions but that also could benefit smart growth and curbing sprawl if the developable land is being consumed very quickly. Under the EDS, the UGB can be expanded much quicker which may not benefit compact development. I also agree with Erin's point that housing prices are a big factor which is why I favor the EDS. The flexibility of the EDS allows for added capacity in the event that additional building comes quicker than expected. Under the TDS, the UGB could be built upon quicker than expected which would raise housing prices for everyone within the boundary (to the detriment of lower income groups). TDS would be able to respond less quickly to this.

Event triggering sounds a little bit futuristic for me. We don't nearly have the GIS capability for a regional assessment of land and demographic changes. And collected data on land transactions takes 2-3 years to go from state agency to the public. Similarly most uncontrolled growth is occuring outside standard definitions of metropolitan areas. Nonetheless, even if event triggering were feasible to manage, I dislike its approach. To set arbitrary numbers is not good policy because it remains generally inflexible to changing times. Thresholds often do not correlate. Developers might also "game" the system, creating the illusion of demand. I feel the time-driven method, while the only one left, offers the chance for more comprehensive evaluation. It also tends to pull away from operating within "free market" parameters so as not to prematurely expand the UGB.

Justin makes an interesting point that growth evaluation should be in real-time and inserted at every point of development. I think this would be very beneficial in a city that controlled the majority of the metropolitan's area. However regional affairs in a complicated metro as ours are competitive and not-so-nice. The Met Council prevails in mandating comprehensive plans every decade but does not have the administrative power to have enforcement on a regular basis.

Lastly addressing TDR, I find it appears only effective in emerging metropolitan areas where growth is not so strenuous as it is here.

Though it may sound redundant, I must agree with Kara and Sasha when they stated that the underlying development goals is the most important factor when considering the strengths and weaknesses of the two urban growth monitoring systems. When implementing a Time-Driven System, those involved in the planning process rely on time to dictate the growth of their community. Depending on certain cultural and economic drivers, that growth may crawl along over decades or explode at an alarming rate. Though it may seem a bit more complicated, I feel that Event-driven systems would allow increased monitoring and regulation from the planner’s standpoint. If asked to set a certain trigger threshold, a planning professional must consider the social and economic drivers as well as existing infrastructure. Environmental constraints must also be considered. Using a GIS, growth models may be constructed to forecast demographic fluctuations within a UGB.

I agree with many of the comments above that the time-driven system has the capacity to accommodate thoughtful land use. The 4-7 year timeline would allow a more considerate response to the pressures for development, avoiding an oversaturation of a "popular" development idea. Additionally, the time span between each assessment would allow for incorporation of additional data including between census information and market data. Four years is a surprisingly short period of time when considering that development allowed will affect a community for a far longer period.

I prefer the event-driven system because it is more adaptable to changing circumstances. A time-driven system is not structured to take into account such contingencies as a slow-down in the development market. A time-driven system would not adjust to such an event, and might result in extending the UGB before sufficient land within the boundary has been developed.

Also, in both cases, the effectiveness of the UGB depends on providing a strict limit on the amount of develop-able land.

I agree with others that both of these systems would produce similar results. On the same note, I’m wary of time driven systems as developers may simply just wait. Of course, developers may also just go outside the boundary and create leap-frog development. I favor event driven systems because they seem to be more tailored to specific growth, ie.) if a very large development wanted to come in, time may not be a hindrance.

A time driven model allows for periodic analysis of on a determined schedule. The advantage of having such a system would be that expansions are made with proper review and discussion. However, if it is continually being expanded, there is a little less incentive to develop with more density the closer towards the boundary because a developer knows that if they wait a few more years the amount of land available for them will increase and development will still be spreading outward instead of upward and in higher densities. A event based could solve that problem. Developer would not know when the next expansion would happen so they would have to be developing according to the current standards. Pace and density of development could be controlled and prevent just a low density development taking up land just so the boundary would be expanded. The problem is how to determine the level at which the trigger should be set.

The very concept of UGB is very fascinating to me..."No rampant horizantal development". Whether TDS or EDS, I think it depends on the present size of city, its land use pattern and pace of development. If the city is already of metropolitan size, it should set TDS as a condition of UGB. This way, its growth an development can be better managed as the planners and planning mechanism can pace up with the development pace. As Josh cites "A time driven model allows for periodic analysis of on a determined schedule. The advantage of having such a system would be that expansions are made with proper review and discussion."
On the other hand, if it's a small but rapidly growing city, the event-driven system would be more beneficial for considering any expansion of UGB. The developers and planners in a fastly developing city might not like the idea of tapping the resources and keeping the pace of land development demands with social and economic development taking place in the city.


The problem with the time-driven system UBG is that it may more often than not be forced to expand a boundary that may no longer be feasible economically or environmentally. The new boundary may be forced to expand with a density that is far too low and use land inefficiently for a development project or a series of development projects. Or the density rules may be so restrictive as to prevent new population growth to support new economic growth. The advantage of the time driven system is that it limits sprawl over a predictable time, by spreading out, the resources for infrastructure across a metro area. This may give the metro area time to determine how it best sustains its future infrastructure development. The problem with this again is the density requirements can change over time affecting development requirements.

An event-driven system, can be set to encourage developers to use the land more efficiently when they have a set limit of land to develop. This can be an effective control strategy. The problem may occur when the economy and population demands a very rapid expansion. Developers and residents may be forced to locate in other regions since the area of developable land is not available. This could cause the local economy to lose employment and population relative to other regions if the level cannot be reset. A balanced combination of the two systems time & event-driven might work best together, but this would involve considerably realistic and accurate population growth estimates.

Some of the factors to consider for event-driven system reorder trigger may be: 1) The population growth rate forecast, 2) the economic growth rate forecast, 3) infrastructure costs in relation to inner city to infrastructure costs of expansion outside the new UGB. 4) Who will pay for the new infrastructure and pay to maintain existing infrastructure? 5) What resources are available if the event-reorder system is expanded? 6) Do a cost benefit analysis of what will benefit most and suffer least; the economy, environment and/or residents well being.

On the one hand, as others have stated, the event driven system allows for periodic review of the policy. However, as I believe Adam pointed out, a developer may simply wait for the next review period. Also, constant review opens up the policy to constant lobbying from foes and friends of the policy alike. Endless "tweaking" may cause the actual boundary to stray from the original goals.

The event driven model creates a tighter reign on the boundary it seems, preventing developers from "running out the clock" by waiting to make their case at the next review. At the same time, if the reorder level is set to low, land values may wind up artificially inflated. If set too high, sprawl may still wind up occurring.

Even still, I would favor the event driven system. It creates a clear land market for developers to work within and may be more effective at encouraging developers to focus on the parcels available now as opposed to those that may open up in X number of years.

Both options can lead to deficiencies in urban expansion. The TDS may err based on inappropriate and discrete timing of expansion, not syncing well with the proper rate of economic expansion in the region. However, the EDS approach, while allowing for more appropriate and adjustable growth rates, may be seen as an impractical and resource-consuming endeavor.

In a large metropolitan area, density studies are an ever-dynamic target. Much of the contention around the event-driven system may come from debated studies that contest that a density has been reached that requires a larger Urban Growth Boundary. The economic and resource investment required to maintain an accurate figure for overall density may prove to outweigh the benefits of a more sensitive growth boundary.

Time driven systems seem better at controlling for different economies during market cycles. They are re-evaluated and driven by development over time but are not necessarily triggered by a quantity of land that is developed. These systems allow for developments to either grow into fruition or to fail. I believe this to be the better system.

Event driven systems seem more based on quantity which seems to me to be a little bit risky especially given the current economy. If the land amount size is triggered and the development flops then one may have more developable land on their hands than intended. That situation does not seem ideal for limiting sprawl opportunities. If I were to set a trigger level for event driven systems it would be one that considers land density rather than occupied or unoccupied land use. Also, it would have to consider congestion within a cities transit and automobile system before the trigger could be set off and more land released for development.

Michelle K wrote:
I feel like the TDS shows greater teeth in regards to curbing development, and encouraging dense development over urban sprawl. My concern with EDS is determining whether it is effective at development control, especially if more land can be added once the size of developable acreage falls below the reorder trigger level. I am not sure if this process encourages dense development over urban sprawl. I do like the flexibility of the EDS, because there are significant benefits to development and you would hate to say no to a project because you cannot evaluate the TDS for another year.


I agree with Michelle - that TDS does show a marginally stronger policy against sprawl. TDS encourages planners to look at inner city development as a real possibility since time is money and some developments may rely on expansion from a review. I cannot seem to see the control mechanism in EDS.

I think in reviewing for expanding the boundaries, population growth and cohort analysis is important, but also it is good to reevaluate other policies, like school placement and space requirements - can they be reduced? Or inner city multi-use renovation. Also, transportation, can some existing districts become more attractive simply with greater access or mobility? In a discussion about urban boundaries, a detailed analysis of what already exists - limitations and possibilities - within the boundaries needs to be completed prior.

Hey how are you doing? I just wanted to stop by and say that it's been a pleasure reading your blog. I have bookmarked your website so that I can come back & read more in the future as well. plz do keep up the quality writing

Dont know if you will find the humor in this but I was searching for information on a research paper about TD Ameritrade and somehow from clicking through several links I stumbled into your blog here. While not at all relevent to what I was searching for, your post was interesting enough for me to not click back right away. Just wanted to comment before leaving to let you know that the internet is a weird place and you are getting visitors from places I'll bet you never thought possible. Thanks.

I'm taking a similar course right now at SMU. This info was very helpful for my final. Thanks for sharing

What a blog! I in reality like how it is organized. I am asking myself how I might be informed whenever there's something new on here. I have saved your site thank you!

Kudos to you! This is a really good blog here and I love your style of writing. How did you get so good at blogging?

This is the best blog I've ever seen in my life! I really appreciate you taking the time out of your busy day to share your this with everyone.

Interesting thoughts here. I appreciate you taking the time to share them with us all. It's people like you that make my day :)

Thanks very good for report, I follow your blog. this is a great article!

Bank foreclosures are homes that were taken by the bank after the original owners of the properties were unable to pay the taxes for their house. These properties are sold publicly so that the bank can collect the money so i have all the banks website it’s free no sign up go get it if you have money and good credit. visit http://eliverealty.com/LA-Provencal.htm

I was honestly amazed with how well this blog was done, beautiful layout, professional writing, great job! :)

Ok ive made my decision, im subscribing, this is awesome, keep it comin.

Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it's rare to see a nice blog like this one these days.. :)

Interesting thoughts here. I appreciate you taking the time to share them with us all. It's people like you that make my day :)

I would like to start my own blog one day. This was a really nice blog that you made here.Howd u do it?

Wow whered you go to college Harvard, lol, newayz your a great writer, any tips?

thanksfor the read I enjoyed it and find your comments really insightful u've given me a lot of ideas.

thankyoufor the read I liked it. I really love the way your blog is laid out too.

thanksfor the read I liked it. I really love the way your blog is laid out too.

I am impressed, your writing skills and the layout on your blog is most informative.

Dude this blog rules i cant believe i finally found what i was looking for, thanks bro.

Dude this blog rules i cant believe i finally found what i was looking for, thanks bro.

I must have your layout tell me where you got it PLEEEAAAASSSEE!!

I love the expression. Everyone needs to express there own opinion and feel free to hear others. Keep it up :)

Interesting thoughts on your blog, can i ask where you got your colors from?

Howdy are using Wordpress for your blog platform? I'm new to the blog world but I'm trying to get started and create my own. Do you require any coding expertise to make your own blog? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Awesome site you have here but I was wanting to know if you knew of any community forums that cover the same topics discussed here? I'd really like to be a part of online community where I can get advice from other experienced individuals that share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Thanks a lot!

Nice piece. I will "favorite" this for future enjoyment. However, I am worried by your second point. In my analyses this is not ususally the case. I fear you have overreached in yourself on weak sources.

I've had irritating instructors on both sides of the aisle. dumb Conservatives do just as piss-poor a job as crappy Liberals.

Wow, incredible weblog structure! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging glance easy. The overall glance of your site is great, let alone the content material!

According to me a complex character has layers that unfold and reveal his or her personality and background as the story evolves.

Do you think I could use the information for my website. You can be sure I'll post a link back to this page, and I definitely wont copy the whole thing word for word. I just want to use what you have here to talk about. Please notify and and let me know.

Bra line up. Vi kommer att länka till denna stora artikeln på vår webbplats. Fortsätt med det bra att skriva.

Great! I should certainly say cause I'm impressed with your web site. I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs as well as related info ended up being truly easy to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it in the least. Reasonably unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or anything, web site theme . a tones way for your client to communicate. Nice task..

Hi how you doing today? I'm sending you this because I am offering you a once in a year deal. I offer this once a year to everyone. It is SEO. Everyone needs SEO (search Engine Optimization) Done to there websites. It's a must have if you want your site to rank. So for the next couple days I'm offering a package of $200 a month. This is good because most SEO firms will charge you at least $400 to start. Go look around. Some of them want another $400 just to set it up! So Take a look at what I have to OFFER! You will see results I guarentee it!

Hi i'm from holland, but here i learn a lot, good job

hi how are you, this is good.

hi, do you have some new article in live

My partner and I absolutely love your blog and find almost all of your post's to be exactly I'm looking for. can you offer guest writers to write content for you? I wouldn't mind composing a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you write regarding here. Again, awesome web site!

Hello there,You have a wonderful Website. Will be back to check it out again soon. Till than have a great day!

Yours Sincerly,
Internet Marketing Company

Thanks for the tips…! but i agree wiyh mohit so hard got any comments on my post.

I truly appreciate this post. I have been looking all over for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing. You have made my day! Thank you again! "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." by Friedrich Nietzsche.

I like this web blog very much so much great info . "The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid." by Art Spander.

I like Your Article about Time-Driven System vs. Event-Driven System in Land Monitoring - Course Blog for PA5211: Land Use Planning Perfect just what I was looking for! .

I agree with your Time-Driven System vs. Event-Driven System in Land Monitoring - Course Blog for PA5211: Land Use Planning, excellent post.

I agree with your Time-Driven System vs. Event-Driven System in Land Monitoring - Course Blog for PA5211: Land Use Planning, wonderful post.

Regards for this marvellous post, I am glad I discovered this internet site on yahoo.

The very core of your writing whilst sounding reasonable at first, did not really work perfectly with me after some time. Someplace throughout the paragraphs you were able to make me a believer but just for a short while. I nevertheless have a problem with your leaps in logic and you would do well to fill in all those breaks. In the event that you can accomplish that, I would surely be impressed.

Hello! Would you mind if I share your post with my squidoo group? There's a lot of readers that I think would really appreciate your content because this item is exactly what they are interested in. Please let me know if you have any reservations. Thanks

Hi, i believe that i noticed you visited my site thus i came to “return the choose”.I am attempting to to find issues to enhance my site!I guess its adequate to use some of your ideas!!

You got it all correct, I'm agree with the information. Very goodwork, thank you for this. greetings

Powered by Movable Type 4.31-en

Pages

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by yingling published on September 15, 2009 9:28 AM.

Market adjusts future needs, why making land use plans? was the previous entry in this blog.

No Blogging Request in Week #4 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.