The World population in 1950 was 2.5 billion, in 2022, it is 8 billion. The American population in 1950 was 151, 325, 798, in 2022 332,403,650. With this rapid expansion in humanaity, it is also important to consider their strain on the natural environment and promote birth control in the developed and undeveloped World. The mental health industry is overloaded, and many people are showing sighs of mental disorder, not only due to rising cost, but also because the planet is over populated. In diagnosing mental disorder and following its hospital course, psychiatrists typically cite aspects of the patient’s behaviour that are “inappropriate in the situation.” Since this special kind of misconduct is believed to provide one obvious sign of “mental sickness,” psychiatrists have given much time to these improprieties, developing the orientation and observational skills needed to study them, describe them in detail, seeking to understand their meaning for the patient, and obtaining a mandate to discuss them in the academic press—a mandate required because many of these delicts are petty, embarrassing, or messy. We sociologists should be grateful for this harvest, all the more so because it has been brought in by delicate hands. We can express our gratitude by trying to appropriate the yield for our own market, offering in exchange some observations about social situations that we appropriated long ago from anthropology. By and large, the psychiatric study of situational improprieties has led to studying the offender rather than the rules and social circles that are offended. Through such studies, however, psychiatrists have inadvertently made us more aware of an important area of social life—that of behaviour in public and semipublic places. Although this area has not been recognized as a special domain for sociological inquiry, it perhaps should be, for rules of conduct in streets, parks, restaurants, theaters, shops, dance floors, meeting halls, and other gathering places of any community tell us a great deal about its most diffuse forms of social organization. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Sociology does not provide a ready framework that can order these data, let alone show comparisons and continuities with behaviour in private gathering places such as offices, factory floors, living rooms, and kitchens. To be sure, one part of “collective behaviour”—riots, crowds, panics—has been established as something to study. However, the remaining part of the area, the study of ordinary human traffic and the patterning of ordinary social contacts, has been little considered. It is well recognized, for instance, that mobs can suddenly emerge from the peaceful flow of human traffic, if conditions are right. Yet, little concern seems to have been given to the question of what structure this peaceful intercourse possesses when mob formation is not an issue. Some data have been drawn from a study of a mental hospital (hereafter called Central Hospital), some from a study of a Shetland Island community (hereafter called Shetland Isle), some from manuals of etiquette, and some from a file where I keep quotations that have struck me as interesting. The issue with disapproved behaviour is the strength of approval for upholding. Some approved acts receive applause upon performance, as when heroism or very great skill is displayed, and sometime so do bad actions. Furthermore, some acts pass quite unnoticed and do not constitute a felt event, as when an American high-school girl refrains from wearing nylon hose with her saddle shoes but wears bobby socks instead. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

A second variable has to do with the consequence of failing to uphold the rule. At one extreme are acts, neither demanded nor expected, that are rarely performed. At the other extreme are mandatory acts such as the paying of fines, where failure to comply may lead to jail. Between these extremes are “tolerated” acts, which are specifically noted with only an inhibited frown, constituting offenses that the offended person, given the setting, is obligated to let pass. In can be seen, then, how much mischief may be done by equating two situations because the same act is “approved” in each, since approval itself can mean significantly different things.  In the social sciences, when it comes to the “closed natural system,” such a system of concrete behaviour involves a differentiation of activities whose integration, one with another, allows for the emergence of over-all functions maintained through an equilibrium of interaction of the component activities. Presumably, the equilibrium can be different kinds—self-corrective, moving, and the like. A social order may be defined as the consequence of any set of moral norms that regulates the way in which persons pursue objectives. The set of norms does not specify the objectives the participants are to seek, nor the pattern formed by and through the coordination or integration of these ends, but merely the modes of seeking them. Traffic rules and the consequent traffic order provide an obvious example. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

Any social system or any game may be viewed quite properly as an instance of social order, although the perspective of social order does not allow us to get at what is characteristically systemic about systems or what is gamelike about games. There appear to be many types of social order, of which the legal order and the economic order are important examples. Within each such order, mere behaviour is transformed into a corresponding type of conduct. Particular in accordance with the regulations of more than one of these orders. The most important type of regulation is the kind that governs a person’s handling of one’s self and others by virtue of one’s immediate physical presence among them in what is called face-to-face or immediate interaction. The term “public” is of extreme importance. The norms supporting public order, as public order is traditionally defined, regulate not only immediate interaction but also matters that need not entail immediate contact between persons: for example, during medieval times, the obligation (often ill sustained) to keep one’s pigs out of the streets, even though there was much available there for pigs to eat, and the obligation to extinguish lights and fires by a given hour least the town be endangered by fire. Nowadays, householder is obligated to maintain one’s walks and roads in good repair and to keep one’s town land free of noxious refuse. In addition, public order traditionally refers more to the regulation of immediate inter-acquainted than it does to interaction occurring in private walled-in places where only families meet. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Traditionally, “public places” refer to any regions in a community freely accessible to members of that community; “private places” refer to soundproof regions where only members or invitees gather—the traditional concern for the public order beginning only at the point where a private gathering begins to obtrude upon the neighbours. Behaviour plays a role in the physical traffic among people. Although it may be felt that this involves conduct of little weight, a matter merely of etiquette and manners, it is implied that for though generosity, loyalty, and moral courage are without doubt nobler and more praiseworthy qualities than charm and courtesy, nevertheless polite habits and a correct manner of speech and behaviour may benefit those who possess them no less than a noble spirit and a stout heart benefits others. For since each one of us is daily obliged to meet other people and converse with them, we need to use our manners many times each day. However, justice, fortitude, and the other virtues of the higher and nobler sort are needed less frequently. We are not required to practice generosity or mercy at all hours, nor could any man do so very often. Similarly, those who are endowed with courage and strength are seldom called upon to show their valour by their deeds. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

There are many social settings that persons of certain status are forbidden to enter. Here an effort to prevent penetration of ego-boundaries, contamination by undesirables, and physical assault seems to be involved. Rules of trespass, for example, prevent unauthorized individuals from entering a private dwelling place at any time, and a semiprivate one during off hours. Less familiar are the many rulings that restrict the right to be present in open, unwalled public places: in nineteenth-century London, for example, the exclusion of common people from riding promenades such as Rotten Row; in Islamic cities built on quartier basis, the restriction of persons to their own neighbourhood after dark; the temporary prohibitions, during periods of martial law, upon being about after dark; evening curfews making it illegal for youths below a certain age to be about without the company of an adult; boarding-school rulings about late-hour presence on town streets; military rulings placing certain areas out of bounds or off limits for categories of personnel; informal police rulings requiring night-tomes racial segregation on public streets in designated areas of the city. Where these rules or exclusion exist, it is plain that the individual’s mere presence, regardless of one’s conduct while present, communicates either that one possesses the entrance qualifications or that one is behaving improperly. Here we find one motive for either wanting to enter a particular place or wanting not to be seen in it. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

In many social situations certain categories of persons may not be authorized to be present, and that should they be present, this in itself will constitute an improper act. Common sense, however, also has something to say about those who are authorized to be present. The rule of behaviour that seems to be common to all situations and exclusive to them is the rule obliging participants to “fit in.” The words one applies to a child on one’s first trip to a restaurant presumably hold for everyone all the time: the individual must be “good” and not cause a scene or a disturbance; one must not attract undue attention to oneself, either by thrusting one’s self on the assembled company or by attempting to withdraw too much from their presence. One must keep within the spirit or ethos of the situation; one must not be de trop or out of place. Occasions may even arise when the individual will be called upon to act as if one fitted into the situation when in fact one and some of the others present know this is not the case; out of regard for harmony in the scene one is required to compromise and endanger oneself further by putting on an air of one who belongs when it can be shown that one does not. If you should happen to be paying an evening visit at a house, where, unknown to you, there is a small party assembled, you should enter and present yourself precisely as you would have done had you been invited. To retire precipitately with an apology for the intrusion would create a scene, and be extremely awkward. Go in, therefor, converse with ease for a few moments, and then retire. Take care to let it be known the next day, in such a way as that the family shall hear of it, that you were not aware that there was company there. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

No doubt different social groupsings vary in the explicitness with which their members think in such terms, as well as in the phrases selected for doing so, but all groupings presumably have some concern for “fitting in.” The notion of “fitting in” relates to another bit of common sense: what is proper in one situation may certainly not be proper in another. The underlying general sentiment possessed by the individual—where in fact one has one—may have to give way to the requirements of the situation. This theme appears in social science literature in the form of “situational determinism,” for example, in race relations studies, where it is pointed out that castelike taboos in one sphere of life can exist alongside equalitarianism in other spheres, although the same set of persons is involved. However, here surely is the beginning of inquiry, not the end. Although an individual may conduct oneself in a particular way solely because of the felt pressure of propriety, this merely tells us about one possible motive for conforming. We still do not know why this particular form of conduct is the one here approved—namely, how the riling arose historically, and what its current social function is. To approach these issues, it is necessary to turn to a more roundabout analysis. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

We must ask ourselves what our chances actually are. We must discover in ourselves functions and manifestations which we can, to a certain extent, control, and we must exercise this control, trying to increase it as much as possible. For instance, we have a certain control over our movements, and in many schools, particularly in the East, work on oneself begins with acquiring as full a control over movements as possible. However, this needs special training, very much time, and the study of very elaborate exercises. Under the conditions of modern life we have more control over our thoughts, and in connection with this there is a special method by which we may work on the development of our consciousness using that instrument which is most obedient to our will; that is, our mind, or the intellectual center. You must try to remember that we have no control over our consciousness. When I have said that we can become more conscious, or that a man can be made conscious for a moment simply by asking him if he is conscious our not, I used the word “conscious” or “consciousness” in a relative sense. There are so many degrees of consciousness and every higher degree means “consciousness” in a relative sense. There are so many degrees of consciousness and every higher degree means “consciousness” in relation to a lower degree. However, if we have no control over consciousness itself, we have a certain control over our thinking about consciousness, and we can construct our thinking in such a way as to bring consciousness. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

By giving our thoughts the direction which they would have in a moment of consciousness, we can, in this way, induce consciousness. Now try to formulate what you noticed when you tried to observe yourself. You noticed three things. First that you do not remember yourself; that is, that you are not aware of yourself at the time when you try to observe yourself. Second, that observation is made difficult by the incessant stream of thoughts, images, echoes of conversation, fragments of emotions, flowing through your mind and very often distracting your attention from observation. And third, that the moment you start self-observation something in you starts imagination, and self-observation, if you really try it, is a constant struggle with imagination. If one realized that all the difficulties in the work depend on the fact that one cannot remember oneself, one already knows what one must do. One must try to remember oneself. In order to do this one must struggle with mechanical thoughts, and one must struggle with imagination. If one does this conscientiously and persistently one will see results in a comparatively short time. However, one must not think that it is easy or that one can master this practice immediately. Self-remembering, as it is called, is a very difficult thing to learn to practice. It must not be based on an expectation of results, otherwise one can identify with one’s efforts. It must be based on the realization of the fact that we do not remember ourselves, and that at the same time we can remember ourselves if we try sufficiently hard and in the right way. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

We cannot become conscious at will, at the moment when we want to, because we have no command over states of consciousness. However, we can remember ourselves for a short time at will, because we have a certain command over our thoughts. And if we start remembering ourselves, by the special construction of our thoughts—that is, by the realization that we do not remember ourselves, that nobody remembers oneself, and by realizing all that this means—this will bring us to consciousness. You must remember that we have found the weak spot in the walls of our mechanicalness. This is the knowledge that we do not remember ourselves; and the realization that we can try to remember ourselves. Up to this moment our task has only been self-study. Now, with the understanding of the necessity for actual chance in ourselves, work begins. Later on you will learn that the practice of self-remembering, connected with self-observation and with the struggle against imagination, has not only a psychological meaning, but it also changes the subtlest part of our metabolism and produces definite chemical, or perhaps it is better to say alchemical, effects in our body. So today from psychology we have come to alchemy; tht is, to the idea of the transformation of coarse elements into finer ones. It will be objected that this idea—history as comparative history—is too abstract for students to grasp. However, that is one of the several reasons why comparative history should be taught. To know oneself is to know one’s history. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

To teach the past simply as a chronicle of indisputable, fragmented, and concrete events is to replicate the bias of Technopoly, which largely denies our youth access to concepts and theories, and to provide them only with a stream of meaningless events. That is why the controversies that develop around what events ought to be included in the “history” curriculum have a somewhat hollow ring to them. Some people urge, for example, that the Holocaust, or Stalin’s bloodbaths, or the trail of Indian tears be taught in school. Although our students should know about such things, we must still address the question, “What is it that we want them to ‘know’ about these events? Are they to be explained as the “maniac” theory of history? Are they to be understood as illustrations of the “banality of evil” or the “law of survival”? Are they manifestations of the universal force of economic greed? Are they examples of the workings of human nature? Whatever events may be included in the study of the past, the worst thing we can do is to present them devoid of the coherence that a theory or theories can provide—that is to say, s meaningless. This, we can be sure, Technopoly does daily. The history teacher must go far beyond the “event” level into the realm of concepts, theories, hypotheses, comparisons, deductions, evaluations. The idea is to raise the level of abstraction at which “history” is taught. This idea would apply to all subjects, including science. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

From the point of view of the ascent of humanity, the scientific enterprise is one of our most glorious achievements. On humanity’s Judgement Day we can be expected to speak almost at once of our science. I have already stressed the importance of teaching the history of science in every science course, but this is no more important than teaching its “philosophy.” I mention this with some sense of despair. More than half of the high schools in the United States of America do not even offer one course in physics. And at a rough guess, I would estimate that in 90 percent of the schools chemistry is still taught as if students were being trained to be druggists. To suggest, therefore, tht science is an exercise in human imagination, that is something quite different from technology, that there are “philosophies” of science, and that all of this ought to form part of a scientific education, is to step out of the mainstream. However, I believe it nonetheless. Would it be an exaggeration to say not one student in fifty knows what “induction” means? Or knows what a scientific theory is? Or a scientific model? Or knows what are the optimum conditions of a valid scientific experiment? Or has ever considered the question of what scientific truth is? The Identity of Man Bronowski says the following: “This is the paradox of imagination in science, that it has for its aim the impoverishment of imagination. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

“By that outrageous phrase, I mean that the highest flight of scientific imagination is to weed out the proliferation of new ideas. In science, the grand view is miserly view, and a rich model of the Universe is one which is as poor as possible in hypotheses.” Is there one student in a hundred who can make any sense out of this statement? Though the phrase “impoverishment of imagination” may be outrageous, there is nothing startling or even unusual about the idea contained in this quotation. Every practicing scientists understands what Bronowski is saying. Yet it is kept a secret from out students. It should be revealed. In addition to having each science course include a serious historical dimension, I would propose that every school—elementary through college—offer and require a course in the philosophy of science. Such a course should consider the language of science. Such a course should consider the language of science, the nature of scientific proof, the source of scientific hypotheses, the role of imagination, the conditions of experimentation, and especially the vale of error and disproof. Many people still believe that what makes a statement scientific is that it can be verified. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case: What separates scientific statements from nonscientific statements is that the former can be subjected to the test of falsifiability. What makes science possible is not our ability to recognize “truth” but our ability to recognize falsehood. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

What such a course would try to get at the notion that science is not pharmacy or technology or magic tricks but a special way of employing human intelligence. It would be important for student to learn that one becomes scientific not by donning a white coat (which is what television teaches) but by practicing a set of canons of thought, many of which have to do with the disciplined use of language. Science involves a method of employing language that is accessible to everyone. The ascent of humanity has rested largely on that. Not all games have dominant strategies, even for one player. In fact, dominance is the exception rather than the rule. Although the presence of a dominant strategy leads to very simple rules for action, these rules are inapplicable to many actual games. Other principles must then be brought into action. Just as a dominant strategy is uniformly better than every other strategy, a dominated strategy is uniformly worse than some other strategy. Just as you choose your dominant strategy if you have one, and can be sure that your rival will choose his if he has one, you should avoid your dominated strategies if you have any, and can be sure that your rival will avoid his, if he has any. If you have just two alternative strategies, and one of them is dominated, then the other must be dominant. Therefore examples of avoiding dominated strategies that are genuinely different from those choosing dominant strategies must be based on games in which at least one side has at least three strategies. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

Today, as the super-symbolic economy develops, a new work regimen is once more supplanting an old one. In our remaining smokestack factories and offices, conditions today are still largely the same as they were decades ago. Around the World, and especially in the newly industrializing nations, hundreds of millions of workers are still chained to a Second Wave industrial discipline. And today, too, exactly as in the past, we still see employers underestimating the revolution taking place around them. They introduce computers and other advances, Third Wave technologies—but attempt to retain yesterday’s Second Wave work rules and power relationships. Trying to turn their employees into “electronic proles,” as George Orwell might have put it, they count keystrokes, monitor breaks, and listen on employee phone calls. They attempt to control the most minute details of the work process. These methods, characteristic of industrial work, are especially prevalent in the processing of insurance claim forms and routine data entry in other business. However, they can also be applied to higher-level work. According to a report by the U.S.A. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, they are “increasingly being directed to more skilled technical, professional and managerial positions. The jobs of commodities broker, computer programmer and bank loan officer could lend themselves to monitoring. How long such methods will pay off, however, remains doubtful, for the work rules of the past contradict the new possibilities brought by advanced technology. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

Wherever we see radical new technology and on an old work system, it is likely that the technology is misapplied and its real advantages wasted. History has shown repeatedly that truly advanced technologies require truly advanced work methods and organization. Employers today who still think they need electronic proles resemble those reactionary ironmasters and textile-mill owners who thought they could run the new stream-drive factories with methods designed for ox power. They either quickly corrected their mistake or were driven out of business by smarter competitors who learned out to reorganize the work process itself, matching the work regimen to the most advanced technologies of the time. Today in thousands of workplaces, from auto plants to offices, the smart companies are experimenting with, or actually exploiting, the new regimen. Its key characteristic is a changed attitude toward both knowledge and power. Today’s World economy is economically unrecognizable. Global output soared from $1.37 trillion in 1960 to $85.24 trillion U.S. dollars in 2019. And America’s role in the international money economy has changed dramatically. As Europe, China, and other regions have recovered over the years, they have become powerful competitors. As a result, the United States of America, instead of turning out 30 percent of the global output in the early 1950s, has seen its share drop to 21.5 percent. America commands far less of the global economy than it once did. The United States of America has been in relative decline for half century. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

Yet, if we look in absolute terms, we find a very different picture. From the 1960s, America’s absolute wealth—admittedly measures in conventional and inadequate economic metrics—has soared. The roughly $1.37 trillion it produced in 1960 (in adjusted dollars) had ballooned $13.8 trillion in 2022. Through figures on the contribution of knowledge-based technologies, processes, organization and culture are “soft” and controversial, the United States of America could not have sustained its competitive position in the World—militarily as well as economically—if it had remained solely an industrial power. Now would it face the backlash and incomprehension that confronts it today. By increasing the role of knowledge in business and the economy, the United States of America is simultaneously underlining the importance of culture and, implicitly, calling attention to the fact that some cultures are more conducive to productivity than others. And that takes us to a related accusation against the United States of America—globalization brings different cultures into closer and sometimes hostile contact. Moreover, people everywhere are complaining about homogenization—that everywhere one goes one sees that same Wal-Marts, the same McDonald’ses, the same Hollywood films and so on. Is this just American forcing its way down everyone’s throat, as its critics insist? Or is something else happening here? #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

The answer, as we have seen, is that there are two Americas. It is yesterday’s mass-production America, not tomorrow’s de-massified America, that we see reflected in the drive toward homogeneity. Mass production, as we have noted, provides economies of scale to those who make or sell the same one-size-fits-all product over and over again, with as little change as possible. The reason is that altering a traditional assembly-line product is inordinately expensive. Thousands of workers may be forced to stand around and wait as the line is retooled—while the clock ticks and overhead costs continue to pile up. By contrast, to chance a product on a “smart” assembly line may require little more than a few new lines of software code. All the workers may have to do is push a button. The result has been to make variety economical, as seen in the tremendous diversity of brands, types, models, sizes and materials on store shelves. In short, as the costs of customization decline toward zero, and as people become more individuated, the drive toward uniformity will be replaced by its opposite—increasing diversity. Because waves of change overlap and, even in the United States of America, the revolutionary wealthy system is not yet fully developed, the United States of America still exports and advertises mass products and services. However, increasingly it is shifting to mass customization on its way to fully de-massified output designed for increasingly individual customers. Once upon a time a coffee shop offered only one or two choices. Starbucks outlets may look homogeneous, but they now provide customizers with dozens of possible blends and varieties. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

Nike allows online customers to design their own sneakers, choosing among thousands of colour combination and adding their name or other words to the design. Enjoy M&Ms? You can now go online and put a short phrase on one side of your candy’s shell. Even the staid U.S.A. Post Office has experimented with allowing customers to put their own choice of a picture on the stamps they purchase—their baby’s face, for example. All these are halting steps toward truly personalized production—the opposite of the homogenization offered by industrial-era companies. A particularly interesting case is that of Spider-Man. When the America comic book based on that superhero was licensed for publication in India, the central characters and their backgrounds were altered to accommodate the religious sensitivities of Indian audiences. The hero was renamed so that Peter Parker the New York become Pavire Prabhkar of Mumbai. However, the more important change lay in the explanation of how Pavitr supposedly got his superhuman powers. While in the American version Peter’s capacities are enhanced by radio-active means, in India he is super-empowered by religious means. The hero gets his power from a yogi who performs a ritual on him…and the villain is a demon from the Hindu pantheon of gods. In short, cultural homogenization is the message of a fast-fading, mass production in America. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

Heterogeneity, de-massification and personalization are the messages of a fast-rising new America that both needs and breeds diversity. And not just in goods and comic books. Third Wave media also improve access to an endless diversity of ideas, values, lifestyles and points of view, including every conceivable political ideology and cultural variant. That is why China, for example, despites its twin-track strategy, is still censoring and manipulating what most of its citizens can receive on the Internet. The serious question today is not how much homogeneity the United States of America suppress. The United States of America may currently be the World’s sole superpower. However, it faces constraints and complexities no previous superpower confronted—or imagined. Acting in its own perceived—and often mis perceived—self-interest, the United States of America has, with the rise of revolutionary wealth, helped form a new, multi-level global order very different from the one its last-generation leaders anticipated. Start with the World’s new, unseen and unprecedented game of games. The future of revolutionary wealth in our pockets and on the planet will be determined not just by the interplay of markets. Who gets what and who makes what have never, except occasionally in theory, been determined by markets alone. Wealth everywhere is shaped by power, culture, politics and the state. At the World level in recent centuries, nations have been the primary actors, but that may change. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

Near the surface of the Earth, there is as much room underground as there is above it. This is usually ignored, because the room is full of dirt, rock, pressurized water, and the like. Digging is expensive. Digging long, deep tunnels is even more expensive. This expense, however, is mostly in the cost of equipment, materials, and energy. Tunneling machines are in wide use today, and molecular manufacturing can make them more efficient and less expensive. The energy to operate them will be no great problem, and smart materials can line tunnels as fast as they are dug, with little or no labour. Nanotechnology will open the lower frontier. With a little care, the environmental impact of a deep tunnel can be trivial. Instead of a solid rock far below the surface, there is rock with a sealed tunnel running through it. Nothing nearby need be disturbed. Tunnels avoid both the aesthetic impact of a sky full of noisy aircraft and the environmental impact of paving strips of landscape.  This will make them less expensive than roads, and they can, if desired, be more common than roads in the developed World today. They will even permit faster transportation. Japan and Germy are actively developing magnetic trains, like those in the Desert Rose scenario. These avoid the limitations of steel wheels on steel rails by using magnetic forces to “fly” the train along a special track. Magnetic forces to “fly” the train along a special track. Magnetic trains can reach aircraft speeds at ground level. On long runs through evacuated tunnels, they can reach spacecraft speeds, traveling global substantial acceleration).  Systems like this can give “taking the subway” a new meaning. Local transformation would be at fast automotive speeds, but long-distance transportation would be faster than the Concorde. With superconducting electrical systems, fast subways would be more energy-efficient than today’s slow mass transit. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Cresleigh Homes

There’s nothing like a move-in ready home! When you choose a homesite  #PlumasRanch Riverside, get ready to enjoy the best of this #CresleighHome development.

Not only does these homes maximize its single story space, it also sits squarely on one of the last cul-de-sac addresses in the neighborhood. It’s also adjacent to an orchard, and includes an upgraded wrought iron fence.

Many homes are ready for you! Give our office a call to take a 👀 peek: 530-870-8748. https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-meadows-at-plumas-ranch/