4 ms·
The article doesn't talk about quality of life at all, phrasing everything in terms of housing prices. > "Disbursing some of the tax revenue earned as a result
by greeneggs 11y ago
The article doesn't talk about quality of life at all, phrasing everything in terms of housing prices.
> "Disbursing some of the tax revenue earned as a result of new development to landowners within a small area around that development to compensate for short-term hardship would reduce opposition to new building."
With 5x as many people, traffic in the Bay Area would be 100x worse.
Or, say you magically install a perfect public transportation system. Still, are you going to clear 5x as much land for parks? (No.) Where are you going to find five Muir Woods?
I don't want to live in Manhattan. The basic problem is overpopulation. Even if we relaxed rules to allow denser construction, you'll just have the same problem again in a decade or two. (How much denser can you make Manhattan?) But with a lower quality of life for everyone.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago> The basic problem is overpopulation. This is farcical. The basic problem cannot possibly be overpopulation in a country with as much land per person as the United States of America. There's a contradiction here: you want a very, very active economy, but you don't want the population required to sustain that economy. You can't be rich without servants, and you can't have industries without workers. How do you propose to run tech companies with even fewer people per dollar-of-revenue than they already employ?