3 ms·
I support ending sprawl, but there are factors that drive people to it. (Perceived or real) * Quality of education for their children. * Privacy (space/sound
by mjevans 10y ago
I support ending sprawl, but there are factors that drive people to it. (Perceived or real)
* Quality of education for their children.
* Privacy (space/sound insulation)
* Nature (if you move far enough out, then wonder why wildlife 'invades')
* Investment (housing shouldn't be, but it is; also rent is too high)
- alkonaut 10y agoThe "let's move where schools are good" is just a self sustaining effect of some sprawling cities. In most countries "inner city kids" or "inner city schools" means the best schools with the richest kids. If the inner city is attractive then schools will be too. Not sure if you referred to nature as a net positive or negative? I have a forest an beach nearby (with the commute to suit my very reasonable price point). I think most wildlife is a positive.
- vostok 10y agoI mean, that's true in the US too if you look at schools like Stuyvesant or Trinity.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoSprawl is a reaction to land rents ( ala Ricardo ). It's really only bad in that it facilitates and encourages commuting. It could be at least partially addressed through the tax system - carbon taxes and land rents taxes combined would probably be enough.
- eru 10y agoLand rent taxes by themselves won't lower land rents that tenants have to pay. (They are exactly neutral, can't be passed on one way or another.) But they do allow to lower other taxes, and shift incentives away from NIMBYism that is currently blocking denser developments.
- golergka 10y ago> * Quality of education for their children. It's an american thing, without any objective reason. As a teenager, I had to commute for an hour (one way) from a distant neighbourhood to a good high school in the city center.