4 ms·
If you don't want to live in a city, don't. But trying to play 'suburb' in an area where many people would like to live is pretty conceited, and does cost a ton
by davidw 7y ago
If you don't want to live in a city, don't. But trying to play 'suburb' in an area where many people would like to live is pretty conceited, and does cost a ton of money:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/05/the-urban-housing-crunch-costs-the-us-economy-about-16-trillion-a-year/393515/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/05/the-urban-housing-cru...
- scarface74 7y agoWell. Maybe I would like to live in the center of Manhattan. That doesn’t mean that it’s the city’s responsibility to make that happen.
- davidw 7y agoThe very least they could do is not actively try and prevent it though. Which is exactly what places like Palo Alto do.
- sokoloff 7y agoSome people, including myself, think that it's reasonable for the residents of Palo Alto to have more say over the local policies and goings-on in the town than non-residents.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- scarface74 7y agoWhy? Why shouldn’t residents be able to decide the living characteristics of their own city? There is plenty of land in the US. If prices are too high to afford to live there, residents will start moving and businesses move with them or vice versa. More businesses will start expanding to lower cost of living areas.
- masonic 7y agoThere's acres and acres of completely undeveloped land in Stanford. Why do they get a pass? And they continue to build a disproportionate amount of square footage that is not housing, worsening the housing shortage in the area.