3 ms·
While the author of the linked article does not mention your points specifically, he doesn’t exclude them either. The article is about the cost of things like
by csa 6y ago
While the author of the linked article does not mention your points specifically, he doesn’t exclude them either.
The article is about the cost of things like cul de sacs. I imagine the author is fine with neighborhoods wanting and keeping their cul de sacs... they will just need to pay for their development and maintenance with an appropriate tax.
I think that’s reasonable.
“... a possible short-term solution might be a suburb use tax: the less dense or farther out your subdivision is, the higher surcharge you pay on your property tax, based on a sliding scale. This would not be a penalty on suburban living per se but rather a plan to ensure that the people that get to enjoy the “benefits” of it should pay for it.”
- toomuchtodo 6y agoThat’s not an urban planning issue, that’s a local government and tax policy issue. Density for some, sprawl for others, as long as everyone is paying for the costs they incur.
- csa 6y agoUrban planning, government, and tax issues are interdependent.
- acdha 6y agoThat’s like a programmer saying performance is somebody’s else’s problem. Just as we have to balance what we can develop and operate, an urban planner has to work within the constraints of a budget. This writer is making the case for taxes to do exactly what you propose to ensure that people aren’t expecting their choices to be subsidized by everyone else.