3 ms·

This is one of the key points. The US isn't just spread-out but oriented to solving it's problem by spreading out more. And this paradigm has effectively become

This is one of the key points. The US isn't just spread-out but oriented to solving it's problem by spreading out more. And this paradigm has effectively become unsustainable. However, that's not the only factor at play here. Part of thing that makes spreading out the population look like a reasonable strategy is the mess involved in building in existing cities. A lot here is "soft" corruption - local government treats public grants as candy to give out to their friends and particular processes described in the article are just ways to do this.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
R0b0t1 5y ago
A lot of things appear unsustainable because the income of builders is inflated with fed money. I don't think much will improve until a normal person can afford to build a house again.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  I could can buy a kit for a 3 bedroom house for say, $35K or less. But PG&E charges $20K+ to connect your electricity, the fire department charges $20k+ assessments and etc, bringing construction costs to $200K in a rural area and more in an urban area. A lot of this is prop 13 bs - cities can't tax so they finance themselves with new home assessments. But prop 13 itself is all about protecting those who built yesterday from the costs of maintenance today. The thing is, those costs are real. The "a normal person can afford to build a house" isn't coming back. The single family home system has diseconomies of scale (roads and electricity get harder as the scale of suburbia increases, think about it). A modern society can't afford to do things that way and it's continuing by because those doing it are pushing the costs onto other people.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    Ah, I agree, but a lot of that is specific to CA. There has to be a way to fix it. Over regulation is a thing; a relative that is a civil PE related a story about how someone from CA was trying to push for these ultra-specific signoff requirements on buildings and everyone laughed at him.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

R0b0t1 5y ago

A lot of things appear unsustainable because the income of builders is inflated with fed money. I don't think much will improve until a normal person can afford to build a house again.

joe_the_user 5y ago
I could can buy a kit for a 3 bedroom house for say, $35K or less. But PG&E charges $20K+ to connect your electricity, the fire department charges $20k+ assessments and etc, bringing construction costs to $200K in a rural area and more in an urban area. A lot of this is prop 13 bs - cities can't tax so they finance themselves with new home assessments. But prop 13 itself is all about protecting those who built yesterday from the costs of maintenance today. The thing is, those costs are real. The "a normal person can afford to build a house" isn't coming back. The single family home system has diseconomies of scale (roads and electricity get harder as the scale of suburbia increases, think about it). A modern society can't afford to do things that way and it's continuing by because those doing it are pushing the costs onto other people.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  Ah, I agree, but a lot of that is specific to CA. There has to be a way to fix it. Over regulation is a thing; a relative that is a civil PE related a story about how someone from CA was trying to push for these ultra-specific signoff requirements on buildings and everyone laughed at him.