3 ms·
> often on a ring road built specifically to avoid the city I wonder who financed the ring road. Curious that we don't build ring roads where there's no cities
by ajuc 5y ago
> often on a ring road built specifically to avoid the city
I wonder who financed the ring road. Curious that we don't build ring roads where there's no cities.
> If the only “new” penalty is they can’t go see the pro sports team in person without paying a lot of taxes
The new penalty should be "you want to live in 100 km radius of a city - you chip in for infrastructure it builds the more the further you are". It's no accident that suburbanization doesn't happen in areas where there are no big cities nearby.
> Plenty of people want to live in the suburbs precisely because they want nothing to do with the city center.
Sadly you can't have suburbs without a city center somewhere nearby.
- sokoloff 5y ago> I wonder who financed the ring road. In the US, that’s overwhelmingly the federal government, not local property or state sales/income taxes. > Curious that we don't build ring roads where there's no cities. Indeed. Perhaps the city residents should chip in more because of the need to build a ring road to avoid them? Or maybe, just maybe, different choices have different cost pros and cons and taking a simple, single-variable view isn’t rich enough to capture the whole situation. (pun intended). > The new penalty should be "you want to live in 100 km radius of a city - you chip in for infrastructure it builds the more the further you are". I’d wager that suburbs, villages, and small towns 101-125km away would boom under such a plan.
- Macha 5y ago> In the US, that’s overwhelmingly the federal government, not local property or state sales/income taxes. With the way internal US wealth transfers work, that's basically a way of saying "dense city livers somewhere else" rather than it being suburbs US-wide paying for each other.