2 ms·
That's the whole point--the economics of urban, suburban, and rural areas vary widely. It doesn't make sense to impose policies which assume urban economics on
by throwaway894345 5y ago
That's the whole point--the economics of urban, suburban, and rural areas vary widely. It doesn't make sense to impose policies which assume urban economics on suburban and rural areas, but that's what tends to happen when you federalize things.
- Retric 5y agoEvery state has similar breakdowns so you can say the same thing at the state level. Alaska is thought of as open wilderness with 1.2 people per square mile, but 40% of the state live in inside Anchorage and 54% live in it’s metro area. That’s quite similar to New York State with 44% living inside NYC. So, I am not sure what you’re feeding about national policy here.
- throwaway894345 5y agoThat seems like a good argument in favor of localizing. I do agree that urbanization is increasingly presenting challenges with respect to governance at the state and federal levels, however. I think there are good reasons to push the responsibility up to the state level though—e.g., places with low density may lack the funds for even critical infrastructure and are too sensitive to small or short-lived fluctuations in population. But all states are collectively large enough to afford their own critical infrastructure.