5 ms·

> It's pretty obvious that a lot of people want density Yes, but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. It's interesting th

by anamax 15y ago

> It's pretty obvious that a lot of people want density Yes, but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. It's always the city fans who can't tolerate folks who want something else. BTW - If you want high-density housing, you're going to have shared walls. It's unclear why you blame suburbs for that. > 4) Tying education and education funding to geographic location. That's actually less of an issue in densely populated areas, for somewhat obvious reasons. As to the "car subsidy" argument, every time I've checked the numbers presented by folks who claim it exists, I've found that their accounting is borderline fraudulent. Of course, they're typically just passing along numbers from someone else, but .... There is maybe one mass-transit system in the world that pays its operating costs and they all receive massive subsidies for capital expenditures, often from the gas tax....

Retric 15y ago
All things are not created equal. The single most environmentally friendly place to live in the US is downtown New York City. Yet we still feel the need to subsidize single family dwellings though a wide range of tax breaks and subsidies.
- anamax 15y ago
  > The single most environmentally friendly place to live in the US is downtown New York City. Not even close. Also, the vast majority of city dwellers go out of their way/pay extra to not live as environmentally efficiently as possible, so it's absurd to claim that environmental efficiency is the most important criteria. Suburbs provide some things far more efficiently than cities do. And, cities provide other things more efficiently. The fact that you value one set of things more than the other does not imply that your choice is correct.
philwelch 15y ago
It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. No, they just vote against spending any public money on things like public transit, or against raising car and gas taxes. If suburbians paid their own way I wouldn't mind them either.
- ryanjkirk 15y ago
  Why would anyone want to vote to spend money on anything that will be a net loss? Subsidizing public transportation is an economic drain on society. The correct answer is to have self-sustaining, profitable public transportation. This can only happen in cities with sufficient population density, such as NYC. Car and gas taxes? Tax the hell out of them, since the costs right now are so over-externalized. Eventually, that will start to force more population density, and then we can talk about sustainable public transportation.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    It's strange to argue against government spending on infrastructure on the premise that infrastructure should be profitable. Unless you have similar feelings about tolling the city street or privatizing the sidewalk, this isn't a consistent argument. Subsidizing alternatives to car usage reduces the externalities of car usage. You can't effectively disincent car usage in the absence of alternatives.
    - ryanjkirk 15y ago
      It's certainly not strange to argue in favor of the most efficient system. If something cannot be made to be more profitable compared to its alternatives, assuming they are all priced fairly in order to to cover external costs equally, then it is not the most efficient. What economist would argue in favor of that? It's quite a consistent argument when I say that I am in favor of taxing gas and automobiles. In fact, I think they should be taxed at much higher rates, to internalize the costs that are currently being externalized. Ideally, the costs of roads and bridges are covered by those taxes. Thus they're usage-based and not subsidized by those not using them. I'm not sure why you think the best way to internalize the costs of car usage is to subsidize public transportation. That's just backwards thinking. As car usage becomes more expensive due to taxation, cities will become more dense. This is the point where we can start talking about building infrastructure for public transportation, that will then make economic sense thanks to population density. It makes no sense to have a bus meander around the suburbs for hours to pick up a few riders, all traveling to different parts of town. It's an impossible idea. You have to have density first. Tax cars and gas so that they pay for their own infrastructure and environmental consequences, and density will be a natural outgrowth, at which point public transportation will be more viable.
specialist 15y ago
> but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. Yes. They do. That giant sucking sound you hear are the burbs bleeding the urban tax base dry. Further, in my area, the burb leaders cock block anything that smells like it might help the urbans. My city would be sparkling and new if we didn't have to subsidize the standard of living of all the deadbeats in the burbs.
- davidandgoliath 15y ago
  "My city would be sparkling and new if we didn't have to subsidize the standard of living of all the deadbeats in the burbs." That is a silly notion. Are you assuming those out in the burbs don't pay property tax, vehicle related taxes, tax on purchases and every other tax in existence? I'm positive we'd all learn quite a bit if we actually dug into the numbers.
  - ryanjkirk 15y ago
    He's generalizing, of course, but it's because in the US, the suburbs incorporate into their own cities, and keep the taxes for themselves. Meanwhile, they commute into a city on a freeway paid for by the urbanites and enjoy all the benefits of city infrastructure, without paying for it. Not sure how cities incorporate in Canada but that's how it usually is here.
    - davidandgoliath 15y ago
      Certainly no disagreement that suburbanites commute. And once they arrive they spend bucketloads of money on a daily basis & tend to work for companies that spend bucketloads of money locally for office space & all the goods held therein. Communters do tend to also help support public transportation systems that are made available, in effect subsidizing them. Afterwards they leave & cost the city absolutely nothing beyond some infrastructure. I can name ten(s) of cities in the United States that absolutely die the moment 5-6pm strike, but were couriered money in by suburbanites during the day and would have zero infrastructure otherwise. I too am generalizing, of course.. I couldn't imagine seeing suburbanites as vultures.
HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. It's always the city fans who can't tolerate folks who want something else. In a nutshell, this is what I find so frustrating about these discussions and really the only reason I got drawn in in the first place! I live in the country on a small farm. I have a long, expensive drive into work. I can only get relatively slow broadband (lucky to get any at all) and it's expensive; I have no city services, so I'm responsible for maintaining my own water treatment and sewage equipment; everything takes a long time; if I run out of something critical, the closest grocery store is 8 miles away and charges an arm and a leg; more reasonably priced ones are about 13 miles away. And I consider myself lucky they are that close. I don't bitch about this because I made the decision to incur these costs so my family can have the lifestyle we like. If people want to live in a dense city, on top of each other (and I lived in NYC for 8 years), fine. That's their choice; I don't have to like it. The reality is that people will do what's in their own self interest regardless of what others want them to do. So work for cheaper, cleaner energy; work for lower-impact building processes and improved street layout; work for smaller, more energy efficient houses; work for more public transit (the bus 12 miles from my house can get me into the city in 1/3 the time it would take me to drive there). But don't tell me where I can live!

by anamax 15y ago

Retric 15y ago

All things are not created equal. The single most environmentally friendly place to live in the US is downtown New York City. Yet we still feel the need to subsidize single family dwellings though a wide range of tax breaks and subsidies.

anamax 15y ago
> The single most environmentally friendly place to live in the US is downtown New York City. Not even close. Also, the vast majority of city dwellers go out of their way/pay extra to not live as environmentally efficiently as possible, so it's absurd to claim that environmental efficiency is the most important criteria. Suburbs provide some things far more efficiently than cities do. And, cities provide other things more efficiently. The fact that you value one set of things more than the other does not imply that your choice is correct.

philwelch 15y ago

It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. No, they just vote against spending any public money on things like public transit, or against raising car and gas taxes. If suburbians paid their own way I wouldn't mind them either.

ryanjkirk 15y ago
Why would anyone want to vote to spend money on anything that will be a net loss? Subsidizing public transportation is an economic drain on society. The correct answer is to have self-sustaining, profitable public transportation. This can only happen in cities with sufficient population density, such as NYC. Car and gas taxes? Tax the hell out of them, since the costs right now are so over-externalized. Eventually, that will start to force more population density, and then we can talk about sustainable public transportation.
- philwelch 15y ago
  It's strange to argue against government spending on infrastructure on the premise that infrastructure should be profitable. Unless you have similar feelings about tolling the city street or privatizing the sidewalk, this isn't a consistent argument. Subsidizing alternatives to car usage reduces the externalities of car usage. You can't effectively disincent car usage in the absence of alternatives.
  - ryanjkirk 15y ago
    It's certainly not strange to argue in favor of the most efficient system. If something cannot be made to be more profitable compared to its alternatives, assuming they are all priced fairly in order to to cover external costs equally, then it is not the most efficient. What economist would argue in favor of that? It's quite a consistent argument when I say that I am in favor of taxing gas and automobiles. In fact, I think they should be taxed at much higher rates, to internalize the costs that are currently being externalized. Ideally, the costs of roads and bridges are covered by those taxes. Thus they're usage-based and not subsidized by those not using them. I'm not sure why you think the best way to internalize the costs of car usage is to subsidize public transportation. That's just backwards thinking. As car usage becomes more expensive due to taxation, cities will become more dense. This is the point where we can start talking about building infrastructure for public transportation, that will then make economic sense thanks to population density. It makes no sense to have a bus meander around the suburbs for hours to pick up a few riders, all traveling to different parts of town. It's an impossible idea. You have to have density first. Tax cars and gas so that they pay for their own infrastructure and environmental consequences, and density will be a natural outgrowth, at which point public transportation will be more viable.

specialist 15y ago

> but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. Yes. They do. That giant sucking sound you hear are the burbs bleeding the urban tax base dry. Further, in my area, the burb leaders cock block anything that smells like it might help the urbans. My city would be sparkling and new if we didn't have to subsidize the standard of living of all the deadbeats in the burbs.

davidandgoliath 15y ago
"My city would be sparkling and new if we didn't have to subsidize the standard of living of all the deadbeats in the burbs." That is a silly notion. Are you assuming those out in the burbs don't pay property tax, vehicle related taxes, tax on purchases and every other tax in existence? I'm positive we'd all learn quite a bit if we actually dug into the numbers.
- ryanjkirk 15y ago
  He's generalizing, of course, but it's because in the US, the suburbs incorporate into their own cities, and keep the taxes for themselves. Meanwhile, they commute into a city on a freeway paid for by the urbanites and enjoy all the benefits of city infrastructure, without paying for it. Not sure how cities incorporate in Canada but that's how it usually is here.
  - davidandgoliath 15y ago
    Certainly no disagreement that suburbanites commute. And once they arrive they spend bucketloads of money on a daily basis & tend to work for companies that spend bucketloads of money locally for office space & all the goods held therein. Communters do tend to also help support public transportation systems that are made available, in effect subsidizing them. Afterwards they leave & cost the city absolutely nothing beyond some infrastructure. I can name ten(s) of cities in the United States that absolutely die the moment 5-6pm strike, but were couriered money in by suburbanites during the day and would have zero infrastructure otherwise. I too am generalizing, of course.. I couldn't imagine seeing suburbanites as vultures.

HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago

It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. It's always the city fans who can't tolerate folks who want something else. In a nutshell, this is what I find so frustrating about these discussions and really the only reason I got drawn in in the first place! I live in the country on a small farm. I have a long, expensive drive into work. I can only get relatively slow broadband (lucky to get any at all) and it's expensive; I have no city services, so I'm responsible for maintaining my own water treatment and sewage equipment; everything takes a long time; if I run out of something critical, the closest grocery store is 8 miles away and charges an arm and a leg; more reasonably priced ones are about 13 miles away. And I consider myself lucky they are that close. I don't bitch about this because I made the decision to incur these costs so my family can have the lifestyle we like. If people want to live in a dense city, on top of each other (and I lived in NYC for 8 years), fine. That's their choice; I don't have to like it. The reality is that people will do what's in their own self interest regardless of what others want them to do. So work for cheaper, cleaner energy; work for lower-impact building processes and improved street layout; work for smaller, more energy efficient houses; work for more public transit (the bus 12 miles from my house can get me into the city in 1/3 the time it would take me to drive there). But don't tell me where I can live!