3 ms·

Lol. Not only have they worked out, but virtually every developing country is building their own suburbs. Is traffic an annoying inconvenience, sure. But I (and

Lol. Not only have they worked out, but virtually every developing country is building their own suburbs. Is traffic an annoying inconvenience, sure. But I (and most people) love the freedom, the space, the variety granted by a car out in the burbs rather than being stuck in a cramped, super-expensive, single-window box in a city somewhere, and relying on public transportation to get anywhere beyond 10 blocks. Been there, done that, for far too long.

anonymousiam 5y ago
Thanks for the explainer. I guess we should do the same thing to the Internet. If it's slower, less people will use it.
- jrockway 5y ago
  Internet capacity isn't scaled by replacing public spaces with toxin-emitting machines, and you can't be hit by one of those machines while crossing the Internet to get to local businesses. Whether or not you like cars, they're simply not sustainable. It's great that you have one and take advantage of the government subsidies, but it's not a thing that future generations are going to do.
  - anonymousiam 5y ago
    Perhaps we should come up with a replacement before we degrade our infrastructure and reduce the efficiency we had. Also, your statement above basically admits that the infrastructure is being degraded "for the greater good", which is not what your responses above it claim. They claim that reducing traffic capacity results in less usage, but with no mention of the downside. And your other response above implies that road maintenance is bankrupting suburban cities, but it's entirely possible that those cities are simply not properly prioritizing/managing their spending, which is a common problem in California politics.
jrockway 5y ago
The problem is not that they're "nice" or whatever, but that they are financially unsustainable. Property taxes aren't high enough to cover the maintenance on the infrastructure like water mains, sewage treatment, fiber optic Internet, etc. As a result, suburbs are going bankrupt right and left.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  You're way off. Detroit (which is not a suburb) went bankrupt, and 62 of the top 75 most populous cities do not have enough money to pay their bills, totalling a massive $333 billion in unfunded debt. https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/Financial-State-of-the-Cities-2021.pdf https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/Financial-S... Among most cities that declare, physical infrastructure is usually the least of their problems, it almost always is rooted in public employee pension guarantees that can't be met. "Unfunded retirement liabilities are the main contributing factor to the $333.5 billion in city-level debt" The two cities in the worst shape? NYC and Chicago, which are far more urban (and well-serviced by public transportation) than cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas or Anaheim which barely have any downtown urban core and are essentially just large glorified suburbs.

anonymousiam 5y ago

Thanks for the explainer. I guess we should do the same thing to the Internet. If it's slower, less people will use it.

jrockway 5y ago
Internet capacity isn't scaled by replacing public spaces with toxin-emitting machines, and you can't be hit by one of those machines while crossing the Internet to get to local businesses. Whether or not you like cars, they're simply not sustainable. It's great that you have one and take advantage of the government subsidies, but it's not a thing that future generations are going to do.
- anonymousiam 5y ago
  Perhaps we should come up with a replacement before we degrade our infrastructure and reduce the efficiency we had. Also, your statement above basically admits that the infrastructure is being degraded "for the greater good", which is not what your responses above it claim. They claim that reducing traffic capacity results in less usage, but with no mention of the downside. And your other response above implies that road maintenance is bankrupting suburban cities, but it's entirely possible that those cities are simply not properly prioritizing/managing their spending, which is a common problem in California politics.

jrockway 5y ago

The problem is not that they're "nice" or whatever, but that they are financially unsustainable. Property taxes aren't high enough to cover the maintenance on the infrastructure like water mains, sewage treatment, fiber optic Internet, etc. As a result, suburbs are going bankrupt right and left.

listenallyall 5y ago
You're way off. Detroit (which is not a suburb) went bankrupt, and 62 of the top 75 most populous cities do not have enough money to pay their bills, totalling a massive $333 billion in unfunded debt. https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/Financial-State-of-the-Cities-2021.pdf https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/Financial-S... Among most cities that declare, physical infrastructure is usually the least of their problems, it almost always is rooted in public employee pension guarantees that can't be met. "Unfunded retirement liabilities are the main contributing factor to the $333.5 billion in city-level debt" The two cities in the worst shape? NYC and Chicago, which are far more urban (and well-serviced by public transportation) than cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas or Anaheim which barely have any downtown urban core and are essentially just large glorified suburbs.