4 ms·

Both are valid preferences but nobody is pushing legislation that would gradually coerce more people into the rural life. Not true of the sardine life.

ineedasername 5y ago
but nobody is pushing legislation that would gradually coerce more people into the rural life Sure there are, at the federal, state & local level. Here's a few examples that a quick search turned up: https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs https://www.ahfc.us/buy/loan-programs/rural-programs https://www.ahfc.us/buy/loan-programs/rural-programs https://www.kansascommerce.gov/program/taxes-and-financing/rural-opportunity-zones-roz/ https://www.kansascommerce.gov/program/taxes-and-financing/r... https://www.harmony.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=022F2A6B-7FAA-4E0D-88F0-ED95E1CB6D8C&Type=B_BASIC https://www.harmony.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=022F2A6B-7FAA-4E0D-8...
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  That's not what the word "coerce" means.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Really? Taxation subsidizes these programs, and I'm not sure that I see that as any more/less coercive than initiatives or legislation that "coerce" people in the opposite direction.
karmelapple 5y ago
For years, legislation was pushed and successfully passed to "coerce" people to live a suburban lifestyle. From FHA to single-family home zoning, there are many laws that specifically encouraged sprawl into what were, at the time, rural areas. That became the suburbs. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/postwar-era/a/the-growth-of-suburbia https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera... I've lived in both "sardines in a can" and "sardines scattered all around the room" (less dense) levels of density for significant portions of my life, and I've experienced firsthand the many benefits and downsides of each. I imagine you have, too. One thing I've only recently learned is suburbs are subsidized by the people living in the denser areas that you seem to strongly dislike. This video gets into the math behind why that is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
- AvocadoPanic 5y ago
  Wouldn't an alternative be to have these lower density areas spun off into their own towns? In my low density town of ~4,300 lots of us pay > $9,000 a year in property taxes.
  - karmelapple 5y ago
    Absolutely! But can a city “un-annex” land? I imagine the residents in the lower density area would not want to spin off, both because of the schools and other civic institutions they use, but also because of the higher taxes.
    - AvocadoPanic 5y ago
      Not infrequently these areas want to go, Buckhead GA, is an example.
- ThunderSizzle 5y ago
  One point to make is that suburban is not the same as rural, but suburbia wants to pretend to be both while being neither.
phil21 5y ago
> nobody is pushing legislation that would gradually coerce more people into the rural life. Not true of the sardine life. Maybe somewhere in the US, but in no areas I spent considerable time enough to be tuned into local politics and policies was this remotely the case. Since I've been alive the political power has decidedly and unashamedly been fully in the "suburban living" policy group. Every meaningful infrastructure spending, expansion, zoning policy, etc. served to further those interests either directly or indirectly. The "urban policy" group wins were generally not material and mostly window dressing stuff like BRT routes and a few more miles of unconnected bike lanes. If there was actual choice between "good urban living" and "good rural living" I'd totally agree. The issue is we've spent 100 years building suburbia at the expense of everything else, both as a political and financial investment. I'm not sure how we can hope to stop that inertia short of being limited by cheap energy or running out of actual land.
- karmelapple 5y ago
  > I'm not sure how we can hope to stop that inertia short of being limited by cheap energy or running out of actual land. Having the residents of the suburbs paying for their true cost seems like a great way to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI As the video points out, would people be willing to start paying $9000 in property taxes instead of $1800 to stop operating the city at a loss every year?
  - phil21 5y ago
    > Having the residents of the suburbs paying for their true cost seems like a great way to start I completely agree. I think the point I was trying to convey is that it's not just financial inertia going on here - it's probably the single most cohesive and politically active power bloc there is in the country.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I live in a small ~100k city that is a mix of commercial, light industry, and residential. (both apartments and typical suburban-style). We don't operate at a loss, but I do pay > $10k in property taxes. So, people are willing to pay these prices, the model is not unsustainable.
brimble 5y ago
The US has historically, and continues to, invest a lot of money into improving or maintaining rural life. Without those efforts I guarantee there'd be fewer people living that way.
- karmelapple 5y ago
  Some rural relatives of mine thanked me for the very nice fiber internet they got to their door, in the middle of their farmland. This was years before I ever got fiber… and even to this day, I still don’t have the option of fiber of where I live. I had FiOS for a brief glorious time though!

ineedasername 5y ago

but nobody is pushing legislation that would gradually coerce more people into the rural life Sure there are, at the federal, state & local level. Here's a few examples that a quick search turned up: https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs https://www.ahfc.us/buy/loan-programs/rural-programs https://www.ahfc.us/buy/loan-programs/rural-programs https://www.kansascommerce.gov/program/taxes-and-financing/rural-opportunity-zones-roz/ https://www.kansascommerce.gov/program/taxes-and-financing/r... https://www.harmony.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=022F2A6B-7FAA-4E0D-88F0-ED95E1CB6D8C&Type=B_BASIC https://www.harmony.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=022F2A6B-7FAA-4E0D-8...

xyzzyz 5y ago
That's not what the word "coerce" means.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Really? Taxation subsidizes these programs, and I'm not sure that I see that as any more/less coercive than initiatives or legislation that "coerce" people in the opposite direction.

karmelapple 5y ago

For years, legislation was pushed and successfully passed to "coerce" people to live a suburban lifestyle. From FHA to single-family home zoning, there are many laws that specifically encouraged sprawl into what were, at the time, rural areas. That became the suburbs. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/postwar-era/a/the-growth-of-suburbia https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera... I've lived in both "sardines in a can" and "sardines scattered all around the room" (less dense) levels of density for significant portions of my life, and I've experienced firsthand the many benefits and downsides of each. I imagine you have, too. One thing I've only recently learned is suburbs are subsidized by the people living in the denser areas that you seem to strongly dislike. This video gets into the math behind why that is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

AvocadoPanic 5y ago
Wouldn't an alternative be to have these lower density areas spun off into their own towns? In my low density town of ~4,300 lots of us pay > $9,000 a year in property taxes.
- karmelapple 5y ago
  Absolutely! But can a city “un-annex” land? I imagine the residents in the lower density area would not want to spin off, both because of the schools and other civic institutions they use, but also because of the higher taxes.
  - AvocadoPanic 5y ago
    Not infrequently these areas want to go, Buckhead GA, is an example.
ThunderSizzle 5y ago
One point to make is that suburban is not the same as rural, but suburbia wants to pretend to be both while being neither.

phil21 5y ago

> nobody is pushing legislation that would gradually coerce more people into the rural life. Not true of the sardine life. Maybe somewhere in the US, but in no areas I spent considerable time enough to be tuned into local politics and policies was this remotely the case. Since I've been alive the political power has decidedly and unashamedly been fully in the "suburban living" policy group. Every meaningful infrastructure spending, expansion, zoning policy, etc. served to further those interests either directly or indirectly. The "urban policy" group wins were generally not material and mostly window dressing stuff like BRT routes and a few more miles of unconnected bike lanes. If there was actual choice between "good urban living" and "good rural living" I'd totally agree. The issue is we've spent 100 years building suburbia at the expense of everything else, both as a political and financial investment. I'm not sure how we can hope to stop that inertia short of being limited by cheap energy or running out of actual land.

karmelapple 5y ago
> I'm not sure how we can hope to stop that inertia short of being limited by cheap energy or running out of actual land. Having the residents of the suburbs paying for their true cost seems like a great way to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI As the video points out, would people be willing to start paying $9000 in property taxes instead of $1800 to stop operating the city at a loss every year?
- phil21 5y ago
  > Having the residents of the suburbs paying for their true cost seems like a great way to start I completely agree. I think the point I was trying to convey is that it's not just financial inertia going on here - it's probably the single most cohesive and politically active power bloc there is in the country.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I live in a small ~100k city that is a mix of commercial, light industry, and residential. (both apartments and typical suburban-style). We don't operate at a loss, but I do pay > $10k in property taxes. So, people are willing to pay these prices, the model is not unsustainable.

brimble 5y ago

The US has historically, and continues to, invest a lot of money into improving or maintaining rural life. Without those efforts I guarantee there'd be fewer people living that way.

karmelapple 5y ago
Some rural relatives of mine thanked me for the very nice fiber internet they got to their door, in the middle of their farmland. This was years before I ever got fiber… and even to this day, I still don’t have the option of fiber of where I live. I had FiOS for a brief glorious time though!