3 ms·

Why does @ars have to pay for the situation they want, but you don't? If @ars wants a less dense city, and you want a more dense one, why should you be able to

Why does @ars have to pay for the situation they want, but you don't? If @ars wants a less dense city, and you want a more dense one, why should you be able to force it on others, but not the other way around? Why don't you move? The fact of the matter is: many people in the US like it how it is, even if we don't.

ajmurmann 4y ago
I never said someone should subsidize dense housing. I only advocated for removal of requirements that prohibit dense housing and mandate things like parking. Edit: If anything we currently have the reverse case, with dense areas where infrastructure is shared by many subsidizing less dense areas where roads and houses serve much fewer people while providing less tax revenue. There have been some good articles on here about this over the years.
benchaney 4y ago
Everyone should pay for the resources they consume. Lower density requires massively more resources per person, so the people who want it should wind up paying more. Nobody is advocating forcing everyone to live in dense housing. Our current political/legal system massively favors and subsidizes lower density. Removing that favoritism is not unfair at all.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  I'm fine with this but be aware that the catch here is that if you aren't moving dollars around you can't attach strings to those dollars. Controlling funding by gatekeeping it with specific requirements for eligibility is a large part of how the feds control the states and the states control municipalities. If you don't fund their roads you can't tell them "but you need a sidewalk".
  - ratata 4y ago
    >If you don't fund their roads you can't tell them "but you need a sidewalk". The Americans with Disabilities Act says you need sidewalks.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      And that's exactly why I cited it. What's the enforcement mechanism if the entity writing the rules doesn't control the purse strings? Tie them up in court for 10yr and then when you finally win they just do something marginally different to the same end (i.e. exactly what we see with civil liberties).

ajmurmann 4y ago

I never said someone should subsidize dense housing. I only advocated for removal of requirements that prohibit dense housing and mandate things like parking. Edit: If anything we currently have the reverse case, with dense areas where infrastructure is shared by many subsidizing less dense areas where roads and houses serve much fewer people while providing less tax revenue. There have been some good articles on here about this over the years.

benchaney 4y ago

Everyone should pay for the resources they consume. Lower density requires massively more resources per person, so the people who want it should wind up paying more. Nobody is advocating forcing everyone to live in dense housing. Our current political/legal system massively favors and subsidizes lower density. Removing that favoritism is not unfair at all.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
I'm fine with this but be aware that the catch here is that if you aren't moving dollars around you can't attach strings to those dollars. Controlling funding by gatekeeping it with specific requirements for eligibility is a large part of how the feds control the states and the states control municipalities. If you don't fund their roads you can't tell them "but you need a sidewalk".
- ratata 4y ago
  >If you don't fund their roads you can't tell them "but you need a sidewalk". The Americans with Disabilities Act says you need sidewalks.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    And that's exactly why I cited it. What's the enforcement mechanism if the entity writing the rules doesn't control the purse strings? Tie them up in court for 10yr and then when you finally win they just do something marginally different to the same end (i.e. exactly what we see with civil liberties).