3 ms·

yeah but most people don't want to live in a townhouse/apartment

by low_common 4y ago

coryrc 4y ago
They do if they were affordable and well-built, but we zone them to be expensive and undercut the labor market with illegal labor, so people don't have the motivation to upskill.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Unless they are expected to be "affordable housing" in which case they are mandated to use unaffordable labor.
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
Most people would probably like to live in a giant mansion on a country estate, but they can’t afford to. If the price of a single family house in a sprawling suburb doesn’t include the actual cost of the infrastructure to serve that home, then really they can’t afford to live there, either. Cities all over the US are running into this problem.
- bequanna 4y ago
  > If the price of a single family house in a sprawling suburb doesn’t include the actual cost of the infrastructure to serve that home, then really they can’t afford to live there, either. Sorry, but what is your point here? This is the same recycled “strongtowns” argument that they repeat endlessly. Worst case, property taxes increase to help with local infrastructure.
  - spaethnl 4y ago
    Who is "they"? You dismiss the "strongtowns" argument as if there is some consensus that it has been debunked, but I don't think there is such a consensus, so you'd need to support that claim. Further, the worst case is not that property taxes increase, it is that other people, usually less fortunate, end up subsidizing them further through federal, state, and county funds, rather than their own local taxes.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  What the lie-o-meter has to say about your assertion really depends a lot on the average income and level of density in the suburb in question. The rich inner suburbs full of busybody jerks are unfortunately rich enough to almost certainly be self sustaining if they want to be. No starving that beast.

3 ms·

yeah but most people don't want to live in a townhouse/apartment

by low_common 4y ago

yeah but most people don't want to live in a townhouse/apartment

coryrc 4y ago
They do if they were affordable and well-built, but we zone them to be expensive and undercut the labor market with illegal labor, so people don't have the motivation to upskill.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Unless they are expected to be "affordable housing" in which case they are mandated to use unaffordable labor.
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
Most people would probably like to live in a giant mansion on a country estate, but they can’t afford to. If the price of a single family house in a sprawling suburb doesn’t include the actual cost of the infrastructure to serve that home, then really they can’t afford to live there, either. Cities all over the US are running into this problem.
- bequanna 4y ago
  > If the price of a single family house in a sprawling suburb doesn’t include the actual cost of the infrastructure to serve that home, then really they can’t afford to live there, either. Sorry, but what is your point here? This is the same recycled “strongtowns” argument that they repeat endlessly. Worst case, property taxes increase to help with local infrastructure.
  - spaethnl 4y ago
    Who is "they"? You dismiss the "strongtowns" argument as if there is some consensus that it has been debunked, but I don't think there is such a consensus, so you'd need to support that claim. Further, the worst case is not that property taxes increase, it is that other people, usually less fortunate, end up subsidizing them further through federal, state, and county funds, rather than their own local taxes.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  What the lie-o-meter has to say about your assertion really depends a lot on the average income and level of density in the suburb in question. The rich inner suburbs full of busybody jerks are unfortunately rich enough to almost certainly be self sustaining if they want to be. No starving that beast.