5 ms·

I live in a three story, single family home located at the top of a hill, with views for miles, surrounded by wooded acreage, in an area zoned “forest”. Life i

I live in a three story, single family home located at the top of a hill, with views for miles, surrounded by wooded acreage, in an area zoned “forest”. Life is amazing here. I exercise outside, explore the landscape and the hiking trails surrounding me, and not only is it never crowded, it’s also safe, quiet, and beautiful. The best part is that since I have everything at hand, including natural beauty, I don’t want or need to leave my home often, and have worked remotely for a Bay Area company for several years. I often walk out my front door and go for a hike before starting my work day. Living in an 18-story building surrounded by 20-story buildings would be, for me, a hellish existence. You couldn’t pay me enough money to want to live there.

leonidasv 4y ago
Well, but those things can coexist. That's the difference between living in the heart of a metropolis vs living somewhere far away. Since I've grown in the countryside, surrounded by all the forests and hills, I really find the cosmopolitan life I've there more exciting. It may change overtime, sure, but at least I will never have to complain about having lost my time commuting.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > Well, but those things can coexist. In theory? They can coexist. If you want density, move to a dense city. In reality? Activists and developers are constantly pushing to upzone and pave over everything in sight.
- nicolas_t 4y ago
  It does coexist in some cities, Hong Kong has amazing hiking trails less than 15 minutes from where I live while being one of the densest city in the world. Likewise Kyoto is a relatively big city, 30 minutes away by public transit from Osaka which is even bigger but there's easy access to nature (although in the last 5 years before covid it was overrun by tourists)
throwaway6734 4y ago
Who pays to maintain the roads, electricity, water, etc. to your house?
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Electricity and water are usually close to 100% paid for by the bills and if not it's not exactly a big difference if they are. The roads and the occasional big investment in something like a water treatment plan are paid via taxes. The money taxes a circuitous route to get there since so much money goes to fed and state taxes who then fractionally fund these sorts of infrastructure upkeep things. Unless a community is exceptionally rich or poor the people living there pay roughly what it costs +/- a few percent. Rich communities get less because their taxes get redirected to poorer communities to a larger extent. If poorer communities were not benefits of this wealth transfer they find ways to make do with less but it wouldn't be the financial devastation that many here like to imply.
  - 300bps 4y ago
    Unless a community is exceptionally rich or poor the people living there pay roughly what it costs +/- a few percent. You’re not taking school taxes and costs into consideration. In my school district, they spend $18,211 per student each year. Average school taxes per house are $8,100. So a house with 1 child costs $10,111 per year. But the average house with children has 2.1 kids costing over $30,000 more than is paid in. This is a very common problem and why development, especially of larger homes (with likely more children) is a net drain on the local tax base.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      Schools are an infinite money pit. Their expenses grow to consume what is available. Likewise their expenses can be trimmed if the money is simply not available. As we've learned from pumping poorly performing schools full of money, expenditure is only loosely correlated with results.
    - frumper 4y ago

leonidasv 4y ago

Well, but those things can coexist. That's the difference between living in the heart of a metropolis vs living somewhere far away. Since I've grown in the countryside, surrounded by all the forests and hills, I really find the cosmopolitan life I've there more exciting. It may change overtime, sure, but at least I will never have to complain about having lost my time commuting.

teakettle42 4y ago
> Well, but those things can coexist. In theory? They can coexist. If you want density, move to a dense city. In reality? Activists and developers are constantly pushing to upzone and pave over everything in sight.
nicolas_t 4y ago
It does coexist in some cities, Hong Kong has amazing hiking trails less than 15 minutes from where I live while being one of the densest city in the world. Likewise Kyoto is a relatively big city, 30 minutes away by public transit from Osaka which is even bigger but there's easy access to nature (although in the last 5 years before covid it was overrun by tourists)

throwaway6734 4y ago

Who pays to maintain the roads, electricity, water, etc. to your house?

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Electricity and water are usually close to 100% paid for by the bills and if not it's not exactly a big difference if they are. The roads and the occasional big investment in something like a water treatment plan are paid via taxes. The money taxes a circuitous route to get there since so much money goes to fed and state taxes who then fractionally fund these sorts of infrastructure upkeep things. Unless a community is exceptionally rich or poor the people living there pay roughly what it costs +/- a few percent. Rich communities get less because their taxes get redirected to poorer communities to a larger extent. If poorer communities were not benefits of this wealth transfer they find ways to make do with less but it wouldn't be the financial devastation that many here like to imply.
- 300bps 4y ago
  Unless a community is exceptionally rich or poor the people living there pay roughly what it costs +/- a few percent. You’re not taking school taxes and costs into consideration. In my school district, they spend $18,211 per student each year. Average school taxes per house are $8,100. So a house with 1 child costs $10,111 per year. But the average house with children has 2.1 kids costing over $30,000 more than is paid in. This is a very common problem and why development, especially of larger homes (with likely more children) is a net drain on the local tax base.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    Schools are an infinite money pit. Their expenses grow to consume what is available. Likewise their expenses can be trimmed if the money is simply not available. As we've learned from pumping poorly performing schools full of money, expenditure is only loosely correlated with results.
  - frumper 4y ago