4 ms·

I would put it as "Fuck the subsidising of car ownership" - as that's what strong towns really comes down to - the fact that car-focused infrastructure cannot p

I would put it as "Fuck the subsidising of car ownership" - as that's what strong towns really comes down to - the fact that car-focused infrastructure cannot pay for itself and so has to be subsidised

actionfromafar 4y ago
There is something missing here I think. Creating a playing field where only car owners can play, is not even subsidising car ownership. It's some kind of gate-keeping. It's subsidising the preference for car accessability for sure, which would be unkempt even if everyone could afford cars. But when people can't even afford cars, it becomes something even weirder than subsidising cars.
NorthOf33rd 4y ago
It’s more like “fuck subsidizing anything other than the 1st ring suburbs.” Strong towns’ fiscal philosophy looks great if you’re in a stable or growth market without any significant poverty. I’m all for investing in small walkable communities, but while their policies rail against the exurbs, they would be just as detrimental to our inner cities as they would be to 1970s onward suburban development.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Please elaborate, I don't see how it automatically is detrimental to inner cities.
  - NorthOf33rd 4y ago
    The key messages of strongtowns are unambiguous 1) fiscal conservatism and 2) small-scale self dependence. Small scale self dependence is a significant problem in the US (and many parts of the world) where the poor have been, through intentional historic policy, ghettoized. If you first scale back spending to maintenance levels, and then push against state level redistribution, you end up with pretty predictable results that look alot like the ghost of redlining come back to life. Even if you excise #2 from the platform, it's still the end result. By explicitly adopting strongtowns brand fiscal austerity, there just wont be money left to fund schools in poor neighborhoods. Look, I'm not saying what we've got now is a perfect solution, far from it. I even think that if we could start from absolute scratch, there are some aspects of strong towns that would solve some of today's ills. But we have poor cities, of every makeup, size, demographic, and skin color, and I don't think that "market urbanism" (ie the same market forces that got us to where we are today albeit with stronger federation) can get us out. Edit: I guess I should clarify that my criticism of strong towns applies equally to economically destroyed rural communities, who make up the largest recipients of food stamps in America.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Spivak 4y ago
Who’s subsidizing car ownership? If you look at the rate of car ownership outside of top 5 metro areas it’s 93%+ everywhere with with on average more than two cars per household and that’s before commercial vehicles that take you places, stock your stores, and deliver your packages. And the usage of your own personal vehicles is taxed in proportion via gasoline. When we’re talking about government services that literally everyone uses multiple times over it stops being a subsidy and starts being “we all pay for it collectively.”
- nayuki 4y ago
  > Free, off-street parking mandated in building codes > Exempting pickup trucks and SUVs from emissions laws > Lack of vehicle safety laws to protect pedestrians and cyclists > A mortgage interest deduction drives suburban sprawl > Pedestrians have limited ability to sue drivers > Pedestrians can’t sue car makers for defects > Hit and runs are rarely prosecuted > Out-of-pocket car expenses don’t cover the cost of roads > That’s right: Registration fees, rising gas prices, insurance, and toll booths don’t come close to covering the cost of roadways. The federal gas tax hasn’t gone up since 1993, under-pacing inflation along with state gas taxes. The difference is recouped with universal taxes that pay no attention to how often a person drives. -- https://stacker.com/society/how-driving-subsidized-america https://stacker.com/society/how-driving-subsidized-america Also: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/02/09/study-car-ownership-costs-all-of-us-the-vehicle-owner-and-society/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/02/09/study-car-ownership-c... , https://medium.com/radical-urbanist/cars-gets-billions-in-hidden-subsidies-b3bf9e6bfafc https://medium.com/radical-urbanist/cars-gets-billions-in-hi... , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921003943 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...
- adammarples 4y ago
  Who is subsidising car ownership: the people in the metro areas of course. Huge amounts of infrastructure spending go on suburban sprawl, which is only useful to people who live in the suburban sprawl and who must own cars to do so.

actionfromafar 4y ago

There is something missing here I think. Creating a playing field where only car owners can play, is not even subsidising car ownership. It's some kind of gate-keeping. It's subsidising the preference for car accessability for sure, which would be unkempt even if everyone could afford cars. But when people can't even afford cars, it becomes something even weirder than subsidising cars.

NorthOf33rd 4y ago

It’s more like “fuck subsidizing anything other than the 1st ring suburbs.” Strong towns’ fiscal philosophy looks great if you’re in a stable or growth market without any significant poverty. I’m all for investing in small walkable communities, but while their policies rail against the exurbs, they would be just as detrimental to our inner cities as they would be to 1970s onward suburban development.

actionfromafar 4y ago
Please elaborate, I don't see how it automatically is detrimental to inner cities.
- NorthOf33rd 4y ago
  The key messages of strongtowns are unambiguous 1) fiscal conservatism and 2) small-scale self dependence. Small scale self dependence is a significant problem in the US (and many parts of the world) where the poor have been, through intentional historic policy, ghettoized. If you first scale back spending to maintenance levels, and then push against state level redistribution, you end up with pretty predictable results that look alot like the ghost of redlining come back to life. Even if you excise #2 from the platform, it's still the end result. By explicitly adopting strongtowns brand fiscal austerity, there just wont be money left to fund schools in poor neighborhoods. Look, I'm not saying what we've got now is a perfect solution, far from it. I even think that if we could start from absolute scratch, there are some aspects of strong towns that would solve some of today's ills. But we have poor cities, of every makeup, size, demographic, and skin color, and I don't think that "market urbanism" (ie the same market forces that got us to where we are today albeit with stronger federation) can get us out. Edit: I guess I should clarify that my criticism of strong towns applies equally to economically destroyed rural communities, who make up the largest recipients of food stamps in America.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Spivak 4y ago

Who’s subsidizing car ownership? If you look at the rate of car ownership outside of top 5 metro areas it’s 93%+ everywhere with with on average more than two cars per household and that’s before commercial vehicles that take you places, stock your stores, and deliver your packages. And the usage of your own personal vehicles is taxed in proportion via gasoline. When we’re talking about government services that literally everyone uses multiple times over it stops being a subsidy and starts being “we all pay for it collectively.”

nayuki 4y ago
> Free, off-street parking mandated in building codes > Exempting pickup trucks and SUVs from emissions laws > Lack of vehicle safety laws to protect pedestrians and cyclists > A mortgage interest deduction drives suburban sprawl > Pedestrians have limited ability to sue drivers > Pedestrians can’t sue car makers for defects > Hit and runs are rarely prosecuted > Out-of-pocket car expenses don’t cover the cost of roads > That’s right: Registration fees, rising gas prices, insurance, and toll booths don’t come close to covering the cost of roadways. The federal gas tax hasn’t gone up since 1993, under-pacing inflation along with state gas taxes. The difference is recouped with universal taxes that pay no attention to how often a person drives. -- https://stacker.com/society/how-driving-subsidized-america https://stacker.com/society/how-driving-subsidized-america Also: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/02/09/study-car-ownership-costs-all-of-us-the-vehicle-owner-and-society/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/02/09/study-car-ownership-c... , https://medium.com/radical-urbanist/cars-gets-billions-in-hidden-subsidies-b3bf9e6bfafc https://medium.com/radical-urbanist/cars-gets-billions-in-hi... , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921003943 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...
adammarples 4y ago
Who is subsidising car ownership: the people in the metro areas of course. Huge amounts of infrastructure spending go on suburban sprawl, which is only useful to people who live in the suburban sprawl and who must own cars to do so.