3 ms·

What fails this is many people don't want to live in cities. Living in apartments with others, taking public transportation with others and walking down the str

What fails this is many people don't want to live in cities. Living in apartments with others, taking public transportation with others and walking down the street with other is more unpleasant than cars.

0xfaded 3y ago
No objection, but please live far away from the city so that useful land close to urban centers can be properly utilized. Or at least pay a land value tax proportionate to the current value of the land assuming it were properly utilized. We'd also ask that you use a park-and-ride when visiting as to not cause undue congestion and noise, otherwise we'll charge a hefty congestion fee. Besides, do you really want to pay $100 just to park for the day? Fuel taxes will need to tripple to fairly account for CO2 emissions and cover the cost of roads (we don't want to have to subsidize your car usage afterall). But otherwise, it does seem fair that for those who can afford it, are willing to live within their carbon budget, and are willing to pay their share of taxes, should have the choice to live in a detached home. Do install a native garden though, grass is horribly water inefficient.
- asquabventured 3y ago
  "Properly utilized". Get a grip
- oldnetguy 3y ago
  I will live as close as I can afford thank you. And as for paying land value tax, I will pay mine when cities pay theirs. Cities and states give abatements that are not needed but allow wealthy land owners to dodge taxes. Increase fuel taxes, I expect to have an electric car. I also expect to have home solar and collect rain water. Something I cannot do in my home city of NYC. I would be more than happy to pay for the roads and needs of my community. What I don't want to subsidize is all your social problems that cities seem to like to force me to pay for, which will save me a lot of money while I enjoy my distance from the city.

0xfaded 3y ago

No objection, but please live far away from the city so that useful land close to urban centers can be properly utilized. Or at least pay a land value tax proportionate to the current value of the land assuming it were properly utilized. We'd also ask that you use a park-and-ride when visiting as to not cause undue congestion and noise, otherwise we'll charge a hefty congestion fee. Besides, do you really want to pay $100 just to park for the day? Fuel taxes will need to tripple to fairly account for CO2 emissions and cover the cost of roads (we don't want to have to subsidize your car usage afterall). But otherwise, it does seem fair that for those who can afford it, are willing to live within their carbon budget, and are willing to pay their share of taxes, should have the choice to live in a detached home. Do install a native garden though, grass is horribly water inefficient.

asquabventured 3y ago
"Properly utilized". Get a grip
oldnetguy 3y ago
I will live as close as I can afford thank you. And as for paying land value tax, I will pay mine when cities pay theirs. Cities and states give abatements that are not needed but allow wealthy land owners to dodge taxes. Increase fuel taxes, I expect to have an electric car. I also expect to have home solar and collect rain water. Something I cannot do in my home city of NYC. I would be more than happy to pay for the roads and needs of my community. What I don't want to subsidize is all your social problems that cities seem to like to force me to pay for, which will save me a lot of money while I enjoy my distance from the city.