3 ms·
> the more people you have in a limited area, The US is huge with a low population density, why not just expand the cities a bit or build a few new ones? Is t
by ninalanyon 2y ago
> the more people you have in a limited area,
The US is huge with a low population density, why not just expand the cities a bit or build a few new ones? Is there some reason why this can't be done?
- tsimionescu 2y agoUnfortunately the majority of the USA, even where people don't live, is valuable private property one way or another. Back when there were fewer people and especially agriculture was much more manual labor intensive, it simply wasn't possible to work every last bit of land, so building new houses at the edge of town was not generally a huge problem (not that people didn't care about ownership, of course, but they cared less - i.e. it was cheaper). Today it is, since every bit of land you build houses on means removing that land from some other economic purpose.
- c0redump 2y agoThis is more or less what the trump administration says they want to do > Throughout his campaign, Trump focused on deregulation, tax cuts and reducing mortgage rates. In speeches, including one at the Economic Club of New York in September and a press conference in August, Trump reiterated his promise to reduce regulatory barriers and vowed to make federal land available for extensive housing projects. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/trump-housing-build-federal-land/ https://www.housingwire.com/articles/trump-housing-build-fed...
- johnnyanmac 2y agoSo, how we funding this while getting less taxes, especially for the rich?
- c0redump 2y agoFunding what? What are you asking? They are selling the land to developers, there is no need for the federal government to fund anything. They will be the ones receiving money.