Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

mapstoryblog.thenittygritty.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 172 posts

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#141

Post by eru »

twoodfin wrote: post #126
specialist wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...a lot of it is supporting pensions and benefits of previous generation employees and teachers. While this is admirable..." It's contract law. No admirable necessary. Pensions etc are negotiated as part of the compensation package. Those former employees earned that money. It's not an entitlement, or charity. Legitimate complaints would be gaming the pension system and chronic underfunding (kicking the can down th…

They earned a promise from the government. That's not the same thing as earning the money, as many state and municipal employees will doubtless discover over the next few decades.

Yes. The government should have been made to put that money aside when they promised it. (Or at least to keep the commitment honestly on their books, instead of hiding it.)

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#142

Post by burfog »

clarkmoody wrote: post #8

First and foremost, we need to abolish the laws that caused this all to happen. Yes, that’s right – all of this was required to happen, by law. Many people think that sprawl is a free market phenomenon, and they are exactly wrong. Sprawl is caused by the following policies – I call these Sprawl Laws; you can find them for yourself in your local city code (for the most succinct explanation, see this paper[1]): * Zonin…

Sometimes these things get too extreme, but they do have valid reasons.

Zoning should be obvious. Do you mind if I build a solid rocket factory next to your house, complete with test stand and storage of enough ammonium perchlorate to register on the Richter scale if it goes boom? (see the PEPCON disaster, which was 3 to 3.5 on the Richter scale)

Setbacks, minimum lot sizes, and maximum units per lot are needed for drainage. It costs lots more money to run storm drains.

Setback requirements keep your neighbors from blocking your view. Suppose you buy a house in a normal suburban place, 100 feet back from the road. Your neighbors decide to extend their houses or build new ones, going right up to the street. You'd be pissed that they blocked off most of your light. Manhatten even has similar requirements for skyscrapers, imposed after one wise guy built right up to the street and blocked out the Sun.

Minimum parking requirements stop all sorts of evil and unproductive behavior. In places without enough parking, much of the traffic is people driving around and around in search of parking. People hesitate to leave a good parking space. People doing business or living at one property will swipe the parking in front of a different property. Because of this swiping behavior, there is a huge disincentive to provide any parking at all.

Minimum road widths reduce driver stress. That stress increases heart attacks, divorce, and violence. Minimum road widths reduce fender-bender damage. Minimum road widths allow the movement of moving trucks, utility trucks, fire trucks, and garbage trucks.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#143

Post by graeme »

burfog wrote: post #142
clarkmoody wrote: post #8

First and foremost, we need to abolish the laws that caused this all to happen. Yes, that’s right – all of this was required to happen, by law. Many people think that sprawl is a free market phenomenon, and they are exactly wrong. Sprawl is caused by the following policies – I call these Sprawl Laws; you can find them for yourself in your local city code (for the most succinct explanation, see this paper[1]): * Zonin…

Sometimes these things get too extreme, but they do have valid reasons. Zoning should be obvious. Do you mind if I build a solid rocket factory next to your house, complete with test stand and storage of enough ammonium perchlorate to register on the Richter scale if it goes boom? (see the PEPCON disaster, which was 3 to 3.5 on the Richter scale) Setbacks, minimum lot sizes, and maximum units per lot are needed for d…

If this is true, why do cities built precar work?

I live in a neighbourhood in montreal where:

  * There are no rocket factories, yet
  * There are some setbacks but not massive ones. They're half the size of a comparable neighbourhood in Toronto. We don't flood.
  * Nobody's view is blocked
  * Most people walk, rather than drive. There's not excessive car circulation compared to other neighborhoods.
  * People are significantly more relaxed, and healthier, because they can walk rather than drive.
Plateau mont royal. Have a look at the place on Google maps. If we could clone this neighborhood and build it around the USA, developers would make trillions. It's very dense, yet families live here.

Also: How do we make a list on Hacker News? I've never figured this out.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#144

Post by technofiend »

clarkmoody wrote: post #8

First and foremost, we need to abolish the laws that caused this all to happen. Yes, that’s right – all of this was required to happen, by law. Many people think that sprawl is a free market phenomenon, and they are exactly wrong. Sprawl is caused by the following policies – I call these Sprawl Laws; you can find them for yourself in your local city code (for the most succinct explanation, see this paper[1]): * Zonin…

Houston is an interesting counterpoint to your argument that zoning and taxes caused sprawl because what motivated Houston to exercise nearly unlimited annexation powers was racially motivated flight of the voter base. The result is 640 square miles of sprawl and much like Detroit Houston has no choice now but to cut services and raise taxes to maintain the infrastructure or retract city limits. You can imagine which they chose.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#145

Post by chrismcb »

mabbo wrote: post #109
ars wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make that the world. Please don't!!! I stay far far far away from the dense cities. I can't stand those places. I'm quite happy with the way in the US you can pick where you want to live - anything from superdense, to urban, to suburban, to rural. Whatever you like, there's a city that will match you. Even better is how in some cities there is a mix, all within 50 miles of each other you have all the types. You get…

That's fine, so long as you're willing to pay for your infrastructure. Low-density suburbs with full utilities, storm sewer, etc, must have it's cost paid for by those who choose to live that lifestyle. Those of us living 27 stories up are more efficient and shouldn't have to pay for your roads.

Because you grow crops on the roof, weave cotton in the basement, and build for furniture on another for? Roads are used for more than moving people around, they also move good around,which almost everyone partakes.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#146

Post by PhasmaFelis »

mabbo wrote: post #109
ars wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make that the world. Please don't!!! I stay far far far away from the dense cities. I can't stand those places. I'm quite happy with the way in the US you can pick where you want to live - anything from superdense, to urban, to suburban, to rural. Whatever you like, there's a city that will match you. Even better is how in some cities there is a mix, all within 50 miles of each other you have all the types. You get…

That's fine, so long as you're willing to pay for your infrastructure. Low-density suburbs with full utilities, storm sewer, etc, must have it's cost paid for by those who choose to live that lifestyle. Those of us living 27 stories up are more efficient and shouldn't have to pay for your roads.

It's weird how efficient city living translates to 5-10x more expensive rent than wasteful suburban living, isn't it?

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#147

Post by icebraining »

chrismcb wrote: post #145
mabbo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, so long as you're willing to pay for your infrastructure. Low-density suburbs with full utilities, storm sewer, etc, must have it's cost paid for by those who choose to live that lifestyle. Those of us living 27 stories up are more efficient and shouldn't have to pay for your roads.

Because you grow crops on the roof, weave cotton in the basement, and build for furniture on another for? Roads are used for more than moving people around, they also move good around,which almost everyone partakes.

People growing food and making goods should embedded the cost of those roads in the prices of their products.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#148

Post by icebraining »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #146
mabbo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, so long as you're willing to pay for your infrastructure. Low-density suburbs with full utilities, storm sewer, etc, must have it's cost paid for by those who choose to live that lifestyle. Those of us living 27 stories up are more efficient and shouldn't have to pay for your roads.

It's weird how efficient city living translates to 5-10x more expensive rent than wasteful suburban living, isn't it?

Not when suburban living is subsidized.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#149

Post by elchief »

bduerst wrote: post #67
elchief wrote: post #61

Driverless cars solve this problem pretty soon The end result is going to be about ~80% fewer cars in existence.

Why? Drivers or not, cars still need roads to reach locations.

Ya, but they don't need a lane everywhere to park if there's 80% fewer of them

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#150

Post by MagnumOpus »

chrismcb wrote: post #145
mabbo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, so long as you're willing to pay for your infrastructure. Low-density suburbs with full utilities, storm sewer, etc, must have it's cost paid for by those who choose to live that lifestyle. Those of us living 27 stories up are more efficient and shouldn't have to pay for your roads.

Because you grow crops on the roof, weave cotton in the basement, and build for furniture on another for? Roads are used for more than moving people around, they also move good around,which almost everyone partakes.

A vanishingly small proportion of suburbanites farms, weaves or works in furniture factories. Indeed I wouldn't be amazed if more apartment-dwellers are engaged in those activities than McMansionites.
Post reply on HN