161–170 of 208 posts
Does the tone put anyone else off? I feel like I should be his perfect target audience (I cycle everywhere and prefer living in cities with good bike infrastructure) but I find the way he makes his arguments leaves me wanting to disagree with him.
Jason Slaughter, the author/creator, has said in numerous interviews that it is on purpose. He's tired of the BS from the pro-car, low-density folks, and leans into the snark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is made complicated because before cities go bankrupt they try to stay alive in ways that cause people and industry to leave (such as reducing school funding, reducing road maintenance, raising taxes, etc). As such, by the time the city goes bankrupt there will be other things to point to, but the underlying failure was that the city ran out of money and was trying to work around that.
And really what does bankruptcy mean for a city? It doesn't meet it's liabilities. It probably has some assets so those will be seized. That really doesn't extend to any property owned by others.
* https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=607402...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which doesn't necessitate the presence of the suburban environment. If suburban residents want a lifestyle distinct from living in the city, that is absolutely fine - but they should pay the costs of that lifestyle as it is a choice (just as living in a single family home versus an apartment is a choice urban residents make and should pay the corresponding costs to support).
Why shouldn't the city pay the costs necessary to attract the labor they need?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a reason suburbs are located directly adjacent to density and not islands of development in the middle of nowhere. Suburbs survive by proximity to density and, in most cases, pay no taxes to support that density. Further, they use the state (via zoning laws) to prevent the natural development of more housing within their borders, guaranteeing a perpetual state of dependence, and ensuring that prices stay high…
> Suburbs survive by proximity to density and, in most cases, pay no taxes to support that density. […] What suburbanites want is to be close enough to the city to enjoy all the benefits of being in a major metro area, without the hassle of supporting the project of urbanity. They want all the upsides without participating in addressing the (very real) downsides. You have this backwards: the higher density folks do n…
Tearing out cement and putting down differently arranged cement is just wasteful. The Channel likes to dwell on how the Netherlands do all these things, but the creator fails to ever mention what pays for them there. Hint - It's oil and gas revenue.
The truth of it all is that almost everything now is designed to subsidize something else, and it's a convoluted mess that enables people to steal and hide money, and to divert it to serve their interests. If we properly addressed infrastructure spending on bike lanes and all of the things done to ensure bike safety through creating a bike registration tax and an insurance system, then a lot more could likely be done…
No better example than blowing up a perfectly good stadium to then overcharge for personal seat licenses while getting that tax base to pay for more of the new stadium than the total cost of the one blown up.
Search for Jerryworld.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't the city pay the costs necessary to attract the labor they need?
Asserting that the cost is necessary is a _big_ assumption. It's subsidized, sure, but that doesn't imply that it needs to be. If the subsidy ends, maybe wages will rise to close the gap, or maybe they won't, and suburban residents will move into denser accommodations nearer the city.
Cities are in competition for talent and labor. Those that provide more of what the people who provide that labor want will do better than those that do not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suburbs provides housing. Housing on its own doesn't benefit anyone but those who live in them regardless of the density .
> Suburbs provides housing. […] regardless of the density. At what cost, especially relative to other options. Lower density may end up costing more over the long term: * https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environment... Urban living ≠ Manhattan: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E
But ultimately in these threads, the elephant in the room is that the suburbs are subsidized† by the cities they don't pay taxes into.
So why don't the cities expand their boundaries to include the suburbs, instead of trying to kill the suburbs and pull the people back into the city (where they will generally be unhappy since they had chosen to live in suburbs in the first place)?
† Side note: I have not found to be true, personally. Suburbs are paid for by the people who live there and the county, into whom we pay our taxes. In truth, a lot of our money goes into businesses in the city (who will in turn pay taxes to the city), since that's where we all go for our goods.
The US system means you can live outside cities (and so avoid paying city taxes) and travel in to enjoy the amenities they provide. The result is a classic "failure of the commons" where contributors move out and people in need move in. The growth fallacy relies on cities already being short of cash, it is a symptom, not a disease.
As an European Suburbs feel just wrong to me. I've lived in small towns and big cities in Europe. Every time there has been a grocery store within walking or biking distance (5-10 minutes). Suburbs don't have that. If you need more milk, it's a good 30 minute car ride away. Walking or going by bike are completely impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asserting that the cost is necessary is a _big_ assumption. It's subsidized, sure, but that doesn't imply that it needs to be. If the subsidy ends, maybe wages will rise to close the gap, or maybe they won't, and suburban residents will move into denser accommodations nearer the city.
Or the suburban residents will move to a city that pays for them to live they way they want to live. Cities are in competition for talent and labor. Those that provide more of what the people who provide that labor want will do better than those that do not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is straight up false. In local and state taxes, poor people pay a far higher percent of their income.
Over 50% of people pay $0 in income taxes. Yes, they pay sales taxes and generally property taxes indirectly as part of their rent - but they provide 0 in revenues as far as state, local, and Federal taxes are concerned. The top 10% of income earners pay 80% of the taxes.