Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always find it humorous that some of those who most vociferously oppose and denigrate coal also support one of the other environmentally disastrous forms of electric generation-hydropower.
No, we don't need to live cramped like in Europe. Our ancestors left Europe. We need elbow room.
The US will need to live more "cramped like in Europe" in order to fix its infrastructure and housing crisis, otherwise it is only getting worse, especially with growing population density in the US. I am just the messenger. What some consider "cramped like in Europe" others do consider "cozy like in Europe". The most expensive places and thus places in high demand in the US are places that are more "cramped/cozy like in Europe". Places such as Boston, SF and NYC. I definitely prefer "cramped/cozy like in Europe" over "crumbling infrastructure and housing crisis like in the US".
The US will need to live more "cramped like in Europe" in order to fix its infrastructure and housing crisis, otherwise it is only getting worse, especially with growing population density in the US. I am just the messenger. What some consider "cramped like in Europe" others do consider "cozy like in Europe". The most expensive places and thus places in high demand in the US are places that are more "cramped/cozy like in Europe". Places such as Boston, SF and NYC. I definitely prefer "cramped/cozy like in Europe" over "crumbling infrastructure and housing crisis like in the US".
How are you going to force Americans to live "cozy"? Herd them at gunpoint to the new Trump Tower Blocks? Do you really think that someone who wants to live in a suburban area will respond favorably when you tell them that their new 100 sq meter flat will be just as good as their 300 sq meter house with a yard, pool, and garage?
How are you going to force Americans to live "cozy"? Herd them at gunpoint to the new Trump Tower Blocks? Do you really think that someone who wants to live in a suburban area will respond favorably when you tell them that their new 100 sq meter flat will be just as good as their 300 sq meter house with a yard, pool, and garage?
First of all, I'm just the messenger. However, if you asked me what I would do as an American, then I would (1) abolish all regulations and subsidies that lead to overbuilt and oversized infrastructure (2) I would not support any tax money for the further expansion of the infrastructure and only for improvement and maintenance of the existing ones, except for transit and (3) I would replace all taxes with a land value tax.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,553 posts, read 81,067,970 times
Reputation: 57723
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPBailey
What has priority over safe and economically-efficient-for-commerce roads, highways, city streets, locks, airports, levees, dams, water treatment facilities, sewage systems, railroads, harbors, canals, docks, buildings, tunnels, commercial vehicle parking facilities and bridges? Another Anne Frank memorial downtown?
Dams produce cheap electricity, collect fresh water for household consumption and control flooding.
I'll answer that...for the Seattle City Council, it's worker's rights, community gardens to replace parking spots, worker housing, banning single family zoning, expanded sick leave pay, and taxing the rich (per their own publications).
First of all, I'm just the messenger. However, if you asked me what I would do as an American, then I would (1) abolish all regulations and subsidies that lead to overbuilt and oversized infrastructure (2) I would not support any tax money for the further expansion of the infrastructure and only for improvement and maintenance of the existing ones, except for transit and (3) I would replace all taxes with a land value tax.
What happens when you need more infrastructure to handle increased shipments of goods? ie, there are now twice as many trucks hauling goods than there were when the road was built, and it is now overcrowded. Rail is not the answer, as it doesn't go everywhere deliveries need to be made.
Land value tax is garbage. One of the worst ideas ever, in that it encourages unnecessary development.
Transit is overrated, since for most people they think "rail", even if rail isn't the answer.
I do not want to be forced to live in some academician's idea of the perfect place. I like my small house on a big lot in the central city.
What happens when you need more infrastructure to handle increased shipments of goods? ie, there are now twice as many trucks hauling goods than there were when the road was built, and it is now overcrowded. Rail is not the answer, as it doesn't go everywhere deliveries need to be made.
Counter-question: Where should this lead when more and more road space is required to transport goods? There may be a problem with over-consumption of goods cheaply produced in third world countries, the transport of which is a heavy burden on the infrastructure. The solution is less consumption and more national/local production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
Land value tax is garbage. One of the worst ideas ever, in that it encourages unnecessary development.
It encourages more efficient land use, which is desperately needed for improving existing infrastructure, solving the housing / homelessness crisis and minimizing the ongoing rampant environmental destruction through urban sprawl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
Transit is overrated, since for most people they think "rail", even if rail isn't the answer.
But rail is part of the solution. Rail can transport more people requiring far less space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
I do not want to be forced to live in some academician's idea of the perfect place. I like my small house on a big lot in the central city.
That may be your preference, but the economic and environmental facts apply regardless. I'm just showing you the consequences of certain preferences and policies. You are free to make your decisions, face the consequences and pass them on to other and future generations. I don't have the power to change this. I am just the messenger. It might be wise to listen to academics more often. The opposite would be to listen to people, who have no idea about the topic.
Last edited by Stadthaus; 01-06-2022 at 05:46 PM..
Counter-question: Where should this lead when more and more road space is required to transport goods? There may be a problem with over-consumption of goods cheaply produced in third world countries, the transport of which is a heavy burden on the infrastructure. The solution is less consumption and more national/local production.
Local production doesn't solve local transportation. Moreover, you now have the increased local traffic due to finishing the goods locally. However, in your simplistic world your consumption problem is resolved by reducing population. This undermines your blind push for density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadthaus
It encourages more efficient land use, which is desperately needed for improving existing infrastructure, solving the housing / homelessness crisis and minimizing the ongoing rampant environmental destruction through urban sprawl.
What a load of malarkey. There is already a "land tax". It is called an ad valorem tax. What you are seeking is to impose a much greater tax on the property such that the property owner will be forced to try to develop the land into something that generates more revenue, come out of pocket to pay for more taxes, etc. Forcing people to speculatively build because they are being punished with a land tax is a very poor idea. Who says the speculatively built improvement is needed to begin with?
Next to suggest this solves all the problem you mentioned is laughable. How can it possibly solve "homelessness"? Under your theory, because the owner is forced to build something, anything, pfffft in your mind you have just solved homelessness or some housing infrastructure and minimized "sprawl".
In reality you have accomplished nothing but create a greater risk of economic disaster. The folks down the road ("sprawl") aren't checking and don't care what you build. They are building anyway - and may be forced to anyway based upon a "land tax". All you have done is promote economic waste.
If your complaint is "sprawl", it is difficult to reconcile how a land tax would in any way discourage "sprawl".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadthaus
But rail is part of the solution. Rail can transport more people requiring far less space.
This is somewhat equivocal. Rail might be able to get a lot of people from point A to point B. But that's not terribly useful unless you can get to point A and point B is somewhere you wanted to go to begin with. Cars are far more flexible in every way. It's pointless to argue about it because rail simply does not serve the vast majority of the population.
In addition the rail proposal seem to follow other proposals - that people need to all work in concentrated areas and return home elsewhere. That model has never been suitable or applicable for many trades. If you haven't noticed many businesses (and workers) have learned they don't need to be commuting downtown to work. No need for the high cost of inflexible trains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadthaus
That may be your preference, but the economic and environmental facts apply regardless. I'm just showing you the consequences of certain preferences and policies. You are free to make your decisions, face the consequences and pass them on to other and future generations. I don't have the power to change this. I am just the messenger. It might be wise to listen to academics more often. The opposite would be to listen to people, who have no idea about the topic.
Ah yes the all-knowing sage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadthaus
First of all, I'm just the messenger. However, if you asked me what I would do as an American, then I would (1) abolish all regulations and subsidies that lead to overbuilt and oversized infrastructure (2) I would not support any tax money for the further expansion of the infrastructure and only for improvement and maintenance of the existing ones, except for transit and (3) I would replace all taxes with a land value tax.
But you are not an American so it's a moot hypothetical at any rate. "1" is simply generalization with no specifics. What's "overbuilt"? What's "oversized"? What incompetent engineer would only build to exactly what is needed for the moment instead of providing some room for growth? "2" is absurd because you can't expect folks to be content with being taxed to provide services to others while being denied the same for themselves. "3" has already been commented on.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 01-06-2022 at 10:03 PM..
Local production doesn't solve local transportation. Moreover, you now have the increased local traffic due to finishing the goods locally.
Which is more than offset by the decrease in long distance freight transport, which makes up the vast majority of overall freight transport. More local and national production does decrease overall freight transport and thus the overall costs for infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
However, in your simplistic world your consumption problem is resolved by reducing population. This undermines your blind push for density.
In my "simplistic world", the consumption problem is not resolved by reducing population, but simply more sustainable consumption with less wasteful consumption and increased product quality. See absolutely wasteful nature of fast fashion and other short term production/consumption! It's time we start producing more locally/nationally again, consuming less quantities, but higher quality products, that have a longer life span. The positive side effect would be that the infrastructure is less stressed, less infrastructure is required, so that fewer economic resources are required for expansion and maintenance and / or more resources can flow into the maintenance and improvements of existing infrastructure without any additional inflation / taxation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
What a load of malarkey. There is already a "land tax". It is called an ad valorem tax.
Where is it and how much is it? It has to be significant in order to have a significant effect. I suggested to replace all other taxation with a land value tax. Where has this been implemented yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
What you are seeking is to impose a much greater tax on the property...
What property? I am talking about land only, not real estate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
...such that the property owner will be forced to try to develop the land into something that generates more revenue, come out of pocket to pay for more taxes, etc.
No, because the only taxes would be land value taxes and incentivizing owners to utilize their land more effectively is part of the solution of the problems i have mentioned before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Forcing people to speculatively build because they are being punished with a land tax is a very poor idea. Who says the speculatively built improvement is needed to begin with?
On the contrary, a land value tax reduces the incentive to speculate, as it costs money. Owners are incentivized to turn their land into something that is really useful, like housing more people on it. Not a "poor idea", but a solution to the ongoing housing crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Next to suggest this solves all the problem you mentioned is laughable. How can it possibly solve "homelessness"? Under your theory, because the owner is forced to build something, anything, pfffft in your mind you have just solved homelessness or some housing infrastructure and minimized "sprawl".
The owner is not forced to build anything, but incentivized use his land more productivity, which is exactly what is needed in order to avoid wasteful development such as oversized lawns that take up space for no other reason than look, oversized homes that house few people etc. All this waste of land leads to higher infrastructure costs and more expensive housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
In reality you have accomplished nothing but create a greater risk of economic disaster. The folks down the road ("sprawl") aren't checking and don't care what you build. They are building anyway - and may be forced to anyway based upon a "land tax". All you have done is promote economic waste.
On the contrary, since it is more costly to own land, people will think twice, if they build big homes with big lawns that house few people, which is an economic waste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
If your complaint is "sprawl", it is difficult to reconcile how a land tax would in any way discourage "sprawl".
Because it encourages infill development and increasing the density of construction/housing on existing land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
This is somewhat equivocal. Rail might be able to get a lot of people from point A to point B. But that's not terribly useful unless you can get to point A and point B is somewhere you wanted to go to begin with.
In a compactly built environment, more people have a higher overlapping of their travel destinations. This is why in denser places, trains are used more often. In addition you can walk the last mile from your station in a compact built environment. Daily reality in compact cities around the globe for many many decades. Not something that still needs to be discussed or tested. It works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Cars are far more flexible in every way.
Not necessarily. That depends on how good the road network is relative to the rail network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
It's pointless to argue about it because rail simply does not serve the vast majority of the population.
The point is argue about it whether to make it serve a higher percentage of the population. And just because not everyone is using something, doesn't mean it is useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
In addition the rail proposal seem to follow other proposals - that people need to all work in concentrated areas and return home elsewhere.
No, that is not what the rail proposal seem to follow. It follows the proposal, that there are more overlappings of destinations due to higher residential density. And in the proposal of more compact built environments, people work all over the place thanks to less strict zoning regulations. It's the concept of the sprawling car dependent low density development, that proposes the strict separation of uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
That model has never been suitable or applicable for many trades. If you haven't noticed many businesses (and workers) have learned they don't need to be commuting downtown to work. No need for the high cost of inflexible trains.
Not everyone is so privileged that she/he can work from home and trains can be used for more than just commuting, shocker. And trains/cars are as flexible as their network.
Never claimed it would be something else, i am just the messenger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
"1" is simply generalization with no specifics. What's "overbuilt"? What's "oversized"?
The infrastructure is oversized and overbuilt. Too many roads, too wide roads, too large grid networks, that are extremely expensive to build and maintain and often are not maintained at all or very little because of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
What incompetent engineer would only build to exactly what is needed for the moment instead of providing some room for growth?
What is needed? Just because there are more and bigger cars on the roads doesn't mean more roads are needed. Maybe less cars are needed. I would think, that an engineer prioritizes the safety of its infrastructure. An infrastructure that is too costly to be build in high quality and too costly to be maintained properly is a safety risk and shouldn't be build in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
"2" is absurd because you can't expect folks to be content with being taxed to provide services to others while being denied the same for themselves.
But it is not absurd, that the majority of people are harmed by rising housing costs and crumbling infrastructure? Not to mention the economical and environmental costs affecting future generations.
Just for reference, the US is 28 times larger than Germany, which is roughly the size of Montana.
Germany is a bit over 137,000 square miles while the US is almost 4,000,000 square miles. That makes a difference that pretentious New Urbanists choose to ignore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
