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.
Well, I think we need to better try to understand why there is sprawl.
If you look at New York City for instance. Parts of Manhattan were many times more densely populated than they are today. In fact, most of the older cities, were incredibly densely populated. Why?
Well, thats simple, in the past, there weren't cars. Nothing has contributed more to urban sprawl, than the automobile. But even with the existence of the automobile, urban sprawl still wasn't too bad, until we built the interstate highways. And almost all development these days are along interstate corridors. All towns/cities which aren't along interstates, are basically dying a slow death(well, unless there's oil or other natural resources there).
The problem is that, most commutes are 20 minute to about an hour. Some people commute even further, but thats only in areas with extremely high real estate costs... If you take Manhattan for instance, how far can you really travel in 20 minutes by driving? Not very far really. Probably only a few miles. In fact, because of traffic and the slow speeds, driving isn't even that much faster than other forms of transportation. So many in Manhattan will walk, or ride a bike, or ride the subway. Even the buses in Manhattan,
If you take a city in the south though, with good interstates. In 20 minutes, you could probably drive about 15 miles. So, in that city you'll probably have a city based on a 30 mile diameter. And then if you consider that many times land prices are significantly cheaper further from the city center. It is economically beneficial to live basically a distance, that your housing bill is low enough to offset the cost of gas for the commute into the city.
So how do you get rid of sprawl? Well, there are several ways to combat sprawl. One proposal is to limit where people can build, so they don't build far from the city center. Another is to raise the cost of driving largely through gas taxes, or emissions taxes, or some kind of other tax, to such an extent that its just too cost prohibitive to drive very far at all. That would make alternatives like walking more attractive.
But the problem with these proposals, is that they always drive up costs, which will be hardest felt by those who can least afford to pay. Limiting where people can build, drives up land prices because land will be scarce. If you drastically increase the cost of driving, it disproportionately affects the poor. Because many poor people aren't able to buy fuel efficient cars, and fuel costs the same regardless of income(thus, the poor would pay a larger share of their income for gas than a wealthier person).
In my opinion, there are really only two ways to solve the problem which wouldn't disproportionately hurt the poor. And that is, either to have a form of urban transit that is so cheap and practical, that people will basically stop driving their cars. Which doesn't include basically any current forms of mass transit, but would include something like a personal rapid transit.
The only other way, would be to get rid of the problem. The roads.
Even though I don't particularly believe its a good idea to get rid of the roads. But keep in mind, roads are extremely expensive. They are publicly funded so as to be free, but that effectively creates almost a monopoly in transportation for the automobile. Most cities put in bus service, but rarely rail service. Because, buses are so much cheaper, because the infrastructure already exists. In the absence of the existence of the infrastructure, there would be much more competition in transportation, and we might see some pretty interesting alternatives. And the best part is, it would not negatively affect the poor.
Oregon uses Urban Growth Boundaries to protect their forests and farm land from sprawl which leads to much better cities and communities that also don't take long to get anywhere by car, transit, bike, or foot.
I think city planners and liberals, especially here in California, are pushing to stick people in dense housing developments or multi-residential units in urban areas.
First, I hope liberals realize those projects are extremely costly for someone to live there and second not everyone wants to live in an urban environment. Telling people to not use cars is just not going to happen. Most of this nation is built around roadways and suburbanization. If people liked it back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, early 2000s, and it still works for people then great!
Secondly, liberals always blame the rich and corporations for getting tax breaks. A democrat's definition of "rich" is way different than mine. If one person makes $100,000+ you are considered upper middle class and rich in my books. And not all corporations are evil. Given some are, but not all.
Anyways back to the main point. Too many liberal cities and towns are becoming too costly to live in. Colleges+lots hiking+lack of affordable housing=a place only meant for rich and liberals.
I would rather take a brand new sprawled out development with homes at affordable cost. I want a nice big beautiful house to have bbqs and my own space! God Bless the American dream!
This environment damage information - no one cares. I am a Bible believer, and this Earth is going up in flames one day. So until then I'm going to live in a suburban, cheap home close to affordable and accessible big box centers and malls and large churches. Yes that's right! I said it! Get over it! I can't stand downtown shopping if there is a parking cost involved. And I am also not interested in the beauty of downtown developments or the liberal belief that cookie cutter homes are ugly. Because I think hills covered in homes are beautiful. It's peaceful and the sound of the freeway is relaxing!
Lastly, if tearing out nature for a new tax-generating business park or college or some sort of business comes up, please take your "save the environment" elsewhere. Europe perhaps?
In the mean time, please keep our liberal cities seperate from our conservative cities. Thanks!
Liberals are mad at republicans, for giving large corporations and the rich low tax rates.
Republicans follow supply side/trickle down economics. These economic theories literally give large corporations and the rich the lowest tax rates.
The following youtube link is 3 minutes long. It shows billionaire Warren Buffett and his secretary giving an interview about their tax rates. Because of republicans billionaires have a 17% federal tax rate, and Americans who make $90,000 a year have a 30%+ federal tax rate.
But republican Rush radio says "the rich made all the right choices", so republicans who pay over 17% in federal taxes, don't care that billionaires have lower tax rates than them.
The stupid thing is the above $6.6 trillion dollars, would have been added to Americas national debt. And since there are no spending regulations on how to spend supply side tax cuts, large corporations would have used that money to build US factories in China.
What size "supply side tax cuts" are republicans looking for in 2016 ??
I have asked this question many times, but republicans refuse to answer it.
What size "supply side tax cuts" are republicans looking for in 2016 ??
I'm not a republican so I can't answer your question, but I have a question for you.... How long before you bail on this thread??
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.
