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.
First before you say anything let me say that I am NOT advocating that we do this. This is just to let you know so you don't get all angry or whatnot.
But I was wondering if in some hypothetical situation would it be the only reliable way to save the planet earth from sprawl is to take the most drastic action and force people to give up their suburban home and build dense cities almost in a matter of weeks or months, like China would do, in designated human habitation zones. I thought about this and I think this may be the only way to actually end sprawl is not only to stop building it, but to in a sense reverse it.... literally. However, people in general would not like that very much.
I think that it would only work if there was some sort of international organization that would have some power over the U.S. government, but it would be made up of experts who would know how to properly do things.
With the way the U.S. does things right now, it would be impossible to reverse sprawl unless everyone was willing to sell their house and property to some conservation agency for a fair market value. Barring some massive disaster like a flood or hurricane that wipes out hundreds of square miles of suburbs, it is only possible for anyone to buy up land to hold it from being developed or at least enforce some sort of strict urban growth boundary or wilderness protection areas. But it is impossible to get rid of something that is already built on scale needed to properly rewild areas that have been changed by sprawl.
Do you think that the only way to stop sprawl and reverse it would be to force people out of their homes and into designated human habitation zones? Or do you think there could be a free market way in order to do this, without use of any sort of force or coercion involved?
Again, this is NOT a thread about whether this should happen or not nor is this a discussion of politics. This is just a thread discussing whether or not this would be the only way to do it, or could there be a more fairer way to help people voluntarily give up their suburban home so that it could be removed and turned back into wildlife.
Before you ask, no I am not advocating we force people out of their homes and demolish them. I think suburban sprawl is a problem but doing this isn't really the best solution to the problem.
Last edited by JKFire108; 01-30-2011 at 08:07 PM..
The governamnt doesn't have the money as its already unable to keeepup with tearing down diserted unsafe urban builidng with grants since the cities don't have the cash.
Well, the free-market way to do it would be to find a way to pay for municipal services other than taxes, which are tied to development (property tax) and/or population (income tax). Or, to change tax valuation standards to value undeveloped property higher than developed property.
Destroying existing housing to force one way of behavior over another is not only a tremendous waste of resources, it's also one of the silliest things I've ever heard.
Well, the free-market way to do it would be to find a way to pay for municipal services other than taxes, which are tied to development (property tax) and/or population (income tax). Or, to change tax valuation standards to value undeveloped property higher than developed property.
Destroying existing housing to force one way of behavior over another is not only a tremendous waste of resources, it's also one of the silliest things I've ever heard.
People in most areas do pay for municipal services. The exception is police and fire protection. Due to the legal issues involved with making people pay directly out of pocket, I don't see that model going away in my lifetime.
Even if you made people pay for services it wouldn't do any good. Many places across the country have additional fees that people pay to fund the schools, police and other things in their suburban corner of the city. There are places in California where these fees exceed $400 a month. A MONTH. Developers didn't have any problems selling those homes.
why are you guys assuming that it is the suburbs itself that is the problem?
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.
? Hehehehe
