# How to deal with (sub)urban sprawl? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831 "2009-05-09T05:57:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/301 "2009-05-21T08:00:43Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you misunderstood me. I was merely pointing out that **Sam Stone** was treating yards and garages as a lifestyle advantage in the suburbs’ favor. (Yes, I’m aware that having a yard and garage is the norm for suburban living.) By that logic, we should also count the lifestyle advantages of the cities, such as easy access to a large variety of special cultural/commercial attractions like museums, as a bonus in the cities’ favor. That doesn’t change just because you personally find public transit distasteful. All the museums around me have free and plentiful parking so you’re comparing city museums to suburban museums. Except for broadway shows there is nothing in a city that can’t be found in the suburbs. OK, East Coast deli’s and the similar city ambience. But as a suburbanite I fall in the crowd that likes to cook so we probably eat more of our high-end meals at home. I literally had barbecued shrimp with friends today. It was a restaurant quality meal that cost little to make. The corn was .17 cents an ear and even with wine, the whole meal was probably $6 a person. > [@Kimstu](#): > > (By the way, I think most city dwellers are capable of walking farther than the nearest corner to get to a museum. And even museums that aren’t within walking distance are usually quicker and cheaper for city dwellers to get to than they are for sprawl dwellers who have to drive a half-hour or more to reach the museum, and then find parking.) > > Who said it was? What I noted is that once a suburb begins to be developed (at which point, the city is **already** established and supplied with utilities: if the city weren’t there, it wouldn’t be spawning a suburb), it’s more costly for utility companies to provide services to its residents than to city dwellers, because they’re more spread out. [Here’s a cite:](http://www.cfed.org/publications/accountability/Accountability%20Apr%2000.pdf) I’ll have to disagree with your cite at this time because it’s the opinion of the author (without support). IMO, it’s cheaper to wire and maintain a suburban area because everything is open and accessable. We had a major storm that tore power lines down over a multi-state area and we had power back in a week. I had it back in hours and in my neighborhood we ran power lines across the street to our neighbors. You can’t just compare the costs of establishing a city in the first place with the costs of establishing a suburb, as though they were both starting from scratch. The suburb’s existence is dependent on the prior existence of the city; that’s part of the definition of what a suburb is. [/QUOTE] I think I’ve posted enough examples in support of why city costs are so high. Even if you started from scratch I think you would find it difficult to make large apartments as efficient as houses and smaller apartments, regardless of where you build them. It is possible to build a house that is 100% utility independent. That will never happen in an apartment. With recent advancements in batteries I think you’ll see fully electric cars move rapidly down from the $75,000 level to econobox level within the next 15 years. At that point, the idea of how roads are paid for will change radically. Personally, I’d rather own a diesel car and pay a fuel tax. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/302 "2009-05-21T08:05:44Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Yeah, that sneaky Magiver guy actually trying to use real numbers and doing a calculation or two… > > For the record, I think his point is besides the point, but he’s doing calculus compared to your guys hand waving about the “obvious”. If its SO obvious, your numbers should just fall in your lap. Wow. He’s using numbers and math. He must be a freaking genius.:rolleyes: [QUOTE=Magiver] I’ve provided you hard evidence of the inefficiencies of cities which you simply ignored. Stacking people like chord wood may seem efficient on the surface but it simply means resources have to be brought in from greater distances at a greater cost. When water costs 50 times more than less dense communities then that money is taken out of the economy without additional benefit. [/quote] What are you talking about? Where do you think your suburban resources come from? Are there cows grazing in Morristown, NJ? Are there there litterally saw mills on the Saw Mill River Parkway in this day and age? Where is the nearest coal mine to NY? For that matter, what resources does Phoenix, AZ; Atlanta, GA; Dallas, TX; Jacksonville, FL or any other modern sprawlopolis find locally? Or do you think they just create them out of thin air at the local Lowe’s? Regardless if you live in a suburb or a city, chances are all of your resources have to be shipped to you from somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/303 "2009-05-21T08:35:04Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Wow. He’s using numbers and math. He must be a freaking genius.:rolleyes: What does that make the people who don’t support their position with numbers? > [@msmith537](#): > > What are you talking about? Where do you think your suburban resources come from? Are there cows grazing in Morristown, NJ? Are there there litterally saw mills on the Saw Mill River Parkway in this day and age? Where is the nearest coal mine to NY? For that matter, what resources does Phoenix, AZ; Atlanta, GA; Dallas, TX; Jacksonville, FL or any other modern sprawlopolis find locally? > > Or do you think they just create them out of thin air at the local Lowe’s? > > Regardless if you live in a suburb or a city, chances are all of your resources have to be shipped to you from somewhere else. If you research Ohio you’ll find that we export a lot of chicken, beef, and pork as well as other food staples. I buy a lot of locally grown food. We also have coal mines and harvest trees although I suspect generic lumber comes from Canada and western states. I purchase finished items such as roof trusses locally. My electricity comes from a plant 15 miles away that is supported by peak-use generators that are 5 miles away. My water comes from a tower 3 miles away that pulls from local wells. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/304 "2009-05-21T10:26:23Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > What are you talking about? Where do you think your suburban resources come from? Are there cows grazing in Morristown, NJ? Are there there litterally saw mills on the Saw Mill River Parkway in this day and age? Where is the nearest coal mine to NY? There’s a dairy farm in Newark. That count? The Saw Mill Parkway is actually named after a river… named after a saw mill owned by a man who died a century before the country was founded. Great man. Same guy Yonkers is named after, mind you. > **[Adriaen van der Donck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriaen_van_der_Donck)** > > Adriaen Cornelissen van der Donck (c.1618 – 1655) was a lawyer and landowner in New Netherland after whose honorific Jonkheer the city of Yonkers, New York, is named. Although he was not, as sometimes claimed, the first lawyer in the Dutch colony (an 'honor' that befell the lesser-known Lubbert Dinclagen who arrived in 1634),\[not verified in body\] Van der Donck was a leader in the political life of New Amsterdam (modern New York City), and an activist for Dutch-style republican government in th... There’s a small boatload of lumberyards around, though. Wolfram Alpha borks on the coal mine question. I’d say it’s in PA, which is really barely a distance away. Why do you ask? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/305 "2009-05-21T10:27:39Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Originally Posted by msmith537 > Wow. He’s using numbers and math. He must be a freaking genius. > > What does that make the people who don’t support their position with numbers? It doesn’t mean anything if you just throw out some numbers without taking into account their context. All you have convinced me of is that large cities require big, expensive public works projects to support them. That in and of itself does not mean less efficient. What I would like to see from you are cites from articles providing examples how a more distributed arrangement (AKA suburban sprawl) is more efficient. I’m not arguing that one is better than the other because there are pros and cons to either environment. I’ve asked several times and I’ve actually provided one supporting my case. > [@RickJay](#): > > First of all, dude, you claim to have gone to school, right? “Its” means “belonging to it,” “It’s” means “It is.” You’re a valuable poster and you seem like a standup guy so I really am not trying to be a dick, and it’s not worth a pitting so I’ll say it here; this is Grade 2 stuff and you screw it up in almost every post. Please. I’m sorry, it drives me crazy. I don’t mean to go all picky but you and Der Trihs are the worst offenders (among posters who add anything to the board) and it’s really distracting. Well, you are kinda being a dick. No one likes a grammar cop or a wordsmith. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/306 "2009-05-21T13:58:18Z")
I’m not sure why you need studies and cites to prove that cities are less efficient. You have the simple fact that cities cost much more to live in than do rural and suburban areas. Isn’t that a pretty good measure of efficiency? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/307 "2009-05-21T14:06:01Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If you’re going to count yards and garages as “quality of life” bonuses for the suburbs, you need to count things like theaters, stores within walking distance, festivals, museums, etc., as “quality of life” bonuses for the cities. The suburbs don’t lack those things. When I lived in the city, I found it no easier to get to a theater than I do now. Unless you happen to live within walking distance of the theater or museum (and few people do, even in the city), I don’t see the advantage. I didn’t even shop locally - It’s much cheaper and more efficient to drive to a big box grocery store and load up on a few hundred dollars worth of food at a time than it is to stop at the local grocer that’s within walking distance and pick up a bag of groceries. If I need milk or eggs, I have two 7-11’s within walking distance of my house right now. Theaters? I’ve got a 10-theater multiplex five minutes from my house by car. And of course, it has a nice big parking lot. And ten minutes from here is a state-of-the-art theater with awesome picture and sound. It is much more convenient for me to go to a theater now than it was when I lived in the city. For me, I really can’t think of any lifestyle advantages living in the city core brings to the table. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/308 "2009-05-21T14:17:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > For me, I really can’t think of any lifestyle advantages living in the city core brings to the table. Your missing the point Sam. Big City living brings you MORE STUFF than you could possibly in the time that you have. Its like the lifestyle version of a big ass gas guzzling 4WD SUV. Its way more than you need and more than you will ever use. But you get to point at it and proclaim how great it is. I don’t care if city people like city life. Good for them. But statistically speaking, they seem to have a hard time understanding the concept that other people can find other ways to be happy. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/309 "2009-05-21T14:53:10Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’m not sure why you need studies and cites to prove that cities are less efficient. Because it would help to prove your point. Otherwise everyone is just handwaving and tossing out made up stats and back of the napkin analysis. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You have the simple fact that cities cost much more to live in than do rural and suburban areas. Isn’t that a pretty good measure of efficiency? No, and here is why. A casual search on [Zillow.com](http://Zillow.com) shows that real estate prices in Manhattan are about 4-5x the price per square foot of space compared to a suburb like Fairfield, CT. Ignoring all other factors, that tells me that people are paying a premium to live in Manhattan. Their homes don’t use more resources per square foot than their suburban equivalents. It’s the desirability to live in Manhattan that drives the prices up. So IOW, it’s not tied to resource usage. I think I understand your point though. Cities require huge, expensive infrastructure to opperate - highways, public transit, The Big Dig, the John McClain Memorial Aquaduct as seen in Die Hard With A Vengence. So how are they more efficient? They are more efficient because that infrastructure supports many times the number of people as their suburban equivalents. The higher costs mean people have to spend more money on infrastructure that benefits the entire city, instead of their own living space. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > which is really barely a distance away. Why do you ask? Because you just invalidated \*\*Magiver’s \*\*point that cities need to bring everything from far away. It was kind of a silly point anyway. Cities generally form because they are near resources or transportation hubs in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/310 "2009-05-21T17:11:16Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The suburbs don’t lack those things. When I lived in the city, I found it no easier to get to a theater than I do now. Unless you happen to live within walking distance of the theater or museum (and few people do, even in the city), I don’t see the advantage. I didn’t even shop locally - It’s much cheaper and more efficient to drive to a big box grocery store and load up on a few hundred dollars worth of food at a time than it is to stop at the local grocer that’s within walking distance and pick up a bag of groceries. If I need milk or eggs, I have two 7-11’s within walking distance of my house right now. Vis a vis theatre, I’m pretty sure they were discussing theatre as in stage productions, not cinema. I don’t think there’s a lot of doubt that live theatre is, in most cases, much more prevalent in big cities than anywhere else, though there are exceptions. Toronto has a lot of live entertainment Burlington would never have. Of course, unless theatre is actually one’s profession, I think the great majority of people don’t see so many shows that they need to be just minutes away. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/311 "2009-05-21T19:04:30Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > It doesn’t mean anything if you just throw out some numbers without taking into account their context. All you have convinced me of is that large cities require big, expensive public works projects to support them. That in and of itself does not mean less efficient. How can you go from admitting large cities require large expensive public works projects to not understanding that this is less efficient? What is efficient about spending $6 billions dollars to drill a 60 mile tunnel? I’ve broken it down to cost per person to give it context. $750 for every single person in NYC. It was a 5000 percent difference. When you apply that money to environmental issues that’s a lot of money to throw down a well. It’s not efficient to build water towers for each apartment building. It’s not efficient to dig and maintain tunnels to run electrical wire. It’s not efficient for Los Angeles to build 500 miles of road to service 133 miles of water pipes. All those inefficiencies add up to the higher city costs in Sam Stone’s post. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/312 "2009-05-22T00:56:33Z")
Bubbe? Large expensive public works are kind of the definition of economy of scale here. Only $750 to get water to a person? Hell, you don’t _want_ to know what it cost to get a sewer to my house in a suburb. (New subdivision going in a half mile away.) I think it was something like fifteen grand. Note, by the way, that my town is a suburb… and it’s been around since before the American Revolution. It’s not cookie-cutter by any means. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/313 "2009-05-22T01:03:33Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Bubbe? Large expensive public works are kind of the definition of economy of scale here. Only $750 to get water to a person? Hell, you don’t _want_ to know what it cost to get a sewer to my house in a suburb. (New subdivision going in a half mile away.) I think it was something like fifteen grand. > Note, by the way, that my town is a suburb… and it’s been around since before the American Revolution. It’s not cookie-cutter by any means. That 750 is JUST the money to get some (not even all by any means) of the WATER to the city. It aint the distribution cost and sewer is a whole nother ball of wax. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/314 "2009-05-22T01:23:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I didn’t say anything like that. I said that suburbs ARE more efficient, and this can be seen directly by comparing the cost of living in a large city compared to the cost of living in the suburbs. I don’t buy your entire thesis that money and energy are intrinsically linked. I think it’s hogwash. A 1000 square foot apartment in midtown Manhattan costs say 3m. A 3000 square foot home in Sheboygan costs 150,000. That doesn’t mean that the midtown apartment uses more energy, that’s just illogical. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/315 "2009-05-22T01:25:59Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’m not sure why you need studies and cites to prove that cities are less efficient. You have the simple fact that cities cost much more to live in than do rural and suburban areas. Isn’t that a pretty good measure of efficiency? No because money =/= energy. Price is relative to demand, not relative to joules. If money = energy than gas at 4.25 a gallon would get you farther than it would if it costs you 1.50. A gallon of gas goes just as far regardless of how much it costs. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/316 "2009-05-22T02:40:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t buy your entire thesis that money and energy are intrinsically linked. I think it’s hogwash. A 1000 square foot apartment in midtown Manhattan costs say 3m. A 3000 square foot home in Sheboygan costs 150,000. That doesn’t mean that the midtown apartment uses more energy, that’s just illogical. Utilities are independent of housing demand. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/317 "2009-05-22T02:45:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No because money =/= energy. Price is relative to demand, not relative to joules. If money = energy than gas at 4.25 a gallon would get you farther than it would if it costs you 1.50. A gallon of gas goes just as far regardless of how much it costs. Price of utilities is related to the cost of production. If it cost more to produce, it’s less efficient. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/318 "2009-05-22T02:51:09Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No because money =/= energy. Price is relative to demand, not relative to joules. If money = energy than gas at 4.25 a gallon would get you farther than it would if it costs you 1.50. A gallon of gas goes just as far regardless of how much it costs. One dollar of money does not equal exactly one dollars worth of gas, that is true. On the other hand, some small, but significant fraction of every dollar in the economy IS representative of energy/gas used. To use an extreme example, the astronauts on the ISS arent using very many resources to “live”, but I am pretty damn sure a bunch of energy was used to get them there and support them while they are there. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/319 "2009-05-22T03:06:37Z")
You can all relax now[. I have the solution right here](http://architecture.myninjaplease.com/?p=2938). ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/320 "2009-05-22T04:16:44Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t buy your entire thesis that money and energy are intrinsically linked. I think it’s hogwash. A 1000 square foot apartment in midtown Manhattan costs say 3m. A 3000 square foot home in Sheboygan costs 150,000. That doesn’t mean that the midtown apartment uses more energy, that’s just illogical. You don’t understand. Our energy problem is a financial problem, not strictly a technical problem. We know how to make almost limitless amounts of clean energy. The problem is cost. Physically, we could make enough solar panels or windmills or geothermal systems or solar power satellites or whatever. But we can’t make them and still deliver power at prices competitive with current sources. For example, we know we can make power with wind for roughly twice the cost of current sources. If we go to four times the cost, we can make a lot of it. But we can’t afford to do that and still remain competitive with the rest of the world. So in that sense, money == energy. If it costs $40,000 more per year to live in Manhattan than to live in New Jersey, and your only concern is the energy efficiency of living in New Jersey, then you could take a fraction of that $40,000 and subsidize alternative forms of clean energy to make up the difference so that the carbon footprints are equal. As for your other argument - that the high cost of living in the city is not a lack of efficiency but the high cost of real estate - again, you’re thinking about the problem the wrong way. You can’t separate the high cost of real-estate from efficiency. Real estate cost is absolutely a major factor in the efficiency of cities, or lack thereof. As you pack more people into the same area, demand for real estate goes up. If you want to have shops and recreational facilities within walking distance of those people, the cost of those activities goes up. These are real costs, and every bit as much a factor in calculating the efficiency of providing a service as is raw energy cost. My company just moved to the suburbs because it cost us more to make our product in the city. It doesn’t matter if the cost came from higher real estate prices or higher shipping costs or higher energy usage. All that matters is aggregate production cost. Locating an R&D facility in the city has simply become too inefficient to make sense. You have to stop separating economics from environmental concerns. They are one and the same. With enough money, we can turn the earth into a park no matter how many people are on it. Clean environments and environmentalism are by-products of wealthy societies. Environmental measures that destroy wealth are counter-productive in the long run. Raising my living costs by $40,000 per year so that I’ll use $1000 less in energy is a wealth-destroying activity. You’d be much better off letting me live where I want to and taxing me 1/10 that amount and using it to create clean energy to offset my increased usage. Hey, that’s what Al Gore does. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831.md?page=17)