Every store I go to has people EVERYWHERE. Work, Walmart, Starbucks, PF Changs, the Bars, the schools, the library, the hardware store, the parks. Hundreds if not thousands of people I can choose to and often do spontaneeously interact with every single day.
I can sit on my front porch, which I often do, and wave to the neighbors driving by (one guy, retired preacher, makes of point of honking every time he sees me out there, friendly guy), and I’ll often chat up the folks taking their daily walk or bike ride.
As far as I can tell, the only real difference between the city and the burbs is that when you go somewhere, the burbs has lots of people, and the city has lots and lots of people. But I already got way more people than I could possibly interact with as it is. The other difference is I drive somewhere in comfort rather working my way through a sea of people that are elbow to elbow basically ignoring them in the process of trying to get there (as another poster noted).
EVERYBODY is riding that free carbon spewing gravy train right now.
Some people use more energy than others. Some people consume more consumer crap than others (which still means energy). Actually not even some. Half of the people do statistically speaking.
Pick virtually any persons consumption/lifestyle and we can ask “do you REALLY need that”? And the answer is usually going to be no.
The answer to the problem isnt to get all holier than tho about YOUR eco perfect lifestyle and someone else’s greedy earth raping lifestyle. For two reasons IMO. First it won’t work. And second, its hypocritical BS. And third, Opal doesnt like it either.
The answer is for society as a WHOLE to either tax carbon as a way to moderate the amount being put out, or just decide exactly how much can be spewed annually or some other CO2 limiting mechanism.
Then let peoples economic choices work it out. I’d have no problem with that, and I doubt any of the suburb lovers here would either.
It would be interesting actually how New York State would fair if the taxes were actually distributed based upon how they are paid. New York City subsidizes upstate greatly. The defenders of suburbia don’t really address this fact. They talk about how they are ‘Ok’ that their sales tax they pay when they go to the city finances the city’s resources that they don’t use, a line of nonsense of course because they are using the resources when they are in the city. I don’t know how it is in other states, but there is a net outflow of tax money from New York City to New York State. So it would seem that New York City is certainly subsidizing the suburban lifestyle in upstate New York.
This is true, and every topic related to the subject is fair game. If you want to start a thread bitching about my 50 inch HDTV have at it.
Yes, absolutely.
Yep, I don’t need to be on my computer arguing with you or anyone else on this forum.
No one is getting holier than thou, we are talking about the problems with urban and suburban sprawl, you’re personalizing it more than is necessary. I am not offended by your critiques of the city, why are you offended by my critiques of the suburb?
Yes, we’ll figure that out eventually. Carbon off-sets are patently ludicrous as it is.
It would be nice if we could figure out a way to reorganize sprawl that works organically and within market mechanisms. As it is that’s going to be the only thing that actually accomplishes it as there won’t be a proactive reordering of the suburbs.
I apologize for being unclear; that’s exactly what I was arguing for. Of course it’d be silly and just as distortionary to hit only suburbs for their carbon use. I don’t think I really have any disagreement, at least on public policy, with any suburbophiles who sees similarly.
Of course, lifestyle and aesthetics are a different matter Les gouts et les couleurs and all.
If we’re going after the suburbs for their externalities, are we going to start counting the externalities of city life as well? Or is this just a one-way street?
Nothing from the suburbs affects you negatively. If anything, the inefficiencies of cities means state tax dollars are wasted. You’re desire to piss away money is lost echo dollars.
Which externalities are you referring to? If you mean carbon and pollution, then yes, of course. A ton of CO2 emitted from an urban area is as bad as one from a suburban or rural one.
I’m not aware of many other externalities of cities that exist on an extra-local (regional or global) level. Noise and relatively higher crime rates are two I can think of associated with dense urban living, but those effects don’t hurt people outside the immediate vicinity (indeed, that’s one reason people move to the suburbs!) But yeah, if they exist, correct them–can you suggest a couple examples, though, so we know what we’re considering?
Did I (or the concil of elders) give you persmission to have you own special rugrat?
Your kid is going to be eating up valuable resources for DECADES that greedy old suburban living me could be using instead, thereby driving up the cost of everything for ME.
Heck, who knows, that kid might even set off a whole clan of welfare breeders that do nothing but consume valuable resources having an economic impact (without any return) that would make my slightly longer commute pale in comparision.
You had a kid because 1, you wanted it. 2 you could afford it. I seriously doubt you did an environmental impact statement before knocking boots.
Welcome to the burbs. I hope you kid moves here as well.
Please explain what the hell you mean by efficient, because all you’re doing is repeating that mantra.
And don’t give me all that wasted gas crap because suburbanites pay for every drop of gas they use. It’s not like someone gives it to us.
If anything, millions of cars idling at stop lights in NYC is much more wasteful that the relatively efficient highway/expressway/thruway system that suburban people use to commute.
Untrue. As has been mentioned, the costs of gas is not fully paid for, nor is that of coal-derived energy, both of which disproportionately benefit suburban areas.
As for your second point, that’s where muddy notions of efficient come in and muck up the situation. Carbon emissions, from cars or otherwise, are substantially less per capita in urban areas than suburban ones. At least when I’m talking about efficiency, that (Pareto) is what I’m talking about
Magiver, the rules apply to you, too; if cities are so monumentally wasteful, you should have no problem defining said waste and providing detailed evidence in support of its existence, as opposed to just saying it over and over.
Again, cite? How are you measuring this? What externalities are you accounting for? What are the relevant opportunity costs?
Fewer cars per capita in a non-sprawl city of course. Do I really need to come up with cites that there are fewer cars per capita in areas with proper mass transit?
This is useful:
So as you can see from the graphic, the more densely populated cities have the greater usage of mass transit.
Again I am using New York City as the best example of an efficient city. I recognize that it is a unique outlier. As you get outside of New York sprawl is an increasingly greater problem and works against the ability to have mass transit.
I pay sales tax for a free bus system in the county that I work. I can’t use it. And don’t want to. But hey, those that want to use it can. I suppose that I get a tiny bit of benefit because there are fewer cars on the road.
Who do you think is providing the city with food? You don’t seem to understand that suburbs and x-urbs provide the link to rural. Or do you simply want to build a fence. If you want the fence, I’m pretty sure more will be leaving the city than trying to get in.
I’m not convinced that for distances under 500 miles mass transit is the way to go. Not in todays environment. Or that mass transit, buses and trains are what we should be looking at. I sure wouldn’t bother flying 500 miles. No point in it. I’ll drive and probably beat the plane due to driving to the airport, parking, bus to the airport, checking in, security checks, boarding, needing to be 2 hours early and on and on……
So. Suburbs and exurbs are actually a needed commodity. People do still drive from town to town. Services are still required unless you are Mad Max. People that live in cities seem to be isolated from this fact.
A different social and business model would make more sense. Employers that allow work from home, and encourage it. More walk able suburban areas would be fine too. Provided that the business model supports it. I live ex-urban. When I’m home I’m home. I don’t make the 1-2 mile trips that I guess suburban folks do.
Les gouts et les couleurs and all..png)