1/31 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16876281/from/RS.2
I really don't understand this. Instead of increasing mileage
why don't Americans just plan ahead for once and build a
sustainable city with mass transit and mixed use buildings,
instead of big McMansions sprawling wherever land is available?
\_ Because we don't point to a spot on a map and say, "Let's build
a city there". Life is not SimCity.
\_ In Dubai and Singapore it is.
\- soon maybe american will have a "second class citizen/
\_ Ok, you're right. If we had a dictatorship and command
economy we could do that but it would be a horrible place
to live. I'll take sprawl, thanks.
\_ Haven't been to Singapore or Geneva or Paris, have you?
\_ I've been to Paris. What about it? Are you going to
claim Paris was artificially designed in the modern
era for public transit and reduced driving a la Sim
City?
\- in re: Paris, may be of interest:
http://www.economist.com/cities/briefing.cfm?city_id=PAR
\- if some people see 120min a day in a car as the
price for a backyard and lawn, what exactly is
your issue with that?
\_ I don't have an issue with that at all. I also
don't believe it is possible to create a city
from scratch a la Sim City in the real world.
As for me, I have the yard/lawn and 12 minute
commute. 2 hours is for the suckers.
\_ You live in the Bay Area? Where do you live
and where do you work?
\_ I live in the Bay Area, yes. Ok, it isn't
always 12 minutes. That's going about 78
mph for all 3 exits. About every 2 months
I get stuck in bad traffic and it can take
as long as 45 minutes to get home. I've
never had heavy traffic going in.
\_ 12 minutes door to door? You live
right next to a freeway onramp? Do you
park right in front of your office?
\_ 12 minutes. I live a few residential
blocks from the freeway and I park
directly in front of my building. On
a bad day, I have to park on the side
and take the side entrance which adds
about 15 feet to my car->desk walk.
Seriously, I'm telling you, the 2 hour
people are total victims who should
just leave the Bay Area if they can't
afford a place closer to work. They
are obviously not earning enough to
make living here worth it.
\_ No, but Paris is a compact city and hardly a
horrible place to live. It is possible to build
transit friendly cities without a dictatorship.
I'm a libertarian and I don't give a damn about -/
what other people do. They can fart as loud and as
stinky as they want. However, as the population density
increases the effect of their actions start to affect
others more dramatically. They can fart on the country
side-- who cares. But if they fart in a movie theatre,
that may create problems for people with a rare but
acute condition of asthfartma. Likewise, when they use the
public highway for 120min, that person is decreasing
the capacity of the highway for everyone else on the
road and increasing traffic jam. In another word
if every person on the road travels twice as far as
they do now, the average time to travel from A->B would
more than double for everyone. Libertarianism is great when
you're alone. Not so great when you're with other people.
In a world that is getting smaller and smaller, every action
will have a reaction that is proportion to the population.
So do I have an issue with people who want to drive
120min one way? If that person's fucking up my commute,
fuck ya.
\_ You're no libertarian. Libertarians take responsibility
for their lives and don't blame others for their problems.
If your commute sucks, move closer to work. If you can't
move closer to work, get a job where you can. If you're
opposed to increases in population density that infringe
on your lifestyle then you're in favor of closed borders,
mass deportation, and eventually China style birth control
enforcement. You have to make some choices in life. They
have chosen to drive 2 hours to work (which I think is
insane but it isn't my problem). You chose to live in a
place where other people clog up the roads. Move.
\_ I already did and my commute is only 20 min one way.
However I'm a bit concerned with the amount of
gasoline people use and the amount of CO2 they
emit which will accelerate the rate of global warming.
I'm also very concerned with air pollution and
related diseases like asthma which I'm inflicted with.
\- you may enjoy reading the article from which
the "five boroughs" statistic above comes from:
\_ The amount of CO2 procuded by cars is trivial compared
to what industry is pumping out. It's like asking
home owners to stop watering their lawns to save water
when the farmers are using 98% of the state's water.
If you want clean air you'll have to move away from
other people and not down wind from industry as well.
\- YMWTR the article from which the "five boroughs"
\- YMER the article from which the "five boroughs"
statistic below comes from:
http://www.nysun.com/article/47626
n.b. Edward Glaeser is sort of like Steven Levitt,
the Freakonomist, except EG is supposed to be an
asshole. He has some interesting writing about house
prices coming from regulation ... basically lefty,
anti-development people living in million dollar
SF/berkeley hills houses keeping up prices for those
of us with faces pressed up to the bay window.--psb
\_ Why should us homeowners ruin our quality of life
so that housing is cheaper for you? You can always
either buck it up and save and live in a smaller
place for while (like we all did) or move. Or rent.
\- that was sort of a tongue in cheek comment
about liberal hypocrisy and nimby: i.e. cost of
"being green" [or otherwise PC ... fair trade
coffee, anti chain store] can be imposed on
others. [i spend like <10% on income on rent,
which is pretty unusual around here, i think,
so i wasnt really speakng about me ... i'm
doing ok.] the point was a bit deeper: house
prices are not fully explained by demand side...
"people are paying crazy amounts" but also
constrained supply side. read the paper. cant
be summarized in the motd. see also actual econ
discussion of prop 13 vs the hype. nobody is
analysis of prop 13 vs the spin. nobody is
saying you should ruin your quality of life,
but the issue is one of public policy, e.g.
tax deduction for mortgage interest.
\_ The fundamental problem with the article
you pointed out is the line: "The great
problem with being reflexively anti-growth
is that development in America is close
to being a zero-sum game. New homes are
going to be built to meet the needs of a
growing population. If you stop development
in some areas, you are ensuring more
development elsewhere. A failure to develop
New York means more homes on the exurban
edges of America."
This is simply not true. Driving up housing
costs in San Francisco does not simply mean
that people move to Tracy: some (most) of them
leave the area. And it is disingenious to
blame bad planning in Pheonix on the residents
of another city. They can build a dense,
transit oriented city if they like: there
are plenty of smaller, dense cities in Europe.
\_ Actually Tracy and the surrounding towns
have been booming for years so I don't
agree with you there. Why should the
people in Phoenix be forced to build the
kind of city you want? They have what
they have, if people want to live there,
then they will. If not, they'll move, as
you say.
\_ The tax deduction allows more people to own
homes and encourages home ownership which is
a form of financial security. It also let
retired people who had no substantial income
from being taxed out of their homes. IYO,
was prop 13 a good call or bad? It isn't
clear from your postings what your personal
feelings are on these issues. --curious
\- if you email me, i am willing to discuss
this with you. --psb
\- if you email me, i will discuss this
with you. --psb
\- soon maybe america will have a "second class citizen/
foriegn worker class" too like S'pore and Dubai!
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Singapore/ForeignWorker34.jpg
\- this is kind of a neat statistic:
More than one-third of all the
public transportation commuters
in America live in the five boroughs.
\_ Haven't spent much time in New York or San Francisco, have you?
\_ I have. New York is unique. Transit in SF sucks. If you
want everyone to live in a place designed like SF with SF
quality public transit then no thanks, I'll take the smog and
sprawl.
\_ I take SF transit back and forth to work everyday and I
think it is great. It takes me 25 minutes each way and
I get to read the newspaper on the way. I live in the
outer reaches of SF and work downtown, btw.
outer reaches of SF, am gay, and work downtown, btw.
\_ What does being gay have to do with commuting? *shakes
head* Anyway, glad that works for you, but if you lived
in SF it would take you an hour or two to cross the city
to the same job. I used to take BART to work and it was
great that work was literally right outside a BART station,
but all of SF is not next to a BART station. Travel to
or from a non-BART area in SF sucks.
\_ I didn't put in the "am gay" part, some "funny" guy
must have. I actually have children. I *do* live in
SF, perhaps you misread me. I have lived in a couple
of places in The City, the worst commute I ever had
was 45 minutes each way. Part of the reason I decided
to buy where I did is because it is well served by
transit. The J Church is half a block away.
\_ Are you on the down low?
\_ Are you looking for a date or something? |
http://csua.com/feed/