Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
No one is telling you what's best for your 'needs'. Nobody.
It is hoped, though, that one makes the proper choices through proper research in deciding where to live; one should suffer the consequences of deciding where exactly that location is. Calgary is a roads-based city, and and thus choosing to live in outlying areas comes with a heavy price financially and environmentally. Choosing to live that far out also contributes to the steady rise in municipal taxation, mainly from the simple reason that resources and infrastructure need to be continually expanded outward.
No one is saying they have all the answers; but when urban sprawl is a serious problem in today's environmental and energy based world, something has to give. The decision to expand further and further outwards is unsustainable in a number of ways. What IS arrogant, however, is choosing to ignore this because you have a fundamental right to live that far out. No one is denying that you do; that doesn't make your decision right, however.
The choice to live in areas that continue to weigh heavy on resources and infrastructure will continue to increase in becoming an unpopular one.
|
Well we'd probably fundamentally disagree on what is an outlying area, what constitues a 'heavy' burden, and even what is unsustainable. That it contributes to tax issues is pure bunk. Most of that is rhetoric and opinion, not fact.
There's really only three facts that matter. Density, cost, and distance.
Cost is the only bit I control. If someone else says they get to decide dentisty and distance, then effective I have no choice. It's simple.
I would never presume that my choice is the right one - or should be the only one. Thats the difference. Arrogance is assuming that your choice is better than mine for me. Worse, arrogance is city planners assuming they have any hope of predicting the circumstances in 20 or 50 years. Whats their batting average....0? Should they try? Sure. It's a question of degrees.