Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Since that article was written, the city signed a new framework with developers where the subsidies are about half of what they were previously. Which is still too much, as they should be zero or negative ("should" based on optimizing net social benefit - zero if not considering sprawl a negative externaility, negative - i.e core get subsidized - if we do consider it a negative externality, which is almost certainly is).
|
Totally F that noise. If everyone who wants to live in a detached single family home pays the full economic cost of doing so then there's nothing further to talk about. It's a lifestyle choice and if everyone, both suburban and urban, are paying their economic way, there isn't a further role to play by the city planning department vis-a-vis social engineering.
I'm all for my taxes fully paying the full brunt of my living choices, but I refuse to be okay with paying extra for what city planners think is more 'socially virtuous.'