[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I've been holding back a bit from this conversation due to not wanting to be sucked into the time commitment it may take to follow up.

Seb, buddy, for everyone's sake, ease up a bit on the suburban subsidy thing. Dial down the intensity. The thrust of your argument is right (in that, yes, there is indeed a subsidy, as Bunk has laid out in his post), but you're going about it the wrong way if you want to endear anyone to it.

You've been incredibly incessant and, for lack of a gentler term, annoying on this topic. I don't think it would have been so bad if you hadn't gone on to demonstrate that you were confused about the finer details of the topic, by saying "I just don't know" when challenged to provide even ballpark figures or that just plain wrong and irrelevant East Village example (East Village is a bit of an anomaly using tax increment funding making it an irrelevant example the way you used it). Not to say you would have had to have all the details right in front of you to make an effective argument, but the number of times you brought the topic up and the fervor you displayed while doing so set you up to be challenged for these details.

Overall, all your approach does is aggravate opponents and, worse, alienate fence-sitters and even people that would be sympathetic to your points.

Look how quickly 4x4 (if I can use him as an example, I'm sure he won't mind) changed his tone when presented with the right numbers and supporting context.

I don't think it should come as any surprise that I ultimately agree with the spirit of your argument about the suburban subsidies, so I'm with you in that sense. You just have to work on your delivery or you'll have the opposite effect than what you intended.