<p>I was discussing planned neighbourhoods. Not economics. I fail to see how capitalism can magically cure it. My point (which I’ll try to make again) is that capitalism can partially cure a problem when it’s something like cars - people naturally replace their cars every few years - but not with infrastructure. I challenge you to see how “capitalism” can re-do the DC Beltway or re-make entire towns, so that houses are torn down and shops put up, sidewalks widened and yards shrunk to accomodate a sane suburban/urban plan that minimizes traffic and environmental effects. It is a nightmare, plain and simple, to try to re-engineer towns to be walkable and to accomodate public transportation. It would probably require the town to buy up most of the property within it, raze it, and redevelop the entire thing. You need roughly 7 homes per acre to support public transportation. If a town that formerly had a 1 acre minimum wants a bus through town because traffic is a disaster, what do to? </p>
<p>What happens is NOT the socially/environmentally/logically desired result. People will continue to move further into the rural areas to get space and away from the traffic, then “supercommute” into the cities. It’s not capitalism. My solution is NOT economic planning. It’s simply asking cities and towns to make smart choices. It’s also asking that those choices be made on a state-wide level. In reality, if a town adds 1,000 homes, that’s 1,000 more cars every day on the roads at that interchange - state issue. </p>
<p>I’m sorry, but capitalism does NOT cure that. It’s bad enough with cars - few people who purchased a SUV in 1999 are going to run out and purchase another one in 2001, because it’s simply not financially feasible - but will be horrific when someone realises that we need to redesign our towns. </p>
<p>Frankly, I’m still lost at why you even brought up planned economies. Should we talk about quantum mechanics, too?</p>
<p>First of all, I don’t get it - why would you pay property taxes on the condo services? Isn’t that what you pay condo maintence fees for?</p>
<p>Second, since property in NYC is so very expensive (albeit small), if you tax on value, you’re going to get a lot more money than you would in any other city. If a co-op that would go for $300,000 in Boston goes for a million in NYC, you can tax at a much lower rate to obtain the same revenue. Doesn’t mean that NYers aren’t taxed enough - just means that they are taxed on an appropriate scale.</p>
<p>I don’t see how you get a decent 4br out of 1500 sf but I guess it could be done with very small rooms. Compared to most suburban lots, 4000 sf is small. Even most city lots were at least 3000 sf and many homes were on two lots.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, can you agree on what comprises a “supercommute”? Would you agree that people commuting 80-150 miles a day, at a minimum, is a supercommute? Do you think that families of four need to live in 9000 sf homes, with nine bathrooms?</p>
<p>The new planners are not thinking sidewalks and closely situated homes, but are building bigger and further from urban centers. So, as we move further away from the “close suburb” model, which at this point it more like an extension of the city, to the newer far suburbs, and exurbs, you end up with more strip malls, more sprawl, and yes, bigger homes.</p>
<p>It seems to be what people are clamoring for, as evidenced by all the planned developments in states like Arizona and Florida. However, this lifestyle also contributes greatly to the loneliness and friendlessness that we were just discussing last week.</p>
<p>I try not to decide what other people need. I do care what they want as that impacts my work. The number of homes built over 5,000 sf is very small compared to the number in the 2000-4000 sf range. The big market is still the fairly average upper middle-income person–not the super-rich.</p>
<p>First of all, I don’t get it - why would you pay property taxes on the condo services? Isn’t that what you pay condo maintence fees for?</p>
<p>I think you misunderstood what I posted. One pays property taxes on the property to the city and pays maintenance to the development.</p>
<p>Second, since property in NYC is so very expensive (albeit small), if you tax on value, you’re going to get a lot more money than you would in any other city. If a co-op that would go for $300,000 in Boston goes for a million in NYC, you can tax at a much lower rate to obtain the same revenue. Doesn’t mean that NYers aren’t taxed enough - just means that they are taxed on an appropriate scale</p>
<p>May I respectfully remind you that NYC is more than Manhattan? Some of us have nice lots. I have a pretty good sized lot with a large pool and my taxes are about 25% of what my suburban neighbors pay.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, can you agree on what comprises a “supercommute”? Would you agree that people commuting 80-150 miles a day, at a minimum, is a supercommute? Do you think that families of four need to live in 9000 sf homes, with nine bathrooms?</p>
<p>I don’t have a lot of sympathy for a supercommute. I live in the same darn city and commute AT LEAST 1 1/2 to two hours each way, every day, and frequently 2 1/2 to 3 hours each way because I live in a borough without subways and with minimal public transportation. I can’t imagine a 9000 sf home. I have 2400 square feet and feel comfortable with my three kids and dog.</p>
<p>well we have friends who have an 8000 sq ft house with 8 baths ( and 4 bedrooms)- but they live in the city.
they don’t need a house that size- but they recognize they are trying to compensate for their less affluent upbringing.
The thing about commuting even 50 miles which is quite a ways, is it could easily go from an hour each way, to two or longer, if there was any sort of traffic snafu at all.</p>
<p>4000 does seem really small for a city lot even.
Our lot is 5000 feet and it isn’t big at all, although some folks I know have double or triple lots that I covet-</p>
<p>The thing about commuting even 50 miles which is quite a ways, is it could easily go from an hour each way, to two or longer, if there was any sort of traffic snafu at all.</p>
<p>I am living proof that even commuting 15 miles can up the commute over two hours with any traffic snafu at all.</p>
<p>I never said anything about gated communities - pretty agnostic on the subject. I mean, I don’t think they are any worse than the suburbs in general. </p>
<p>I’m actually iffy on zoning laws. The utter lack of zoning laws is horrible - ends up being the stepchild that no one wants - but some zoning laws really aren’t good. There are zoning laws that require a minimum acreage to build on; which is fine, if you don’t want overcrowding, but you end up with suburban sprawl. There are zoning laws that keep out any type of mixed-use housing, so that you have to drive to get anywhere, even school. Zoning for being eye-pleasing, not long-term sustainability.</p>
<p>Their our so many choices we all make that impact others–where do you even start. The basic assumption of a free country is that I am free to make decisions that may not be in your best interest. I nearly became a teacher ( but there was that whole having to be a democrat thing). That decision could have had a large impact–one way or the other–on hundreds of kids. Where do you start drawing lines? I think you don’t even start.</p>
<p>I think we can all agree that it would be ridiculous (and frightening) to mandate that people take jobs that provide the most benefit to society. Very individual decision and people aren’t robots that are specially-designed for certain tasks.</p>
<p>I’m all about having people make their own choices re: suburbs, exurbs, city, rural living. I do think, however, that our society as a whole (not as individuals) can make various decisions in its best interest. To borrow from another thread, vaccinations is but one example of that. </p>
<p>I fully support (in all my libertarian instincts) the idea that free people make their own choices (so long as said choice isn’t shooting another person). Part of civilisation, however, is that our society can do various things to help itself. Taxation. Interstate highways. Vaccines. Taxation to pay for development of new drugs. The Civil Rights Act. All good stuff.</p>
<p>To me, zoning laws fall under the category of oiling the machinery of our society. Sure, you can choose to live in rural South Dakota, but that area might want to structure its town so as to minimize drives over hazardous terrain. All good. Likewise, cities can zone and structure so that developments for families are closer to schools or so that commuting times are cut down. I don’t see those regulations as incompatible with the choices that we can make. (My rural town, by the way, is structured in such a way that almost everyone can walk; those who can’t have 10 or 20 or 50 acres around them but only a few miles’ drive to the center of town. Design has an amazing way of minimizing transportation.)</p>
<p>I think reasonable planning and zoning laws are a good thing. Some cities take it to an extreme such that they virtualy confiscate property without compensation. This is unfair but fairly rare too.</p>
<p>If the right answer is not to “even start” thinking about how your actions impact other people’s lives, why don’t you dump your trash in the city park of the next town over and drain your paint thinner into the river? Presumably you would not do those things even if you knew you wouldn’t get caught. So why is making smog any different?</p>
<p>That’s why people hate lawyers. It is illegal to dump stuff–even on your own property let alone in a public park. My cars are legal and have not been modified to put out illegal smog. As they are new they are very efficient as far as I know. They get around 30 mpg. Therefore I am free to decide how much and where to drive them.
And please stop your bike at lights–I see so many of them run red lights here in Seattle. It’s a hazard to the walkers out there.</p>
<p>This is my point. I don’t believe that the reason you don’t do those things is that they’re illegal. I believe that you DO think about what’s right and wrong to impose on other people.</p>