Why don’t you see more countries building US suburban style? (park, class)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no double standard. All you need to know is which point is denser and the direction of population flow or growth. One does not need absolute numbers or thresholds for either endpoint to make the statement. It is a differential.
A little defensive for someone not identified by name, aren't you?
Your version of "efficient use of space" = proclaiming Americans' houses are too big, they have too much personal space, they have too much private space, they have too much personal property, and they have useless yards (which should therefore be eliminated according to you). The space isn't yours nor some community property to begin with.
"Society" is not a juristic entity. It is an excuse collectivists/communitarians use to rationalize taking from others.
The claim that people are fleeing density is logical fallacy - correlation isn't causation. You should ask yourself why some urban neighborhoods are gaining population while others are losing and why most rural places continue losing population. Your superficial analysis isn't doing justice to the granularity of the situation. People are not fleeing densely populated affluent neighborhoods in cities. They are fleeing less densely populated neighborhoods that had no urban experience from the start. People who lived there never had any real contact with urban living in the true sense, so for them it makes no difference whether they live in place A or place B in a suburb. For them, other factors are more visible such as economic aspects. Your analysis is superficial and wrong, as the many exceptions from the rule demonstrate.
And regarding the threshold, urban and rural are relative to each other just like high and low density. There doesn't need to be a threshold to define those terms. You are applying a double standard here.
I am just as defensive about urbanism as you are about suburbanism. You criticizing me for being defensive here is revealing just another one of your double standards.
Who said society is a juristic entity? And no, society is not an excuse used to rationalize taking from others. Society is a real thing you know and society can be harmed and can be defended. That you personally do not care about society is pretty much known to us.
Interesting that this development is called "Wright Village."
I'm guessing that's a reference to Frank Lloyd Wright, considered the greatest architect the US has ever produced.
The houses look a little more vertical than I associate with Wright houses, however. A typical Wright house is decidedly low-slung and horizontal and has been ever since he developed the "Prairie style" early in his career.
But perhaps more relevant to this discussion is: He also had a vision of the city of the future which he called "Broadacre City" and a fictional future US he called "Usonia". "Broadacre City" consisted of acres of his low-slung "Usonian" houses on large one-acre lots.
He first outlined his vision in a 1932 book called The Disappearing City (consider what that title implies). Pittsburgh department-store magnate Edgar Kaufmann financed a model of it that was displayed in Rockefeller Center in New York and later in Kaufmann's department store in Pittsburgh. (Wright would later design his most famous house, "Fallingwater," for Kaufmann.)
Buddy, if you're gonna accuse someone of spreading propaganda, it's probably best not to spread potential propaganda yourself. I'm pretty sure you have linked to the Anti-Transit Planner blog written by Randal O'Toole. This is a person that is RABIDLY anti transit. A policy disagreement, probably stemming from his extremism, is what could have led to even the CATO Institute letting him go.
Now that we have gotten the needless jabs out of the way, let's have an adult discussion.
What is "potential propaganda" and what link are you referring to?
Ad hominem attacks aren't persuasive but rather evidence a weakness in your argument.
You haven't identified any statements for which you don't like his position, apparently, but you haven't exactly claimed or identified his statements as false. If the truth hurts maybe he's got a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
I apologize if I was unclear in my previous post, but I'm very aware of this fact.
On an initial read, this sounds like a workable solution. Sounds like they are very common around Houston. However, it does sound like MUDs could have some potential risks associated with them. An increase in mortgage delinquency would hurt these MUDs more since there would be fewer people to spread the cost around to. This does look to be reflected in the Moody's ratings of many of these MUD bonds. It also sounds like some MUD bonds may receive higher ratings once they are annexed by the city even though the area the MUD covers may not deserve that level of creditworthiness.
Despite all this, mortgage deliquency rates are at an all-time low, so at the current moment in this isn't a cause for concern. The risk is still something to note.
Mortgage delinquencies are not relevant.
If the taxes aren't paid the district judicially forecloses the owner's interest in the property to collect the arrearage. The proceeds of the district's foreclosure sale go first to pay back taxes. As the new record owner, the foreclosure sale purchaser is on the hook moving forward.
A tax lien has priority over a mortgage lien. A tax foreclosure wipes out mortgage liens. What happens more often than not is that the mortgage servicer will pay the taxes and tack the payment onto the debt owed by the mortgagor in order for the mortgagee to preserve its lien.
These districts aren't limited to Houston or Harris County. They are located throughout the state. What you will find is this is a strategy for cities to offload obligation for services without discounting tax assessments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
Gotta disagree with you here. The roads maintained within the city that you are travelling to are partially paid for by citizens of the city that you don't live in. And the shops, work, and entertainment that exist within city may not exist within yours. Therefore, there is an equal tradeoff between you providing revenue for the city that hosts those events and the city paying the costs of hosting those events.
Those city citizens likewise travel outside of the city using the roads that are paid for by others.
We all pay gas taxes which support roads locally and elsewhere (well not the EV folks or bicyclists).
The city has roads for its own benefit as well as those of its residents.
The city is receiving sales tax revenue from the purchases residents and non-residents make in the city.
We'll have to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
Actually if you were more familiar with WrOnGtOwNs outside of what seems to be Randal O'Toole's description of them, you would find that they do not advocate for large public projects that cost the taxpayer an exorbitant amount. Their main focus is actually working with cities who are struggling financially to find them ways to cut spending by eliminating wasteful policies that cost them more than the benefit they receive. A couple examples of ways this works in real life:
•••
Based on what I know of them, I think they actually agree with the goal of keeping as much money in the pockets of homeowners. Again, their mantra is to make changes based on what cities have available, not how much more money they juice out of a single citizen.
My opinion of WrongTowns is from reading WrongTowns' website postings over the course of a decade - not from other sites. The organization's leadership is focused on generating more revenue for cities but not containing costs nor controlling where the increased revenue actually goes. To the extent they claim a disproportionate tax burden, they aren't promoting lowering the alleged higher burden of some but rather increasing the alleged lower burden of others. They also have some rather despotic ideas of how their objectives should be accomplished.
Although they conceal it now, you can find their "mission findings" from earlier versions of the site using archive.org. Here are some statements from Feb. 6., 2016:
As advocates for a strong America, we know the following to be true:
...
• Local government is a platform for strong citizens to collaboratively build a prosperous place.
...
• Land is the base resource from which community prosperity is built and sustained. It must not be squandered.
...
The second bullet of the excerpt is of course the collectivist/communitarian/statist ideal and they need the first bullet of the excerpt to accomplish it. They aren't referring to land owned by the city - they are referring to privately owned land. ST views private property as if it belonged to the "community" and is there to serve the city. Their mission is to have a world where those in control of local government determine whether you are "squandering" your property. Squandering of course means that your use is not generating maximum ad valorem taxes for local government. No they are not interested in citizens keeping the money in their pockets. Their view is that the city (the juristic entity) is the community and their efforts are directed at increasing/maximizing revenues for the city. If you aren't generating maximum ad valorem taxes for the city then you are squandering the use of your land and you shouldn't be permitted to do that - is their view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
My focus was not on who owned the parking lot. It was on efficient land use and the potential benefits that can come from it.
Well then you ignored the most important part of all. It's not your lot so why should you have a say on how it is used or have a complaint about "efficiency"? You are sounding like the WrongTowns mantra. If it isn't the city's lot then the "complaint" is the city isn't reaping as much from the ad valorem taxes it is collecting as it could for a different use. As if anyone owes the city that.
If the city wants more or wants to provide a public benefit such as more parking for downtown or the courthouse, library, or other public amenity then it should accomplish that by purchase of the property, building a garage, and charging as it sees fit instead of trying to impose mandates on other property owners. Of course at that point it gets no ad valorem taxes from its own property and the money would need to come solely from use fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
Can you type a little more clearly? What do you mean by "you can't separate the road maintenance"? Car lanes cost more to maintain then bike lanes because of the wear and tear heavier trucks exert on the road. A 4000 pound car driving on the road exerts orders of magnitude more stress and wear on the road than a 200 pound person riding a 50 pound ebike. I didn't think this was controversial.
When there is no real lane separation (e.g., a painted line on a 2+ lane road) you can't separate the maintenance either - you have to repave all of it. It does not matter that some portion has more wear than the other you have to repave all of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
I'm not sure why you keep doing this but I'm not really interested in your personal opinions on certain types of housing. I get that you have a personal vendetta against so-called "urbanophiles" or whatever but I really don't care. We are talking about this from a macro level, which means we are interested in satisfying the desires of various different people. For many people, a large yard is a burden that requires a lot of money to maintain through water, fertilizer, and regular mowing.
The desires of some of those people is to constrain/restrict others, not pursuit of things for themselves. There is no interest in satisfying such desires. I'm not keen on promoting community association trade groups and vendors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
1. How are these HOAs any different than HOAs that exist in other subdivisions that are more "traditional" to the single family home style of living?
A "traditional neighborhood" as often touted in the urban planning forum would not have had an HOA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
2. I have looked at multiple documents related to Catellus and Mueller and have not found anything stating the year 2060. Would you be able to provide me a link to a document that details that information?
Imagine that. The "master covenant" is not available on the website. Why conceal it or create barriers to access?
I went through this about 10 years ago when they had many documents available to download.
Now they only provide a few - and they omit some of the most egregious ones. I do recall reading such a document and commenting on it a decade ago. I don't know which dedicatory instrument it is set forth in. It is generally going to be the declarant control period - and the declarant can amend the documents to change or extend that as well. It might be defined in the master development agreement with the city - but it was about a 50 year term, which can be amended and extended. You would need to look through the Travis County Clerk real estate records.
The original declaration can be downloaded for free from the Travis County Clerk's office. It is document no. 2004238007. There are many, many sections problematic for owners, however, a few of note:
• Declarant has ability to bring more property into the development until April 15, 2100 - see, §16.1. This results in increased liabilities to the owners and a sort of dilution of access to "master community facilities". The declarant can also amend the declarations to change the conditions or the term.
• Per the original declarations, the owners generally don't have access to courts but the HOA does. The owners are forced into alternative dispute resolution for any claims against the "Master Association" but the Master Association is exempt from the alternative dispute requirement for virtually any claim it might take against owners. See, §18.
• Voting - you don't get to vote except to elect a "delegate" for your section. Each delegate represents an area of the development. The delegates cast votes somewhat like the electoral college. All the votes for a particular section are cast however the delegate votes irrespective of what the individual unit owners want. See, §4.
• There have been some additional restrictions which impose transfer fees on the sale of the property including:
i) a transfer fee of 1/4% of sales price which goes where the Mueller Foundation says it should go
ii) a working capital fee - the amount is dictated by the Master Association
iii) an administrative transfer fee - supposedly to facilitate keeping address records in order. Fee is set by the Master Association.
None of these fees benefit the owners nor do they have any say where they go. These are imposed by supplemental declarations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
3. Even if I grant you all of this information as true, if someone reads through it and agrees to it without issue, what's the problem? Again, your personal beliefs have nothing to do with this, especially considering the high property values and high demand for homes in that area.
Surely you realize your opinion as to my personal beliefs are irrelevant as to my position or activities regarding "the problem"?
Should the city of Austin be able to impose ordinances applicable only to residents of Mueller? Should the city and developer be able to accomplish this via restrictive covenant amendments so as to bypass traditional legislative process at city counsel?
Forget access to the courts - it's effectively a one-party access. The HOA can initiate court proceedings for virtually any claim it might have against the involuntary members. The members, however, are limited to arbitration. This is designed to perpetuate a false illusion of contentedness in the project for the benefit of the developer during the period of developer control. No - homeowners can't control the HOA nor change the restrictions during the period of developer control. The converse of course is not true. See, §18 of the original declarations.
Reading through the materials is largely useless unless you want to see how disenfranchised the owners are. You cannot predict what amendments would be made in the future and you have no say in them - you are just bound by the new obligations and restrictions.
For example, the transfer fees weren't in the original documents. How would you like to buy property, have amendments which you have zero say in imposed years later without your consent and which are adverse to your interests, and then have to pay proceeds of sale to various entities dictated by the "Master Association" or be further restricted in what you can do with what you paid so much money for? Oh and as noted above, the original restrictions deny you access to the courts if you want to challenge the Master Association with respect to enforceability of such things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
4. How do you feel about Goodnight Ranch or similar places around the area that seem to be being built the same type of process?
I have not kept up with that development. As a general matter, buyers and observers tend to only look at appearances without delving into the legal entanglement.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 09-16-2023 at 01:24 PM..
The claim that people are fleeing density is logical fallacy - correlation isn't causation. You should ask yourself why some urban neighborhoods are gaining population while others are losing and why most rural places continue losing population. Your superficial analysis isn't doing justice to the granularity of the situation. People are not fleeing densely populated affluent neighborhoods in cities. They are fleeing less densely populated neighborhoods that had no urban experience from the start. People who lived there never had any real contact with urban living in the true sense, so for them it makes no difference whether they live in place A or place B in a suburb. For them, other factors are more visible such as economic aspects. Your analysis is superficial and wrong, as the many exceptions from the rule demonstrate.
As I said in another post, you can argue causation and correlation all you want. The negatives I've pointed out are either caused by or highly correlated with density. You can use density as the signal and let other people pontificate over correlation and causation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
And regarding the threshold, urban and rural are relative to each other just like high and low density. There doesn't need to be a threshold to define those terms. You are applying a double standard here.
No double standard. The overwhelming dispersion is exhibited by decrease of population in higher densities and increase in lower densities or faster growth in lower density vs higher density. It's being going on for a very long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
I am just as defensive about urbanism as you are about suburbanism. You criticizing me for being defensive here is revealing just another one of your double standards.
At least I have standards and they aren't "double".
You are wholly unwilling to define any of your terms but you want to use them to absolutely categorize people and places. You need to define some boundaries for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Who said society is a juristic entity? And no, society is not an excuse used to rationalize taking from others. Society is a real thing you know and society can be harmed and can be defended. That you personally do not care about society is pretty much known to us.
Of course "society" is an excuse people like you want to use to rationalize controlling others.
Under various aliases, to promote your religion of density you've routinely claimed Americans are harming "society" and you personally because of their cars, their houses, their yards, and the built form of their housing among other things. You want to use this as part of your narcissistic approach to constrain people to the way you believe they should live or be housed. You set up a fictional "society" and declare yourself to be the visionary who knows what's best.
Who decides what is "best" for your fictional "society"? If the people that are to be controlled are in this "society" then isn't what's best for them also best for "society"? Did any of them elect you to represent them in this determination of what's best? Of course not. Elections, democracy, and individual rights aren't consistent with your agenda. You simply want to use an anonymous "society" and your claim that you know what's best for "society" to control others. Your tactic is nothing new. It's simply an excuse to try to take from others.
My opinion of WrongTowns is from reading WrongTowns' website postings over the course of a decade - not from other sites. The organization's leadership is focused on generating more revenue for cities but not containing costs nor controlling where the increased revenue actually goes. To the extent they claim a disproportionate tax burden, they aren't promoting lowering the alleged higher burden of some but rather increasing the alleged lower burden of others. They also have some rather despotic ideas of how their objectives should be accomplished.
Although they conceal it now, you can find their "mission findings" from earlier versions of the site using archive.org. Here are some statements from Feb. 6., 2016:[indent]As advocates for a strong America, we know the following to be true:
...
• Local government is a platform for strong citizens to collaboratively build a prosperous place.
...
• Land is the base resource from which community prosperity is built and sustained. It must not be squandered.
...
Let's cite the entire mission statement from the Strong Towns 1.0 website, then, for this amounts to cherry-picking:
Quote:
As advocates for a strong America, we know the following to be true:
Strong cities, towns and neighborhoods cannot happen without strong citizens (people who care).
Local government is a platform for strong citizens to collaboratively build a prosperous place.
Financial solvency is a prerequisite for long term prosperity.
Land is the base resource from which community prosperity is built and sustained. It must not be squandered.
A transportation system is a means of creating prosperity in a community, not an end unto itself.
Job creation and economic growth are the results of a healthy local economy, not substitutes for one.
We seek an America where our local communities are designed to grow stronger in the face of adversity, to be the solid foundation on which our shared prosperity is preserved.
There are no universal answers to the complex problems America’s cities, towns and neighborhoods face. At Strong Towns, we seek to discover rational ways to respond to these challenges. A Strong Towns approach:
Relies on small, incremental investments (little bets) instead of large, transformative projects,
Emphasizes resiliency of result over efficiency of execution,
Is designed to adapt to feedback,
Is inspired by bottom/up action (chaotic but smart) and not top/down systems (orderly but dumb),
Seeks to conduct as much of life as possible at a personal scale, and
Is obsessive about accounting for its revenues, expenses, assets and long term liabilities (do the math).
Edited to add: You will find all of the above bullet points, unchanged save for elaborations on the first two, in the latest version of the Strong Towns Strategic Plan.
I attended one of Chuck Marohn's "Curbside Chats" when he was barnstorming the country drumming up interest in this group.
The self-described "recovering highway engineer" made this central point about our patterns of urban development since the rise of the autocentric urban landscape:
The (sub)urban development we were building in this country did not produce the tax revenue needed for the upkeep of its own infrastructure.
(Maybe I should call this "sub-urban" development since it was a degree less than urban, a point Marohn would drive home by showing slides of the main street of his native Brainerd, Minn., in 1900 vs. the same street today. "Wasn't that amazing?" he would say of the old Main Street. "And the people just knew how to build it.")
He argued that when the repair bill first came due sometime in the late 1970s, we simply papered it over with debt. He also argued that the bill was coming due again, and we could neither sustain what he called "the suburban growth Ponzi scheme" (in order to get that revenue, a city needed to keep more residents coming in and developing more land in the way they had been developing it) nor cover it with debt again.
Now, if (for sake of argument) we assume that his point about the financial unsustainability of the autocentric development pattern is correct, then it should be in the interest of the municipal government and the city's residents to come up with ways to get the extra revenue needed.
One way would be by jacking up taxes. That would result in more people leaving and ultimately less revenue. Another would be by redeveloping the land in a way that uses it more intensively — say, by replacing asphalt with bricks and mortar. In most municipalities not named Houston, that means revising the zoning and building codes.
Thus the end goal would be something that looks more like Brainerd 1900, or downtown Ardmore, Pa., than like Brainerd 2013 (when I heard the talk) or Exton, Pa.
Last edited by MarketStEl; 09-16-2023 at 02:21 PM..
As I said in another post, you can argue causation and correlation all you want. The negatives I've pointed out are either caused by or highly correlated with density. You can use density as the signal and let other people pontificate over correlation and causation.
No double standard. The overwhelming dispersion is exhibited by decrease of population in higher densities and increase in lower densities or faster growth in lower density vs higher density. It's being going on for a very long time.
At least I have standards and they aren't "double".
You are wholly unwilling to define any of your terms but you want to use them to absolutely categorize people and places. You need to define some boundaries for that.
Of course "society" is an excuse people like you want to use to rationalize controlling others.
Under various aliases, to promote your religion of density you've routinely claimed Americans are harming "society" and you personally because of their cars, their houses, their yards, and the built form of their housing among other things. You want to use this as part of your narcissistic approach to constrain people to the way you believe they should live or be housed. You set up a fictional "society" and declare yourself to be the visionary who knows what's best.
Who decides what is "best" for your fictional "society"? If the people that are to be controlled are in this "society" then isn't what's best for them also best for "society"? Did any of them elect you to represent them in this determination of what's best? Of course not. Elections, democracy, and individual rights aren't consistent with your agenda. You simply want to use an anonymous "society" and your claim that you know what's best for "society" to control others. Your tactic is nothing new. It's simply an excuse to try to take from others.
You have argued, that density causes crime. That's an argument of causation, not correlation. You failed to provide evidence for causation, which means your statement is still unsupported. If there is causation between density and crime, then how can Monaco and Liechtenstein exist? That doesn't make any sense. As I said earlier, crime is a social issue, that is related to the population living in an area. Density doesn't make people criminals and doesn't provoke conflict. Bad behavior and attitudes do or do you want to tell me that you are going to become a criminal if you live in high density? You are not going to convince the people of Monaco to move to France, because crimes would be less there. They could not care less about your correlation, since it is not causation and does not apply to their situation. That said, according to your logic, any family household would be very violent, since in family households people are living very densely together.
It's not true, that people are moving to lower densities. Rural areas, which represent the lowest level of density, are declining the most in population numbers.
Rural America Lost Population Over the Past Decade for the First Time in History
"Between 2010 and 2020, rural America lost population for the first time in history as economic turbulence had a significant demographic impact.
The rural population loss was due to fewer births, more deaths, and more people leaving than moving in.
Population losses were greatest in remote rural counties, but even in rural counties that were adjacent to metropolitan counties, population gains were minimal." https://carsey.unh.edu/publication-r...ime-in-history
I don't play the stupid game with you of defining terms all the time. You can play this with yourself. Everybody else here seems to understand what the terms mean that I am using.
In principle, every law is intended to control the population and their behavior. Our behavior is not independent of society and has an impact on society itself. Therefore, it is necessary to find regulations so society as a whole does not suffer. This approach of protecting society from harm caused by individual behavior is of course irrelevant to libertarians like you. I realize that, but that doesn't make it any less immoral. The concept of controlling society, formulated as an accusation against everyone who wants to prevent damage to society, is therefore a populist double standard because every law, including the laws proposed or defended by libertarians like you, represents a restriction on the freedom of the individual and a control of the population.
Let's cite the entire mission statement from the Strong Towns 1.0 website, then, for this amounts to cherry-picking:
Edited to add: You will find all of the above bullet points, unchanged save for elaborations on the first two, in the latest version of the Strong Towns Strategic Plan.
I attended one of Chuck Marohn's "Curbside Chats" when he was barnstorming the country drumming up interest in this group.
The self-described "recovering highway engineer" made this central point about our patterns of urban development since the rise of the autocentric urban landscape:
The (sub)urban development we were building in this country did not produce the tax revenue needed for the upkeep of its own infrastructure.
(Maybe I should call this "sub-urban" development since it was a degree less than urban, a point Marohn would drive home by showing slides of the main street of his native Brainerd, Minn., in 1900 vs. the same street today. "Wasn't that amazing?" he would say of the old Main Street. "And the people just knew how to build it.")
He argued that when the repair bill first came due sometime in the late 1970s, we simply papered it over with debt. He also argued that the bill was coming due again, and we could neither sustain what he called "the suburban growth Ponzi scheme" (in order to get that revenue, a city needed to keep more residents coming in and developing more land in the way they had been developing it) nor cover it with debt again.
Now, if (for sake of argument) we assume that his point about the financial unsustainability of the autocentric development pattern is correct, then it should be in the interest of the municipal government and the city's residents to come up with ways to get the extra revenue needed.
One way would be by jacking up taxes. That would result in more people leaving and ultimately less revenue. Another would be by redeveloping the land in a way that uses it more intensively — say, by replacing asphalt with bricks and mortar. In most municipalities not named Houston, that means revising the zoning and building codes.
Thus the end goal would be something that looks more like Brainerd 1900, or downtown Ardmore, Pa., than like Brainerd 2013 (when I heard the talk) or Exton, Pa.
Yeah I've seen the mantra...and none of your discussion addressed the disturbing bullet about not squandering land - which has disappeared off and on from their site over the years.
None of your discussion addresses the other point(s) either: WrongTowns focuses on more revenue for the city - not constraining how the revenue would be spent. Unless the conduct of using more revenue to simply borrow more is curbed all you are doing is increasing the municipality's borrowing ability so it can fund more glamorous infrastructure projects for politicians to put their name on and further exacerbating the maintenance issue.
You have argued, that density causes crime. That's an argument of causation, not correlation. You failed to provide evidence for causation, which means your statement is still unsupported. If there is causation between density and crime, then how can Monaco and Liechtenstein exist? That doesn't make any sense. As I said earlier, crime is a social issue, that is related to the population living in an area. Density doesn't make people criminals and doesn't provoke conflict. Bad behavior and attitudes do or do you want to tell me that you are going to become a criminal if you live in high density? You are not going to convince the people of Monaco to move to France, because crimes would be less there. They could not care less about your correlation, since it is not causation and does not apply to their situation. That said, according to your logic, any family household would be very violent, since in family households people are living very densely together.
It's not true, that people are moving to lower densities. Rural areas, which represent the lowest level of density, are declining the most in population numbers.
It is true the population is dispersing away from density. Rural areas get re-defined as urban such that where people are is no longer defined as rural. The discussion was about fleeing "dense urban" to "less dense urban".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
I don't play the stupid game with you of defining terms all the time. You can play this with yourself. Everybody else here seems to understand what the terms mean that I am using.
You don't have to play stupid. It's a real thing for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
In principle, every law is intended to control the population and their behavior. Our behavior is not independent of society and has an impact on society itself. Therefore, it is necessary to find regulations so society as a whole does not suffer. This approach of protecting society from harm caused by individual behavior is of course irrelevant to libertarians like you. I realize that, but that doesn't make it any less immoral. The concept of controlling society, formulated as an accusation against everyone who wants to prevent damage to society, is therefore a populist double standard because every law, including the laws proposed or defended by libertarians like you, represents a restriction on the freedom of the individual and a control of the population.
Society being...?
You give poor examples by using other countries which have a different history and culture and demographic makeup from the U.S. You have absurdly argued under various aliases you are personally being harmed by built form in the U.S. and cars. What's constitutes your version of society: a household, the population of a neighborhood, the population of a city, the population of a county, the population of a state, the population of a nation, the population of the world? It's a bit arrogant for you to claim you know what's best for "society" under any of these. "Society" is an abstract concept used for taking things from others.
It's easy enough to simply say you aren't part of the "society" whose best interests are aligned with our own. What's in your "interest" is not in our interest and is harmful to our interests. What you promote is not what's best for whatever society you are trying to affiliate me with because it's not best for me nor any of the individuals in it. You are part of a different society. Artificial construct "society" problem solved.
It is true the population is dispersing away from density. Rural areas get re-defined as urban such that where people are is no longer defined as rural. The discussion was about fleeing "dense urban" to "less dense urban".
You don't have to play stupid. It's a real thing for you.
Society being...?
You give poor examples by using other countries which have a different history and culture and demographic makeup from the U.S. You have absurdly argued under various aliases you are personally being harmed by built form in the U.S. and cars. What's your version of society...a household, the population of a neighborhood, the population of a city, the population of a county, the population of a state, the population of a nation, the population of the world? It's a bit arrogant for you to claim you know what's best for "society" under any of these. "Society" is an abstract concept used for taking things from others.
It's easy enough to simply say you aren't part of the "society" whose best interests are aligned with our own. What's in your "interest" is not in our interest and is harmful to our interests. What you promote is not what's best for whatever society you are trying to affiliate me with because it's not best for me nor any of the individuals in it. You are part of a different society. Artificial construct "society" problem solved.
No, the discussion wasn't about whether people would leave dense urban for less dense urban, it was about whether people would leave density, because that was exactly your argument. But it's funny to see you trying to move the goal post again. I mean you just wrote it yourself in your latest post.
Shallow insults seem to be your thing.
Apparently your nationalism doesn't allow you to talk about urban planning in general and outside the US. However, this forum is still a general urban planning forum and not an Urban Planning in the US forum.
There are various philosophical views on what society is, but I have never encountered such an arrogant rejection of the concept of society as comes from libertarians like you. Precisely because there are different interests in society, it is all the more important that care is taken to ensure that these interests are not harmed, so that society is protected and controlled so that no harm occurs to it.
No, the discussion wasn't about whether people would leave dense urban for less dense urban, it was about whether people would leave density, because that was exactly your argument. But it's funny to see you trying to move the goal post again. I mean you just wrote it yourself in your latest post.
My comment was about dispersion from density and this entire forum is about "urban planning" and your threads are always promoting high density urban areas. The overwhelming numbers come from dense urban areas because of the numerosity of people. Yes the population is dispersing away from the dense urban areas to less dense urban areas and the growth is fastest in the less dense area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Shallow insults seem to be your thing.
Apparently your nationalism doesn't allow you to talk about urban planning in general and outside the US. However, this forum is still a general urban planning forum and not an Urban Planning in the US forum.
This coming from the author of hundreds of posts denigrating American cities, cars, parents, children, engineering, construction, built-form, etc.? What a hypocrite (was that a shallow insult?)
Yeah it's not about urban planning in the U.S. Yet that and other aspects of American living and culture are what you routinely use this forum to attack and denigrate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
There are various philosophical views on what society is, but I have never encountered such an arrogant rejection of the concept of society as comes from libertarians like you. Precisely because there are different interests in society, it is all the more important that care is taken to ensure that these interests are not harmed, so that society is protected and controlled so that no harm occurs to it.
Well you're faced with two options. Voluntarily assimilate into our "society" or recognize that you are not part of the same "society" to which any purported duty or obligation is owed. See how easy and obvious that was? The use of abstract concepts like "society" and "community" are nothing more than excuses to rationalize taking from and making others worse off under the pretext of betterment for "society". There is no uni-society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
