I’ve always thought that the War on Suburbia was all about forcing the people back into the cities so that the city facilities would improve. For example, schools.
If you forced the money back into the city – as well as the bodies – then they think the skules would instantly improve because the proles won’t stand for scummy skules for their splendid spawn.
Much easier than addressing the issues. And allowing the suburbs to exist creates a them-us, better here – worse there, difference which the Soccies cannot tolerate.
Everyone must be equally miserable.
No, they want to force people into cities where they’re easier to control. The Glorious People’s 1% will still get their dachas in the country and Zil limos to take them there.
Any claims about such a policy improving the cities are merely an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. People like living in suburbs, so only force can push them into the Glorious People’s Stalinist tower blocks in the cities they’ve fled.
p.s. as hinted in the article..I think that’s what high speed rail and high gas prices are all about…force people back into the city.
Seems kinda of superfluous now in the post-Roberts world of unlimited taxing authority of the Federal government. They can simply assess a penalty tax based on zip codes and send the revenue to the appropriate constituencies.
It’s the same thing, really.
Don’t give them ideas. Remember the old days when Rush used to illustrate the absurdity of liberal ideas, now most of those “absurd” things are the norms.
agenda 21 in action
When does Canada put up the border fence?
Well, what’s the strategy? It strikes me that superficially the federal government is limited to how it can force urbanization. Taxation based on zip code is likely to be unconstitutional, for example. Sure, if they can completely ignore the Constitution and US law, then a lot of really brutal methods are opened up (such as the Khymer Rouge’s tactics, for example).
But if they have to play within the limits of US law and the Constitution then what can they do?
I’m curious – where in between likely-unconstitutional “taxation based on zip code” and Supreme-Court-blessed “taxation based on whether your health insurance plan covers birth control” do you think lies the bright-line rule that liberals would never dare cross?
There is no line that will not be crossed. For every line you will not cross, there is someone to the left of you who will and in doing so usurp whatever ideological clout you had.
I have heard this argument several times before. Basically they want to cut costs in support infrastructure by putting everyone close together. Say you want to be able to respond in 5 minutes to a 911 call. If everyone lives far apart you need to have more rescue centers and hospitals to be able to do it than otherwise. You will also spend less money on transportation costs. The same applies to schools. You also need more roads, miles of piping and cables, etc if people live far apart.
The zenith (?) of this way of thinking was when the Soviet Union decided they wanted to move everyone in Kazakhstan to rural cities. It turned out the money and resources you saved by everyone living together was dwarfed by the cost of moving everyone plus the fact that they still had to go work in the fields many miles away.
If they want to do it the easiest way is to tax fuel and put tolls on the highways. If the conservatives squawk you just sell off the highways to private investors and pocket the money.
“If they want to do it the easiest way is to tax fuel and put tolls on the highways. If the conservatives squawk you just sell off the highways to private investors and pocket the money.”
No, you tax fuel for “transportation” as a use tax – which -could- be fair. Then spend all the “transportation funds” on non-roads (light-rail) and aspects of roads that don’t improve general driving conditions.
We’ve been here for awhile now.
Seattle’s building a $5 billion dollar bridge off of tolls + gas tax. The reason for the bridge is to go from 2-lanes both ways to 2-lanes+HOV both ways. The buses, naturally, travel toll-free. The reason given for the non-consideration of going to 3-lanes+HOV -> “Well, the freeway at the other end would need to be upgraded.”
So the once-per-generation massive upgrade mainly provides -transit- improvements.
Seattle is the city that wouldn’t approve building permits if the proposed building was too far away from an adjacent Interstate. They intentionally made their Interstate highway system too difficult to expand so that it never would be.
Yes.
One of the older Secretaries of Transportation expressed exactly that sentiment on tape.
The 520 project is just part of the pattern. “Oh, there’s a bottleneck, no reason to make -this- piece competent.” “Oh, now we have to fix -that- piece? Well, we just fixed this other piece, and -its- a bottleneck now!”
Seattle has a non-transportation department.
If they want to do it the easiest way is to tax fuel and put tolls on the highways.
The innovative thinking of liberals never ceases to amaze me.
If we built one big city of the population density of New York city, and made it the size of Texas, it would hold the entire population of the world.
What could possibly go wrong?
Now that’s the kind of bold thinking the progressives need. You should apply for a grant.
Be sure to use all those urban renewal words in your grant. Things like “green space”, “carbon neutral”, “arcology”, etc.
I checked your math, and Texas does come out surprisingly close to the right size. But you used the population density of all five boroughs, which is wasteful. Also, Texas is a red state, which is inconvenient for getting the project started.
If we use the population density only slightly higher than Manhattan’s, Oregon would work. Nicer climate and scenery, and a reliable blue state. If we need to stick to Manhattan’s density, Colorado would suffice.
We’d have to have a population density higher than that of Manilla to make Illinois work. I think that should be the goal.
Search “extreme engineering Sky City” on youtube.
Population density would be boggling.
Now that everyone is comfortable with the fact that the numbers work, I can deliver the punch line. As big as it might seem, Texas makes up less than one half of one percent of the land area of the earth. Yet it could hold the entire human population in livable conditions.
Remember that when someone whines about how overcrowded the earth is.
I prefer to contemplate how everyone could fit onto the surface of Enceladus. (And hey, since Enceladus is tidally locked, there will be disparity in real estate prices, as the rich folks will pay for the view of Saturn.)
Karl,
luckily, unlike the Cambodians under the Khymer Rouge, WE have guns, plenty of guns, lots and lots of guns…. so it’s a pretty tough job to force us INTO the cities in a reverse of what the murdering Commies did.
I’ve always thought that the War on Suburbia was all about forcing the people back into the cities so that the city facilities would improve. For example, schools.
If you forced the money back into the city – as well as the bodies – then they think the skules would instantly improve because the proles won’t stand for scummy skules for their splendid spawn.
Much easier than addressing the issues. And allowing the suburbs to exist creates a them-us, better here – worse there, difference which the Soccies cannot tolerate.
Everyone must be equally miserable.
No, they want to force people into cities where they’re easier to control. The Glorious People’s 1% will still get their dachas in the country and Zil limos to take them there.
Any claims about such a policy improving the cities are merely an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. People like living in suburbs, so only force can push them into the Glorious People’s Stalinist tower blocks in the cities they’ve fled.
p.s. as hinted in the article..I think that’s what high speed rail and high gas prices are all about…force people back into the city.
Seems kinda of superfluous now in the post-Roberts world of unlimited taxing authority of the Federal government. They can simply assess a penalty tax based on zip codes and send the revenue to the appropriate constituencies.
It’s the same thing, really.
Don’t give them ideas. Remember the old days when Rush used to illustrate the absurdity of liberal ideas, now most of those “absurd” things are the norms.
agenda 21 in action
When does Canada put up the border fence?
Well, what’s the strategy? It strikes me that superficially the federal government is limited to how it can force urbanization. Taxation based on zip code is likely to be unconstitutional, for example. Sure, if they can completely ignore the Constitution and US law, then a lot of really brutal methods are opened up (such as the Khymer Rouge’s tactics, for example).
But if they have to play within the limits of US law and the Constitution then what can they do?
I’m curious – where in between likely-unconstitutional “taxation based on zip code” and Supreme-Court-blessed “taxation based on whether your health insurance plan covers birth control” do you think lies the bright-line rule that liberals would never dare cross?
There is no line that will not be crossed. For every line you will not cross, there is someone to the left of you who will and in doing so usurp whatever ideological clout you had.
I have heard this argument several times before. Basically they want to cut costs in support infrastructure by putting everyone close together. Say you want to be able to respond in 5 minutes to a 911 call. If everyone lives far apart you need to have more rescue centers and hospitals to be able to do it than otherwise. You will also spend less money on transportation costs. The same applies to schools. You also need more roads, miles of piping and cables, etc if people live far apart.
The zenith (?) of this way of thinking was when the Soviet Union decided they wanted to move everyone in Kazakhstan to rural cities. It turned out the money and resources you saved by everyone living together was dwarfed by the cost of moving everyone plus the fact that they still had to go work in the fields many miles away.
If they want to do it the easiest way is to tax fuel and put tolls on the highways. If the conservatives squawk you just sell off the highways to private investors and pocket the money.
“If they want to do it the easiest way is to tax fuel and put tolls on the highways. If the conservatives squawk you just sell off the highways to private investors and pocket the money.”
No, you tax fuel for “transportation” as a use tax – which -could- be fair. Then spend all the “transportation funds” on non-roads (light-rail) and aspects of roads that don’t improve general driving conditions.
We’ve been here for awhile now.
Seattle’s building a $5 billion dollar bridge off of tolls + gas tax. The reason for the bridge is to go from 2-lanes both ways to 2-lanes+HOV both ways. The buses, naturally, travel toll-free. The reason given for the non-consideration of going to 3-lanes+HOV -> “Well, the freeway at the other end would need to be upgraded.”
So the once-per-generation massive upgrade mainly provides -transit- improvements.
Seattle is the city that wouldn’t approve building permits if the proposed building was too far away from an adjacent Interstate. They intentionally made their Interstate highway system too difficult to expand so that it never would be.
Yes.
One of the older Secretaries of Transportation expressed exactly that sentiment on tape.
The 520 project is just part of the pattern. “Oh, there’s a bottleneck, no reason to make -this- piece competent.” “Oh, now we have to fix -that- piece? Well, we just fixed this other piece, and -its- a bottleneck now!”
Seattle has a non-transportation department.
The innovative thinking of liberals never ceases to amaze me.
If we built one big city of the population density of New York city, and made it the size of Texas, it would hold the entire population of the world.
What could possibly go wrong?
Now that’s the kind of bold thinking the progressives need. You should apply for a grant.
Be sure to use all those urban renewal words in your grant. Things like “green space”, “carbon neutral”, “arcology”, etc.
I checked your math, and Texas does come out surprisingly close to the right size. But you used the population density of all five boroughs, which is wasteful. Also, Texas is a red state, which is inconvenient for getting the project started.
If we use the population density only slightly higher than Manhattan’s, Oregon would work. Nicer climate and scenery, and a reliable blue state. If we need to stick to Manhattan’s density, Colorado would suffice.
We’d have to have a population density higher than that of Manilla to make Illinois work. I think that should be the goal.
Search “extreme engineering Sky City” on youtube.
Population density would be boggling.
Now that everyone is comfortable with the fact that the numbers work, I can deliver the punch line. As big as it might seem, Texas makes up less than one half of one percent of the land area of the earth. Yet it could hold the entire human population in livable conditions.
Remember that when someone whines about how overcrowded the earth is.
I prefer to contemplate how everyone could fit onto the surface of Enceladus. (And hey, since Enceladus is tidally locked, there will be disparity in real estate prices, as the rich folks will pay for the view of Saturn.)
Karl,
luckily, unlike the Cambodians under the Khymer Rouge, WE have guns, plenty of guns, lots and lots of guns…. so it’s a pretty tough job to force us INTO the cities in a reverse of what the murdering Commies did.