Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dfwtiger

End Suburban Sprawl Subsidies

14 posts in this topic

I think it time to end the billions of dollars of subsidizes. We should start spending these funds on in-fill development. If people want to live in new suburbs on the edge...fine...just understand that you are going to have to pay the real cost.

What do y'all think? Is it time to redirect our focus? Is it time to stop spending money on improvements that make developers on the fringe wealthy at the expense of those who live in urban areas? When do we stop throwing millions of dollars into transportation projects that facilitate suburban development in the hinterland? When do we redirect these funds back to transportation projects that benefit the areas already developed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I think it time to end the billions of dollars of subsidizes. We should start spending these funds on in-fill development. If people want to live in new suburbs on the edge...fine...just understand that you are going to have to pay the real cost.

What do y'all think? Is it time to redirect our focus? Is it time to stop spending money on improvements that make developers on the fringe wealthy at the expense of those who live in urban areas? When do we stop throwing millions of dollars into transportation projects that facilitate suburban development in the hinterland? When do we redirect these funds back to transportation projects that benefit the areas already developed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree 100%. Maybe this should be under the urban discussion section since it is applicable to every city in the US.

I'm sick of hearing people complain about traffic non-stop. People go and buy a house on the edge of suburbia in a subdivision surrounded by cow pastures, 5 years later, you are surrounded by subdivisions just like yours but the roads are still the country roads built 40 years ago. Then you complain about traffic being so bad and the city/county needs to spend millions widening a road so you can reduce your commute to work. I feel like if you choose to live 20+ miles from your job on the edge of the city, too bad, a crappy commute is the sacrifice you made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it time to end the billions of dollars of subsidizes. We should start spending these funds on in-fill development. If people want to live in new suburbs on the edge...fine...just understand that you are going to have to pay the real cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is being subsidized and how? You're *waaaay* too vague, so many things could be considered as subsidies (did you pave a road to get to work today, inspect all your food for pathogens, patrol some seacoast or self-educate all your children?)

What about people who want to live in new in-fill developments in the middle of town, do they deserve subsidies instead or should they pay the "real cost" too? Should commuters on public transit pay the "real cost" of running the transit system?

I imagine we probably would prefer the same development priorities, but starting with a "we're right, you're evil, you're going to do what I say is good for you" attitude when all the cards are on the other side of the table is (let's say) self-limiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he means is the subsidizing of urban sprawl like the proposed elevated tollway on U.S. 280.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is subsidizing the "tollway"? By definition would it not direct user fees to pay construction & operation costs?

And I certainly agree on this, I fear this is a source of incredible inefficiency in government at all levels. For example, my hometown of Florence built a street so a Home Depot could locate on it. I suppose that warms the hearts of the hardware store owners who located on, you know, *existing city streets for several taxpaying decades.*

I would toss in a Dome in that category also however. If there was a tenant with a strong enough business interest it would have been built already, so it's putting the cart before the horse. Building it on spec as it were is like building the Colisseum and hoping the Roman Empire shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am truly shocked to see that none of the hard core republicans are on this issue. They go on and on about an efficient government....however, they continue to support legislation that spends freely on sprawl. Oh how history will judge the era of the car....and all of its associated policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Great topic, dfwtiger. It's way past time to stop subsidizing the bad decision-making of suburbanites. If you move out there and traffic gets rough, tough crap. Deal with it.

Alabama badly needs impact fees to make developers and new suburban businesses and homeowners pay their fair share of those new developments. If buyers were having to pay the true cost of these heavily subsidized developments, there would be less of this insane and incessant leap-frogging into the hinterland going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most ridiculous thing is that how most municipalities are too busy chasing after retailers for sales tax revenue (which one of the most unstable forms of revenue) to support their services. Calera has just began this very thing just so it can support is growth. It goes right back to the fact that on the state level there needs to be the elimination of caps on property taxes, elimination of income and sales taxes so that cities will stop doing this unsustainable and destructive cycle for retailers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly do we define as "hinterland". I'm certain there was a time when people were moaning about the development in Eastlake and Midfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What exactly do we define as "hinterland". I'm certain there was a time when people were moaning about the development in Eastlake and Midfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calera, Alabaster, Chelsea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some people prefer to live in the country.. why not? they have that right don't they? more home for the money more land for the money and more privacy.. gas is always going to go up.. a coke cost 25 cents not too long ago. this is what we get when we depend of foreign oil.. we have plenty of it though.. that's the funny thing.. we can't interrupt the caribou's mating rituals haha

another thing that I've thought about is... the regions terrain is pretty difficult.. lots of huge holes and steep slopes.. lots of areas may cost more to develop rather then to just follow the natural landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.