Also, if jails were places of rehabilitation instead of places of punishment, they would be much more pleasant places to be and so jailing an innocent person wouldn't be quite the travesty that it is now. Of course people without a steady income would be more likely to abuse the system for their basic necessities, until we put in place an Unconditional Basic Income!
Is that business appropriating the public commons if the mass transit is subsidized?
It sure sounds like it!
what's the solution for people needing to park in order to remain employees or clients?
If they truly need to park, they can demonstrate that need by paying the market asking price for parking. If they are unwilling to pay, then they didn't really need to park after all, they just said they did because they wanted a handout.
Similarly, if the business needs those employees, it can demonstrate that need by paying market rate salaries. If the business needs customers, it can demonstrate that need by offering market rate prices for its product or service.
...but any network-connected camera with proprietary firmware might phone home without your knowledge. The only sure way to prevent this with untrusted firmware is by isolating those cameras on their own network with no Internet access.
Along with the IP address and its coordinates is another entry called the âoeaccuracy radius.â
Doesn't the precision of the returned coordinates--the number of significant figures, if you remember your high school science classes--imply the accuracy radius?
Is the database populated with falsely precise coordinates?
Are you trolling or do you actually believe that protecting the environment for future generations requires harming the economy?
Hanlon's Razor says I should assume the latter, so this will probably go over your head, but people smarter than you and I agree that correcting market failures such as negative externalities makes the market work better, not worse.
Low cost energy that stays on 24/7 at a low price is what a productive and export friendly state needs.
If you can predict via weather reports when electricity will be cheapest, you can do your energy intensive manufacturing then, and let your less flexible competitors waste money manufacturing at night when there's no wind! Or your competitors can move close to a hydroelectric dam or geothermal or nuclear plant where the electricity flows 24/7. It will be interesting to see what happens. (And it will, one way or another. The coal and natural gas won't last forever.)
So renewable energy will certainly be disruptive, but not necessarily destructive, to the export industry.
You're also forgetting that adding "tax efficient" property zoning without the population or natural resources to support that use is still going to fail or go undeveloped.
That doesn't make sense. If you zone for 10 stories and the population or natural resources doesn't support a 10 story building, why can't a developer put a 1 story building there?
What I'm saying is that the optimal city design isn't always high-density.
There's plenty of unaffiliated space to build dozens more separate cities.
Irrelevant. We're talking about the money a city loses with oppressive laws dictating land use. Putting a tax-efficient property in City B doesn't help City A.
The city doesn't lose anything from the parking lot unless there's nowhere else to build those stores.
Like in a neighboring city with less oppressive laws?
You don't like cars and cities being designed to accommodate them.
You think I don't like cars because I want all forms of transit to be treated equally in the eyes of the government?
If I were supportive of gender equality, would you say that I'm prejudiced against men? If I wanted racial equality, would you say that I'm anti-white?
Just quit trying to tell everyone who chooses something different that they are wrong for doing so.
It's not wrong for people to want to drive everywhere. It's only wrong to force others, especially those who are too poor to drive, to pay more than their fair share for it!
Add to the cost of the roads the opportunity cost of parking. In other words, if a parking lot brings in $10,000 per year in property taxes to the city, and if a store on the same parcel could bring in $400,000 per year in property and sales taxes, then the opportunity cost of the parking lot is $390,000 per year. The city loses that much by requiring that the parcel be used for parking. Guess who pays the difference in higher taxes? Everyone, including people who don't drive.
If cars were no longer given favorable tax and regulatory treatment--if the gas tax and other user fees were risen enough to pay for the roads 100% instead of less than half, and if you were no longer guaranteed free, abundant parking at your destination--would you still drive everywhere?
And by definition when people from the suburbs take the metro they aren't driving. So, yeah, it does cause a reduction in the number of cars on the freeways and surface streets.
Sure, I will respect your choice to live in a low density neighborhood when you are willing to pay full price for your lifestyle. TxDOT found that it would require a gas tax of $2.22 per gallon. Are you willing to pay that?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if jails were places of rehabilitation instead of places of punishment, they would be much more pleasant places to be and so jailing an innocent person wouldn't be quite the travesty that it is now. Of course people without a steady income would be more likely to abuse the system for their basic necessities, until we put in place an Unconditional Basic Income!
People who don't want their pizza getting cold because it's stuck in traffic.
Isn't that a subsidy?
If the city stopped transferring wealth from poor, dense neighborhoods to affluent, sprawling ones, I think you would see middle-class neighborhoods asking for more density and more retail so they can get their potholes fixed.
False.
It sure sounds like it!
If they truly need to park, they can demonstrate that need by paying the market asking price for parking. If they are unwilling to pay, then they didn't really need to park after all, they just said they did because they wanted a handout.
Similarly, if the business needs those employees, it can demonstrate that need by paying market rate salaries. If the business needs customers, it can demonstrate that need by offering market rate prices for its product or service.
Granted, but where do we disagree on whether customers parking on the street is an example of a business appropriating the public commons for profit?
Is that like when businesses allow their customers to park on the street?
Without surveillance, how will you know whether the wall is working? How do you expect to find and catch anyone after they've hopped the wall?
How will migrating animals get through? Are you going to shuttle them through somehow?
...but any network-connected camera with proprietary firmware might phone home without your knowledge. The only sure way to prevent this with untrusted firmware is by isolating those cameras on their own network with no Internet access.
Not a rectangular-ish shape with upper left coordinate (-119,7524999,36.60554999) and lower right coordinate (-119.7515,36.60545)?
Doesn't the precision of the returned coordinates--the number of significant figures, if you remember your high school science classes--imply the accuracy radius?
Is the database populated with falsely precise coordinates?
Why not a market based solution like Fee and Dividend?
Are you trolling or do you actually believe that protecting the environment for future generations requires harming the economy?
Hanlon's Razor says I should assume the latter, so this will probably go over your head, but people smarter than you and I agree that correcting market failures such as negative externalities makes the market work better, not worse.
"We didn't see them block the entrance. If it happens again, give us a call."
Can Google design a CAPTCHA that's too difficult for their text-to-speech to read?
If you can predict via weather reports when electricity will be cheapest, you can do your energy intensive manufacturing then, and let your less flexible competitors waste money manufacturing at night when there's no wind! Or your competitors can move close to a hydroelectric dam or geothermal or nuclear plant where the electricity flows 24/7. It will be interesting to see what happens. (And it will, one way or another. The coal and natural gas won't last forever.)
So renewable energy will certainly be disruptive, but not necessarily destructive, to the export industry.
That doesn't make sense. If you zone for 10 stories and the population or natural resources doesn't support a 10 story building, why can't a developer put a 1 story building there?
Who said it was?
Irrelevant. We're talking about the money a city loses with oppressive laws dictating land use. Putting a tax-efficient property in City B doesn't help City A.
LOL! That land is vacant because the city won't let anything but a small building and a large parking lot be located there!
Nice try though.
Sure, but it's not reasonable to expect that to happen as long as it has to compete with socialism for cars!
I already explained that here.
Like in a neighboring city with less oppressive laws?
You think I don't like cars because I want all forms of transit to be treated equally in the eyes of the government?
If I were supportive of gender equality, would you say that I'm prejudiced against men? If I wanted racial equality, would you say that I'm anti-white?
It's not wrong for people to want to drive everywhere. It's only wrong to force others, especially those who are too poor to drive, to pay more than their fair share for it!
Add to the cost of the roads the opportunity cost of parking. In other words, if a parking lot brings in $10,000 per year in property taxes to the city, and if a store on the same parcel could bring in $400,000 per year in property and sales taxes, then the opportunity cost of the parking lot is $390,000 per year. The city loses that much by requiring that the parcel be used for parking. Guess who pays the difference in higher taxes? Everyone, including people who don't drive.
So you see, the cost of infrastructure for cars is truly staggering when you add together ALL of the costs!
If cars were no longer given favorable tax and regulatory treatment--if the gas tax and other user fees were risen enough to pay for the roads 100% instead of less than half, and if you were no longer guaranteed free, abundant parking at your destination--would you still drive everywhere?
Isn't public transport also funded from a variety of sources? What makes the two different?
Has anyone actually measured a long-term reduction in traffic? The freeways are still packed, so it seems that whenever somebody gets out of their car and gets on [transit], it's bringing up a little bit more room on the roads, and there's somebody out there waiting to use it.
Sure, I will respect your choice to live in a low density neighborhood when you are willing to pay full price for your lifestyle. TxDOT found that it would require a gas tax of $2.22 per gallon. Are you willing to pay that?