• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Detached homes are fine but people buying them need to actually pay their worth to society which they do not right now. It’s a lifestyle that is subsidized by the dense cities as the sprawling infrastructure is not economically self sustainable.

    What, in your opinion, are costs that detached homes are being subsidized by others not living in detached homes?

    And it’s ridiculous that in many places in North America the only thing that’s legal to build is single family homes.

    Its not entirely ridiculous. There are finite limits to local civil infrastructure. Think things like:

    • public school student capacity
    • fresh water supply
    • sewage treatment
    • road size in the localities
    • capacities of public transportation

    Unchecked high density housing in a small area can overwhelm these critical services things in short order. Some landlocked communities may not even have the real estate to build out additional facilities irrespective if the tax revenue exists.

    It’s a falsehood saying that’s what most people want, when the reality is that’s the only option on most of the land.

    You’re making a statement as though it is fact. Can you cite your source of that fact?

    • czl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      How does New York cope with its density and schools/services? It’s a mystery that cannot be solved, no way to know.

      Also in Europe people don’t have schools or sewage, we’re feral educated and dump our poop in the river.

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah they make a good point, you reply with reactionary bullshit, they show you that your concerns are illegitimate through simple counterexamples, you realise you’re outmatched and quit. Did I miss a step?

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Did I miss a step?

            Many.

            you reply with reactionary bullshit

            Raising fresh water supplies and sewer capacity limitations is reactionary bullshit? You’re proving my next point.

            you realise you’re outmatched and quit.

            I realize that the conversation here isn’t interested in discussing anything that doesn’t align with the idea of high density housing is the only solution for all scenarios. This isn’t a discussion of policy, but instead of religion. I’m not interesting in trying to convert others from their religion.

            Its your clubhouse. I’m not asking you to change your actions or your rules, its just not a place I’m interested in being in, so I gracefully made an exit.

    • Thinker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The most obvious cost of detached homes is the completely unsustainable amounts of infrastructure required to maintain them. Roads, sewage, electric, etc.

      It’s a well documented fact that suburbs of sprawling suburban homes are bankrupting towns/cities all across America and only the densely built downtown cores are keeping these cities afloat because the tax revenue of dense mixed-use areas is substantially higher than the cost of maintaining the infrastructure for these places. Check out Strong Towns if you’d like to know more and see the studies showing all this.