Reply to Bowser promised “zero traffic deaths” 10 years ago, but fatalities have doubled

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Bowser promised “zero traffic deaths” 10 years ago, but fatalities have doubled "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It's very curious that our government thinks it can raises taxes on rich people as much as it wants, and they won't move away (even with low tax Virginia being right there!), but if they make changes to our transportation infrastructure, it will have a profound effect on people's transportation choices. It's an odd circle to try to square. Logically, it seems impossible to reconcile the two. [/quote]

And of course no one argues that building more housing in DC will just encourage more people to move to DC, which would be the natural implication of applying the theory of induced demand to housing. [/quote]

We want more people to move to DC. This is explicitly one of the reasons people who advocate for more housing in DC do so -- we want more people to move to the city center close to jobs and amenities because it is more efficient and reduces the need for so much car infrastructure.

If more people move to DC it increases the tax base and also makes it more desirable to potential employers. From a purely economic standpoint you always want your population to be growing. If you aren't growing you are dying.

The reason you don't want more people to move here is because you want to live in a large house on a large lot in a neighborhood of similar low density and you want to climb into your SUV every morning and enjoy a short traffic-free commute to wherever it is you want to go and then park right next to it for free. You don't understand this fantasy cannot be achieved in an urban center because it's extremely expensive to achieve -- you need lots and lots of people paying lots of taxes and using amenities like roads and schools and parking structures in order to make them affordable on a per use basis. But you can't build a large enough tax base with low density housing.[/quote]

As usual you all only tell part of the story.

An economically sustainable city needs high income residents in order to afford the things it wants.  Schools, transportation time, and personal space are the three main drivers of where young professional families choose to live.

Increasing density increases the strain on the infrastructure.  If an area doesn't have spare capacity in their infrastructure then it requires commensurate spending to increase capacity.

The crazy thing about the ideas being pushed is that they not only don't include the infrastructure needs necessary for increasing density in many cases they are paired with policies that decrease infrastructure capacity.[/quote]

Lol. Take Cleveland Park- there is more income per capita in the apartments east of Conn Ave than in the boomer retirees' houses - and it is the boomer retirees who have time to show up to whine to DC officials in their rent seeking cries for handouts, like maintaining their suburban housing...[/quote]

So is that why the Trumper at Cleveland Pk Smart Growth pushed his way onto the Ward redistricting commission and gerrymandered the ANC seats to favor apartment dwellers?  And found and funded compliant candidates to run for the gerrymandered seats and vote for his development agenda?  Truly Trumpy.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics