Anonymous wrote:

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

Anonymous wrote:
OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it fascinating that urban posters are so preoccupied with traffic, but not with crime.

That's because the crime where I live is as low as the 'burbs. But you wouldn't know that out in Reston. I bet you think DC is the big bad city.

Exactly. The reason most urban posters aren't preoccupied with crime is that we don't spend our lives watching alarmist local news reports. Is there violent crime in the city? Sure. Is it likely to affect *us* particularly in any greater numbers than living in the 'burbs? Nope.

I've posted a link here a few times to a recent Brookings report that showed you were much more likely to die in a traffic accident in the burbs than of any cause in the city, and that incidents of "homicide by stranger" were actually more prevalent in the suburbs than the city. Bottom line? Don't want to get shot? Don't deal crack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why the whole thing has to collapse under its own weight. I can see some of the far out exurbs becoming too expensive to sustain due to the cost of fuel. But unless we tear down existing neighborhoods to build higher density housing, I think you're likely to see more resources be pored into expanding regional public transportation rather than a large movement of populations closer to DC.

It's a Malthusian problem. Regional population's going to continue to grow; most of those folks are going to live in the suburbs. As the competition for housing close-in to transit centers continues, those who have to drive the most will be priced further out--which means they'll be driving more and clogging up the roads. Most studies show that "transit" doesn't actually do much to cut into the congestion problem. Also, the super-representation of rural interests in this country ensures that *sustained* spending on large transit projects can never happen. So "transit" will always be the ugly step-sister to new highway construction. Things will continue until they cannot continue any longer.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why the whole thing has to collapse under its own weight. I can see some of the far out exurbs becoming too expensive to sustain due to the cost of fuel. But unless we tear down existing neighborhoods to build higher density housing, I think you're likely to see more resources be pored into expanding regional public transportation rather than a large movement of populations closer to DC.

Anonymous wrote:you misunderstood me--or I guess I wasn't describing the situation well enough: I'm not judging whether sprawl, ample parking, convenience, etc, etc... was "better" or "worse". Just pointing out that suburban folks prioritize different things--just as you say. The problem is, if you attempt to do "smart growth" or whatever you want to call it, while prioritizing the things that you've enumerated above, you end up with an ineffective muddle: it turns into a mess. So I totally agree with you: different strokes for different folks. You'll continue to vote for what you like, and the PP above who is hoping that the suburbs turn into individual smart growth centers in their own right is going to be sorely disappointed. We're too used to doing things in a shitty, sprawling, half-assed way...and we'll continue to do so until the whole wretched mess collapses under it's own weight. The suburbs cannot retool so long as it's possible to continue to make them worse. At some point the ride's going to stop, though. Probably sooner rather than later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child...

No what you said was "I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school..." The fact that you're trying to walk it back now leads me to the conclusion that you're a disingenuous piece of shit.

Just keeping it real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, it's interesting that the most influential policies that European governments intentionally pushed during the 70s and 80s that the US is going to experience over the coming decades: specifically high fuel costs, and the attendant change in the way we do logistics.

As far as the meaning of "retrofitted properly", there are good ways and bad ways to do urbanism. While the planners understand that things need to change, and that growth needs to be pushed inward to the transit-accessible nodes, they've still got to get past suburban voters: who are mostly NIMBYs, love ample parking, and in general, will always push for policies that undercut the execution of the smart-growth planning.

Folks who understand and desire walkable communties are moving into urban areas: DC, Philly, Chicago, etc... People move to the suburbs because they largely want a "convenient" suburban experience. When push comes to shove, you can *always* count on suburban voters to do the wrong thing when it comes to urbanist design.

There are huge value judgments in what you've said. I'm willing to give up walkability for peace and quiet. I prefer the 'burbs because I don't have strange people walking through my neighborhood. I disliked Manhattan because strangers were always walking around yelling at all hours. Same with London (less yelling). There are no village-like spaces when you live in a city. Just public spaces. Always the intrusive sounds of sirens and traffic. I like quiet. I like being able to hear walnuts hitting the ground as they fall during autumn. Yes, I recognize that that's a luxury. But it's a sensibility that may people share.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child...

No what you said was "I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school..." The fact that you're trying to walk it back now leads me to the conclusion that you're a disingenuous piece of shit.

Just keeping it real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

Why do you care why others are having one child, no children, or three children? Says a lot more about you than them. Get over it and MYOB.

Anonymous wrote: I've posted a link here a few times to a recent Brookings report that showed you were much more likely to die in a traffic accident in the burbs than of any cause in the city, and that incidents of "homicide by stranger" were actually more prevalent in the suburbs than the city. Bottom line? Don't want to get shot? Don't deal crack.