Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

Can you not answer the basic question of how does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Hmmmm. It’s almost like you are just making it all up.

Point is that if you want specifics, you need to ask someone who really knows that city. And few know the city better than David Simon. He will give you the information you seek. And some exotic insults.

So in conclusion, you have no idea what you are talking about. Good to know. Thanks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

He went to BCC btw

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

Can you not answer the basic question of how does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Hmmmm. It’s almost like you are just making it all up.

Point is that if you want specifics, you need to ask someone who really knows that city. And few know the city better than David Simon. He will give you the information you seek. And some exotic insults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

Can you not answer the basic question of how does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Hmmmm. It’s almost like you are just making it all up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

There's that Gish gallop again!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why bicyclists aren't required to wear helmets, or why they're allowed to put small children on bikes without helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be required to wear seat belts or be in car seats...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.