Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Because certain policymakers, who work just down the road, decided that their corporate donors needed more customers and cheaper labor. Immigrants and their children account for the growth, not births to the native population. It would be pretty easy to stop or reduce "growth", but that wouldn't meet the economic needs of our overseers.

This.

It's about cheap labor and votes for certain wealthy people. That's why the growth is allowed unfettered.

Immigrants and their children is me and my family. We're not cheap. And we want more growth.

Please clarify if you are a legal immigrant or a legal immigrant.

I am also an immigrant, but there is definitely a difference in wages. And that’s why business owners like to exploit illegal immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:I live in Bethesda and work in DC. I don't understand why we need ever greater density and more homes and more companies to come to the area. The congestion is terrible and the strain on schools and public services is annoying.

Personally, I would be happier if we stayed flat or, better yet, some people moved away!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Because certain policymakers, who work just down the road, decided that their corporate donors needed more customers and cheaper labor. Immigrants and their children account for the growth, not births to the native population. It would be pretty easy to stop or reduce "growth", but that wouldn't meet the economic needs of our overseers.

This.

It's about cheap labor and votes for certain wealthy people. That's why the growth is allowed unfettered.

Immigrants and their children is me and my family. We're not cheap. And we want more growth.

Anonymous wrote:Endless growth = pollution

Anyone who cares about the environment should be opposed to endless growth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Because certain policymakers, who work just down the road, decided that their corporate donors needed more customers and cheaper labor. Immigrants and their children account for the growth, not births to the native population. It would be pretty easy to stop or reduce "growth", but that wouldn't meet the economic needs of our overseers.

This.

It's about cheap labor and votes for certain wealthy people. That's why the growth is allowed unfettered.

Anonymous wrote:Endless growth = pollution

Anyone who cares about the environment should be opposed to endless growth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ever look at old movies from the 50s doeant the traffic in cities look lovely? In general what is the take on where the population in the US is right now?Cities like DC do seem so congested.

No. By the 1950s, people were already knocking down city buildings for surface parking lots.

But if you think it looks lovely, then (1) you're going to have to persuade a whole lot of people to get rid of some of their cars and drive the remaining ones a lot less and (2) you're also going to have to restore mass transit. There were still streetcars in the 1950s.

In 1950, there was about 1 vehicle per household, about 3,000 annual vehicle miles per capita, and about 7,300 annual vehicle miles per licensed driver. 22% of households owned no vehicles, and 2.5% owned 3 or more vehicles.

In 2017, there were about 2 vehicles per household, about 10,000 annual vehicle miles per capita, and about about 14,300 annual vehicle miles per licensed driver. 9% of households owned no vehicles, and 22% owned 3 or more vehicles.

Also: the population of DC in 1950 was 802,178. It's now 633,427.

I'm all for mass transit. Who is against it?

Anonymous wrote:Endless growth = pollution

Anyone who cares about the environment should be opposed to endless growth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ever look at old movies from the 50s doeant the traffic in cities look lovely? In general what is the take on where the population in the US is right now?Cities like DC do seem so congested.

No. By the 1950s, people were already knocking down city buildings for surface parking lots.

But if you think it looks lovely, then (1) you're going to have to persuade a whole lot of people to get rid of some of their cars and drive the remaining ones a lot less and (2) you're also going to have to restore mass transit. There were still streetcars in the 1950s.

In 1950, there was about 1 vehicle per household, about 3,000 annual vehicle miles per capita, and about 7,300 annual vehicle miles per licensed driver. 22% of households owned no vehicles, and 2.5% owned 3 or more vehicles.

In 2017, there were about 2 vehicles per household, about 10,000 annual vehicle miles per capita, and about about 14,300 annual vehicle miles per licensed driver. 9% of households owned no vehicles, and 22% owned 3 or more vehicles.

Also: the population of DC in 1950 was 802,178. It's now 633,427.

I'm all for mass transit. Who is against it?

Anonymous wrote:This is insane. The population of all counties surrounding DC are growing. Do you want them closer in or driving an hour? It’s naive to think your “large mature trees” are environmentally valuable compared to plowing under forests up county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ever look at old movies from the 50s doeant the traffic in cities look lovely? In general what is the take on where the population in the US is right now?Cities like DC do seem so congested.

No. By the 1950s, people were already knocking down city buildings for surface parking lots.

But if you think it looks lovely, then (1) you're going to have to persuade a whole lot of people to get rid of some of their cars and drive the remaining ones a lot less and (2) you're also going to have to restore mass transit. There were still streetcars in the 1950s.

In 1950, there was about 1 vehicle per household, about 3,000 annual vehicle miles per capita, and about 7,300 annual vehicle miles per licensed driver. 22% of households owned no vehicles, and 2.5% owned 3 or more vehicles.

In 2017, there were about 2 vehicles per household, about 10,000 annual vehicle miles per capita, and about about 14,300 annual vehicle miles per licensed driver. 9% of households owned no vehicles, and 22% owned 3 or more vehicles.

Also: the population of DC in 1950 was 802,178. It's now 633,427.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is propaganda. Japan, for example, is not headed for fiscal disaster.

Tell that to the Japanese government. They're very worried.

Well, the Japanese government is issuing debt at negative interest rates, which rather suggests that they are very creditworthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is propaganda. Japan, for example, is not headed for fiscal disaster.

Tell that to the Japanese government. They're very worried.