Developers already screamed about the costs they'd have to pass on to potential buyers under plan-it doing denser construction, how is it any different then them screaming about passing on the cost of that new interchange for the roads into there subdivision? Unrealistic. What you are talking about would amount to a massive tax shift from inner city to suburbs as new large roadway infrastructure/police/fire/rec stations will never be allowed by the mass suburb-dwelling electorate in their mortgages or tax bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzym
The answer to those costs is to make them get factored into mortgages. I can't believe how much people want more gov in the economy on this forum. Don't you people understand? Have any of you taken a single course in economics? With less gov you wouldn't see a gov that goes after motorists with every tax possible to force them to take transit. You wouldn't see the entire city subsidizing the costs of suburban infrastructure [definately less]. What this means is that the inner city would become price competitive with the suburbs. More skyscrapers. Maybe more people taking transit out of their own will instead of coercion by city hall.
|
Threaded Mode