Comment

Comment by helen___keller

In a perfect world, we would have dense cities, we would have wild land that belongs to nature, and we would have farmland; and most land would fall into one of these classifications. While we might see "market share" fluctuate between these, a relatively stable population guarantees that we would not see a huge loss of wild land.

In reality, every state, every city, and every town are in a de facto competition for tax dollars, and there is no central planning. So instead of adding dense housing to desirable Burlington, we clearcut forests or replace farmland to add low density housing 10 miles away in a subdivision near Shelburne. That family that was charmed to move to Vermont by the shops on Bank st will end up driving to the nearby big box store in Shelburne instead. The traffic will get worse, local farmland starts disappearing because suburban land is more valuable on a square foot basis, and once all the farms are gone the process begins again another 5-10 miles out.

It's a vicious cycle, and it creates an ecosystem where most people can't even enjoy the city they came to love in the first place because they live miles and miles away (and good luck with traffic and parking)

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton