johnweldon

> For those volunteers, that is a great example of doing something to make yourself feel better at the expense of the others you're claiming to help.

In this statement, you're subtly doing the same thing - assuming the motivation of the volunteer.

I agree that "help" without actually understanding the need, or without the invitation of the helpee, tends to be more meddlesome than beneficial.

Do you have any references for this statement.

I'm not arguing there are no externalities (there are externalities in just about every choice we make). I just haven't been convinced that there are common egregious externalities at the level of dumping raw sewage into the creek.

I think your comment is a bit misleading.

Dumping sewage into a creek is an externality that is bad.

Someone preferring to live in a suburb does not mean they're generating externalities at that level.

The very reason I pushed back on the comment was because of this black and white thinking.

Saying

> The fact that people dump their sewage into the creek instead of paying for proper sewage treatment/disposal suggests that there's something desirable to _them_ to do the easier and cheaper thing. Of course!

seems condescending to me. As though "those" people don't have the character or moral rectitude to live in the city. Maybe I'm reading in more than you intended.

Agreed. Although I think it has to do with more than location. For a childless couple, the cost of a 3 bedroom house in the suburbs might be the same as for a one room apartment in the city. If they choose the suburbs, maybe they're choosing more than location, they're also choosing quality of life.

My somewhat libertarian take is that they themselves are best suited to judge what they should or shouldn't want.

Not that there isn't a time for trying to bring a different perspective. But we should do it with humility, rather than assuming they're just wrong or misguided.

So... yes "stop convincing them" is a valid argument. "convince them not to" is slightly shakier moral ground.

I think the original comment proposal was (my, slightly sarcastic, paraphrase) "stop incentivizing anything but urban infrastructure and living, everything else is a ponzi scheme"

I agree with your proposal.

I have no objection to removing laws against high density housing.

Well said - I don't fully agree, but I agree that an automobile centered world is sub-optimal, and fuels our feelings of disconnection.

I'm fully on-board with working to make suburbs more self-contained and walkable. As others have said, the issue may be zoning and regulations.

> A major reason for the preference is the lower price per square foot in the suburbs than in higher density areas.

I think that's a big part of it, but also people choose suburbs and rural living for reasons more to do with quality of life rather than cost.

> If the individual cost of buying a house "in the sticks" was reflective of that, people might start to think twice.

I don't buy that subsidization is what makes buying a house "in the sticks" so much cheaper.

> pretty heavily subsidize

Is a pretty general term that's hard to respond to.

Yes there are rural subsidies, but I'm unconvinced that the per-capita subsidization of rural and suburban dwellers is so much greater than their urban counterparts.

You may have a very good argument, but I don't know the numbers, and I haven't seen anyone provide the numbers for this yet either.

I called it naive because I believe it is an oversimplification.

Strong Towns has an agenda (which I mostly agree with), and in order to promote their agenda they have a straw man argument that broadly categorizes _all_ suburban development as an unsustainable venture that is borrowing against the future.

I agree that there is (in many cases, but not all) some deferred costs and externalities that are not being fully accounted for in new development.

However, I'm not nearly so pessimistic as to think that the people living in those developments won't make changes to account for those deferred costs and even possibly some of the externalities.

I think it's naive to cry "the sky is falling".

I appreciate this argument - and there is some truth to it, but certainly not to the point of (paraphrasing here) "anyone who doesn't want to live in the city is participating in a Ponzi scheme"

I agree with your take.

I'm a fan of strongtowns too. To the degree that that analysis is true, it will sort itself out. We don't need to do anything to save our neighbor from themself. We can make a lifetime of difference solving our own problems.

Why do we need to convince someone they don't "need" anything? Each person has the best information about their own situation to decide what they need (or even want - you don't have to _need_ something to have to justify _wanting_ it)