[Serial_Worrier]

People simply commute too far for their jobs. The solution is to move closer in to the inner-ring suburbs or even the city. People don't want to do it because of the crime situation. So I suggest a combination of huge carbon taxes + depopulate the inner ring of criminal elements = massive reduction in oil usage.

[dohboi]

"depopulate the inner ring of criminal elements"

wtf does that mean? Kill all the niggers?

Can't find the source now, but a few years ago there was a study that showed that it was far more likely to be killed or maimed in car accidents in the suburbs than to be hurt by violence in the city.

Fear of the city is mostly fear of "those people" (=racism).

Most people are hurt by people they know. If you don't associate with violent people, it is highly unlikely that you will be a victim of lethal violence. When it does happen it is news, so that's what you see.

I don't know why I'm bothering to discuss this with someone with so many obvious shortcomings on the brainpower front.

Your tax idea is great, but this is like telling a cigarette smoker that it would be a good idea to cut back. Given the current, right-wing inspired absolute dread of any taxes for any reason at any time, there is slim chance that any significant portion of politicians are going to risk their political hide to raise gas taxes.

I liked your "even the city," like this is some absolutely scary, radical idea. Many, many of us have been living happily in inner cities all of our lives, not contributing massively to the problem like you good folks in the god-forsaken, car-dependent suburbs and exurbs.

Your impulse to consolidate and flee the never-remotely-sustainable suburbs has merit, but your means are politically unlikely, on the one hand, and ignorant/hateful/bigoted...on the other.

[jlw61]

People simply commute too far for their jobs. The solution is to move closer in to the inner-ring suburbs or even the city. People don't want to do it because of the crime situation. So I suggest a combination of huge carbon taxes + depopulate the inner ring of criminal elements = massive reduction in oil usage.

Sorry, but an incredibly racist remark.

Let's have some facts:

1) More people die from car accidents than from murder/suicide combined.

2) Gentrification can revitalize the worse areas quite quickly.

3) People left the inner cities back when pollution from factories and overly crowded conditions made cities nearly uninhabitable.

4) States that allow concealed carry have drastic reduction in crime.

5) There is more than one city that has horrible high school graduation rates. Fix that and you'll fix a lot of problems.

So if cities invest in infrastructure, allow people to protect themselves, and make it possible for children to be educated then they don't need to resort to gestapo style police tactics to "clean up" the city.

[eastbay]

US DOJ crime statistics speak volumes on this issue. I suspect few have actually read through them. They are dry reading, but pointedly and frightfully accurate. I'll leave it at that.


Yes, much higher gasoline taxes would over a fairly short time effect interesting and profound demographic shifts ... two-way demographic shifts, I presume. It may be the best way to [s]prevent [/s] delay the economic collapse of' many major inner cities and speed the inevitable decay of the outer suburbs.

[socrates1fan]

"depopulate the inner ring of criminal elements"

wtf does that mean? Kill all the niggers?

Can't find the source now, but a few years ago there was a study that showed that it was far more likely to be killed or maimed in car accidents in the suburbs than to be hurt by violence in the city.

Fear of the city is mostly fear of "those people" (=racism).

.

I live in an inner city neighborhood and there are more than three abandoned homes on this street(and more than often intersection fights.). If you have a yard, you are lucky and the sound of police sirens is nothing new and guess what? i'm white and so is everyone else in the hood except a couple families.
I think it is just fear of poorer people in general that you get in the suburbs.
Why else would they have the gates? They want to keep out us animal-like lower class. lol
In a lot of neighborhood revitalization I see the families that lived there pushed out because they couldn't afford to stay. That is how revitalization goes, you push out the poor and bring in the rich!

[smallpoxgirl]

US DOJ crime statistics speak volumes on this issue. I suspect few have actually read through them. They are dry reading, but pointedly and frightfully accurate. I'll leave it at that.

How bout giving us the cliff's notes version?

[cube]

"depopulate the inner ring of criminal elements"

wtf does that mean? Kill all the niggers?
....

[MarkJ]

Crime is only one of the reasons many people don't live in some cities.

Many people in my area moved outside some cities or never lived in city areas due to high property taxes, zoning laws, traffic, noise, pollution, poor street design, poor road design, poor access to main roads, poor or mediocre school systems, blighted properties, vacant properties, apartment buildings, non owner occupied multi-families, affordable housing projects, close neighbors, problematic neighbors, lack of privacy, small lots, small yards, small homes, small garages, no garages, older inefficient homes, homes with lead paint and asbestos, homes in need of too much work, limited parking, limited off-street parking, no room for expansion, no vacant building lots or acreage, no views of mountains, fields, lakes rivers, trees, no access to parks, outdoor recreation etc.

What's funny is that when myself and other developers, builders or investors have renovated city homes, apartment buildings etc, people complain that the rents, leases, or mortgage payments and taxes are too high. People want to live in a nice home or apartment in a nice area with a good school system, but they don't want to pay market rates.

From an employment, transportation and quality of life perspective, some of the suburbs are the best places to live, but the cost of land, existing homes, new construction homes, rentals and modern building codes, zoning laws, limits on subdivision, lot size, road frontage, manufactured homes, multi-families and other deed restrictions have priced many people out of the market.

The suburbs have the large building lots and large tracts of undeveloped or underdeveloped farmland and acreage necessary for residential, commercial and industrial growth. Because of this their tax base is constantly growing so they can offer tax breaks and incentives to developers, builders, businesses and industry which creates more jobs, more home buyers, more property tax and sales tax revenue, better schools, better roads, public transportation etc.


On the subject of taxation, myself, family, friends and many of customers are already paying more than our fair share of income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes as well as providing housing, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. More taxation will impact the poor dependent on our financial support.

[cube]

Crime is only one of the reasons many people don't live in some cities.

Many people in my area moved outside some cities or never lived in city areas due to high property taxes, zoning laws, traffic, noise, pollution, poor street design, poor road design, poor access to main roads, poor or mediocre school systems, blighted properties, vacant properties, apartment buildings, non owner occupied multi-families, affordable housing projects, close neighbors, problematic neighbors, lack of privacy, small lots, small yards, small homes, small garages, no garages, older inefficient homes, homes with lead paint and asbestos, homes in need of too much work, limited parking, limited off-street parking, no room for expansion, no vacant building lots or acreage, no views of mountains, fields, lakes rivers, trees, no access to parks, outdoor recreation etc.
.....

What you are describing is the late 20th century version of city life.
What you say is technically true but I believe the *cause* of much of the problems has nothing to do with the "city" per say but because all the middle class people moved out.

Besides there has been a drastic change in how society views the suburbs now. It is no longer an "escape" from the "problems" of the cities. With $4 gas suburbia is nothing more than a VERY expensive living arrangement. Just wait till gas hits $10 and it will no longer be just expensive but financially impossible.

[Revi]

The suburbs are already dead. Why do you think they have become the place to mine for copper pipes?

The homes of the upper classes always turn into the homes of the poor. Those lawyer foyers will turn into a huge cold entryway into a warren of tiny apartments.

The smart set will be moving back into the inner-ring suburbs that used to be serviced by the streetcar. They will be much easier to access by mass transit and the houses will be renovated for energy efficiency. The status symbol will be the solar hot water system on the roof, instead of the SUV.

[MarkJ]

What you say is technically true but I believe the *cause* of much of the problems has nothing to do with the "city" per say but because all the middle class people moved out.

It's a combination of literally dozens of issues, but the physical limitations have a lot to do with it. My grandfather built homes and commercial buildings outside the cities due to the lack of vacant land and lack of parking many decades before I was born. He built or renovated many homes in the cities as well, but labor, materials, demolition, hauling and landfill costs were cheap. Building/mechanical/fire/safety codes were also nonexistent, lax or they weren't enforced. Nobody worried about lead paint, lead pipes, lead solder, lead flanges, asbestos shingles/siding/insulation etc. Many building materials were burned, buried or dumped onsite. Mills used to dump onsite, down banks or into streams, ponds etc. Much of the industry and corner shops in the cities were dependent on cheap labor and the lack of safety and environmental laws.


Many of our older cities in the Northeast were built or modified when walking, horses, wagons, sleighs, trolley cars and trains were the primary forms of transportation. Many homes were very large, but they had no driveways, single driveways or shared driveways. Streets, alleys, buildings, housing, businesses and industry weren't designed for cars, trucks, tractor trailers, heavy traffic and parking, hence why shopping malls, super centers, businesses, homes, housing developments, hospitals, professional buildings, hotels and industry were built outside the cities. There were always homes outside the cities but years ago they were occupied by farmers, horse breeders, loggers, business owners, wealthy tourists etc

Besides there has been a drastic change in how society views the suburbs now. It is no longer an "escape" from the "problems" of the cities. With $4 gas suburbia is nothing more than a VERY expensive living arrangement. Just wait till gas hits $10 and it will no longer be just expensive but financially impossible.

People in the boondocks perhaps, but not the suburbs, villages and semi rural areas where many people lived and worked for over 200 years. We have public transportation that brings people from some of the rural areas to work or shop in the suburbs as well, plus we have an excellent rail, canal, thruway and road systems in may areas. Many homes in the rural areas are vacation homes, second homes, camps and ski homes owned by the wealthy. Many have been there long before the automobile. One of my relatives started a stage coach run to service some of the areas due to demand before the rail and road system.

[cube]

To: MarkJ
This is the cube scenario:
I think the fastest way to bring suburbia to a screeching halt is unemployment. Almost every family is dual income these days. If 1 spouse losses their job (no amount of clever budget cutting) can makes things work if it literally takes 1 income just to pay the full home mortgage.
This is why I don't buy the "energy efficiency" will save suburbia argument. No amount of energy efficiency can mitigate the above scenario. Aside declaring bankruptcy and giving up the house, which some people will do, the only option left would be to literally turn the house into a mini-apartment and start renting rooms out. This is how I see suburbia slowly contracting.

The most rent-able homes will be near job centers aka urban core. The ones to far away will be abandoned, the owner will declare bankruptcy, the bank that funded the loan will go under, and as what Revi said: the copper pipe thieves will finish the rest.

[mos6507]

With $4 gas suburbia is nothing more than a VERY expensive living arrangement. Just wait till gas hits $10 and it will no longer be just expensive but financially impossible.

Wishful thinking. Gas isn't the only way to travel. Don't assume suburbanites won't pursue any viable options.

Now:



Or in the near future:

[cube]

To: mos6507
read my previous post.
the cube scenario
and there's your reply.

[mos6507]

The most rent-able homes will be near job centers aka urban core. The ones to far away will be abandoned, the owner will declare bankruptcy, the bank that funded the loan will go under, and as what Revi said: the copper pipe thieves will finish the rest.

I hope that happens because then there will be prime bugout real estate for pennies on the dollar that isn't hundreds of miles in the backwoods.

To: mos6507
read my previous post.
the cube scenario
and there's your reply.

If people are unemployed it won't matter where they live. If they are unemployed simply because they can't get to work, then the EVs will help mitigate that, or telecommuting. Telecommuting is not an illusion. I'm going to be doing it this fall. How successful it will turn to be, I dunno, but I've got the initial commitment from my boss. So if I wanted I could move anywhere with an internet connection.

Sometimes people get too fixated on the negativity or wish fulfilment. Some people really do prefer suburban life and will pursue creative solutions to stay there. I mean, if people really wanted to live in the city, they'd be there already. If they do move to the city, it will be only after they've exhausted other options.

[cube]

...
Sometimes people get too fixated on the negativity or wish fulfilment.

I'm not a big fan of telecommuting, I just don't see it becoming popular. Most corporate managers like to be physically near their staff. There's a psychological factor.

...
Some people really do prefer suburban life and will pursue creative solutions to stay there. I mean, if people really wanted to live in the city, they'd be there already.

On the contrary MOST people like suburbia.
I fully expect society to (kick and scream) and fight (tooth and nail) to *try* and maintain this living arrangement.

...
If they do move to the city, it will be only after they've exhausted other options.

BINGO!
That's what PO is ALL about. People being forced to make undesirable decisions out of economic necessity.

[MarkJ]

To: MarkJ
This is the cube scenario:
I think the fastest way to bring suburbia to a screeching halt is unemployment. Almost every family is dual income these days. If 1 spouse losses their job (no amount of clever budget cutting) can makes things work if it literally takes 1 income just to pay the full home mortgage.
This is why I don't buy the "energy efficiency" will save suburbia argument. No amount of energy efficiency can mitigate the above scenario. Aside declaring bankruptcy and giving up the house, which some people will do, the only option left would be to literally turn the house into a mini-apartment and start renting rooms out. This is how I see suburbia slowly contracting.

The most rent-able homes will be near job centers aka urban core. The ones to far away will be abandoned, the owner will declare bankruptcy, the bank that funded the loan will go under, and as what Revi said: the copper pipe thieves will finish the rest.

The majority of our employment, shopping and services are located in the suburbs, hence why I mentioned shopping malls, super centers, businesses, homes, housing developments, hospitals, professional buildings, hotels and industrial parks were built outside the cities.

Big industry, small scale manufacturing, cottage industry, small businesses, mom & pop stores and downtown businesses in many areas died many decades ago. Many people that live in the cities travel to the suburbs or other cities to work, shop, bank etc. The majority of all my tenants and our employees that live in the cities travel to the suburbs or other cities to work.

If city properties were high in demand, myself, family, friends and other developers, builders and investors would be demolishing/rebuilding/renovating/reselling. At the county property tax auctions, there are tons of city properties for sale, but no decent suburban building lots, acreage or farmland since they're grabbed up by investors like myself. We picked all the low hanging fruit years ago.

My most rent-able homes and apartments are in the suburban and village areas on or near the lakes. Before a tenant moves, I have dozens of people hammering me about renting.

[MarkJ]

With $4 gas suburbia is nothing more than a VERY expensive living arrangement. Just wait till gas hits $10 and it will no longer be just expensive but financially impossible.

Wishful thinking. Gas isn't the only way to travel. Don't assume suburbanites won't pursue any viable options.

Now:



Or in the near future:

Imagine the decrease in transportation costs when you transition from single occupants driving full sized trucks and SUVs to 2/3/4 occupants riding in Hybrids, Plug-In Hybrids etc. In the future passenger miles per gallon/charge and/or ton-miles per gallon will become a more common way of thinking since people and their possessions are effectively freight.

Many people currently don't think in terms of passenger miles per gallon, passenger miles per charge or ton-miles per gallon since fuel is so cheap that households can afford multiple vehicles, second vehicles and toys driven by single occupants.

We see the same gross inefficiency in the building, renovation and heating industry. Many older city homes and heating systems are so grossly inefficient, that even unlicensed, unskilled, uneducated hacks with little experience can cut energy bills in half by insulating , weatherizing, replacing windows and heating systems.

When you're starting with a poorly insulated, poorly weatherized home with old windows and a grossly oversized , grossly inefficient, poorly designed heat and hot water system, it's almost too easy to save substantial amounts of energy.


Same applies to many modern hydronic heat and hot water systems in modern homes. Many systems are oversized, poorly piped, poorly designed, poorly zoned, have no zoning, have no outdoor reset controls, energy managers etc. Many are lucky to achieve 50 to 60 percent Net Efficiency. When heating contractors and weatherization contractors perform blower door tests on new or recent construction homes, some still have much room for improvement.

[joelcolorado]

Simple solution.

IF every family drove a Malibu which gets 33 mpg, we would delay the crash. Doubling the mileage from what is going on today, would save us. BUT ppl are so selfish

My niece has one child and says she must have an SUV for the childs safety. WHAT THE HELL>

[ki11ercane]

<sarcasm>

Several ways to reduce oil usage.

1. Don't eat.
2. Don't do, go, buy, etc. anything that has do to with the current energy age we are in. (post coal)
3. Kill yourself.

</sarcasm>

Sorry, I just had to say it. I know those nice EV car pictures are pretty, but that's just Hysterical Applause to try to convince people that everything will be ok and we can continue to live the life we are living now. You still need "the black stuff" to mine the metal and raw materials, built the factories to produce the product, ship it to your driveway, and produce the electricity to run it, or produce the raw and finished materials to produce the electricity to run it. No matter what, it all revolves around oil/ng/coal or alternatives that rely on the first three to exist. (solar, wind, nuclear)

Sorry everyone, but no matter what direction you're pointing in, you're still surrounded by an ocean of dead end solutions. When it was an issue 30 years ago, alternative solutions <insert them all here> needed to be considered and implemented WHILE we were consuming so much non-renewable energy so when it became an issue TODAY we'd be ready for them. At this point it's too late. A soft landing is not going to happen.

Just my 2 barrels worth.