Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IntelligentCicada363 t1_jdv48zx wrote

Reply to comment by IrelandDzair in Car slams into another Roslindale building; two pedestrians hit, one dies by me5vvKOa84_bDkYuV2E1

There is nothing inherently expensive about towns that don’t require cars. They are denser, make more efficient use of infrastructure and land, have a larger and more diverse tax base to pay for things, and most importantly the residents don’t need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a vehicle. They are expensive because you can literally count on one hand how many towns survived the 1950s without getting demolished for cars. Supply is low and demand is high for that type of living.

If you don’t want it to be a privilege then write your reps and vote for candidates that support those types of towns. Otherwise keep driving your car and bitching about people who don’t.

17

IrelandDzair t1_jdv9bom wrote

Ok thats all well and good in theory. The reality is certain lower demographics dont have an option to move to a place where this happens. Shoot, take out those last three words even - they dont have an option to movie period. I mean you see it in MA especially out west but all of rural america its like that. You talking “theory” about towns being less expensive is not current reality (even though i agree, towns without cars are much less expensive; my first 10 years were spent in a town that did not have a single car).

Writing to my reps expecting change? Lmfao first time?

−5

IntelligentCicada363 t1_jdvd3ke wrote

Nothing changes because suburbanites want sprawl, going so far as to make density of any kind illegal. They then call people living in cities raging elitists, despite they themselves being the reason for the insane costs. I’ll take a pass on that argument.

7