Anonymous OP 1w

Because you’re more likely to die in your car than on a train or a bus and also it’s inefficient and awful for the environment

6

Anonymous OP 1w

“Why would I want to be around other human beings when I can be a hermit in a gated community” Idk man maybe just go live in the woods it sounds like you don’t ever want to actually participate in society. You think you deserve all these things, but other people don’t?

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

And that is my risk with my life and not the government’s place to intervene with?!?! As for the environment, car emissions are hardly an issue compared to so many other things- and regardless, vehicles are becoming more environmentally friendly with each passing year

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

You’re not just risking your own life in a car dumbass

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Correct. I don’t want to be packed around a bunch of people. If I did, I would live in an inner city, not a suburb that should not be further bulldozed and packed

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Right, also the other people in other cars deciding to risk their lives as well.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

At the expense of the wellbeing of other people.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

This isn’t really true. Go to Atlanta and you will see an excellent use of nature preservation within the suburbs and EVEN the inner city. Obviously certain cities suck at it, but cities like Seattle, Portland, and Atlanta do a phenominal job

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Pedestrian fatalities are notably higher in states with highly car-centric infrastructure like Texas, Florida, and Arizona. A lack of public transportation means the people who don’t have cars get hit and die.

8

Anonymous OP 1w

Explicitly. Because if we had more housing, it would be more affordable, less people would be struggling and homeless. Your logic is explicitly “I think the world should cater to what I want, regardless as to whether it hurts other people”

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Whose wellbeing is sacrificed by people building an area for themselves that is spacious and clean?!?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Entirely true

1

Anonymous #2 1w

So then don’t jaywalk idk what to tell you 😂. The government shouldn’t make laws that protect stupid people at the expense of regular people’s day to day lives

0

Anonymous OP 1w

The 800 thousand homeless people and countless people desperately trying to find more stable housing, in a market that caters to people like you instead of everyone.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

The local businesses destroyed by suburbs.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

So then build in descolate areas that are open. People are not entitled to have housing in every corner of the united states. There is nothing explicitly wrong with higher income areas costing more

1

Anonymous OP 1w

The pedestrians who are killed in car accidents because you wanted to live in the fuck ass suburbs

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Actually they are entitled to that.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Local businesses thrive the most in suburban areas 🤣

1

Anonymous OP 1w

They objectively do not

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

As I said, don’t jaywalk

1

Anonymous OP 1w

That is factually untrue. That’s just a lie.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

All pedestrians hit by cars are jaywalkers?

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

No. Poor people are not entitled to have housing in the Hamptons or Malibu. Go to a more affordable area

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Actually you should be forced to be around poor people.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Obviously not always, but deaths happen, it’s part of life. The government shouldn’t safeguard every corner of life because accidents happen

1

Anonymous OP 1w

So there’s two factors here. One is the age of the suburbs. I live in a suburban city in southeastern Virginia. Older suburbs (like what I live in) have had time for forests to regenerate. But new suburbs (like what I see being built out in the county) look like this shit.

9

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Lmfao no, we should not. 98% of Americans agree with me and disagree with you.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Right but we could easily prevent them with public transit. But no you’re right those unnecessary deaths are worth it so you can have all these shit you want. The world centers around you and you’re just a special little boy

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I mean I agree with you but also there is better ways to manage it. Atlanta metro is rapidly expanding and yet it is still plentiful with canopy cover

0

Anonymous OP 1w

What a vile mindset. “We shouldn’t work to prevent unnecessary death because it would bother me personally”

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Yeah I don’t think a handful of deaths should negate my right to have a car and the free will of transportation, correct.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

The other factor is that some ecosystems just straight up can’t coexist with human settlement. You don’t have thriving cypress swamps in those Atlanta suburbs or mature core-habitat forest in Portland. There is a demand for housing, and that demand is destroying habitat. If housing is made more dense on average, that can allow for less habitat to be destroyed for the same number of people.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Car accidents are literally one of the most common ways to die in our country

1

Anonymous #2 1w

But there never was cypress swamps in Atlanta, it has been and still is a canopy with a very thriving ecosystem

0

Anonymous OP 1w

I’m getting such intense second hand embarrassment just by speaking to you.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It’s poor people being forced to bike to work in the Phoenix outskirts with no crosswalks and you go “lol idiots.” That’s now how this shit works.

5

Anonymous OP 1w

The majority of pedestrian fatalities are the fault of the driver, these big ass cars that people love buying have terrible visibility and we don’t make investments to make our cities safe to walk in. Blaming pedestrians for getting hit by careless drivers is wild

6

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Yes, among the drivers- which goes back to what I said, a risk they take themselves. The government has no say in what people decide to do with their own lives.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Well this guys one and only belief is that he shouldn’t ever have to be around poor people. He’s barely even a person.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Point taken with the cypress swamps but what I was saying stands. You don’t have black bears or bobcats living in those suburbs

2

Anonymous OP 1w

Most pedestrian deaths are the fault of the driver. You explicitly want to let more people die just so you can feel more comfortable. It’s embarrassing

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

More that I don’t think established areas should be forcefully integrated with low income housing. Why not build in areas that are currently descolate. Build up in the middle of nowhere in new mexico and texas, not on top of pre-existing communities.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

There are absolutely both black bears and bobcats living in the Atlanta suburbs. I see black bears very frequently

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Why not make slums? That’s your pitch? Make slums?

4

Anonymous OP 1w

All those jobs in middle of nowhere New Mexico

7

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

What is the difference between making new ones vs plopping them on top of pre existing communities that don’t want them there?

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

what’s the difference between putting poor people in desolate areas with no easily accessible businesses or jobs vs putting them in a place where they can work and grow wealth?

9

Anonymous OP 1w

That actually surprises me I didn’t know that. I don’t have any black bears where I live they don’t come east of Richmond, VA. My Georgia family lives down near Savannah so I have a skewed picture of what Georgia ecosystems look like

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You might be wealthy but you ain’t very smart are ya

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

They are not entitled to placement in existing communities. Think how you will, you will not change my mind.

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Why don’t we move you to a desolate part of the country? At least poor people work.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

They’d actually be better for your community than you are.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Yeah sav is very different. Marshy and flat- way less tree cover. To be fair, the bears don’t get that close to the water naturally- so maybe same situation in VA? Ive only been to VA once and it was when i was a kid, so i don’t really remember. I remember richmond being pretty green though

0

Anonymous OP 1w

They’d actually be useful lmao.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Still more space being used for human settlement will impact species. Maintaining tree cover is absolutely good, but it’s not like suburban sprawl doesn’t impact animals at all. At the moment second home growth in northern Minnesota is having a big impact on wolf population.

4

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Section 8 housing does not belong in an established wealthy suburb. And no, people who cannot invest into local businesses do not benefit the local economy- hence why their schools and businesses are underfunded- their taxes fall short of the necessary self-sufficency needed to maintain themselves and thus need help from the state and federal government

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You can just like… not live in mixed use housing and not take public transportation if you care this much. All this is very “I don’t want to live this way so nobody else is allowed to!!!!”

3

Anonymous OP 1w

Right but they actually work.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Like they do actual jobs.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Also who said anything about section 8? No they should just get your house but for cheap and you should be kicked out.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Yes of course, but it is inevitable, and much more efficient than dense housing that literally bulldozes everything. i moved to LA a few years ago and if you want to talk about a place descolate of nature and ecosystem, look no further. They follow the dense housing plan that mushroom seems to praise so much. Same with european cities- not a trace of nature within them. Is it not better to incorporate the inevitable urban sprawl with nature in the way that the suburbs offer in Atlanta?

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Right because LA is known for its profoundly affordable housing lmao.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

“Not a trace of nature in European cities” Literally factually not true. Again, just a lie.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

This is true for public transportation, but the issue with mixed use housing- and i will speak again from my experiences in the north atlanta suburbs- is that it is being pushed into communities that were already preexisting and established. Building mixed housing on top of existing suburbs is inherently wrong because those new people are not entitled to the space already occupied by other people

0

Anonymous #2 1w

So let me tell you about a place I have been to called Cape Town, South Africa. In Cape Town, all the wealthy suburbs are near the city proper, and all the poor people live in extremely dense housing outside the city. It’s one of the largest slums on the planet, called Khayelitsha. The people living there are too poor to own cars, so walk hours into town to find work.

3

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Have you been to europe? 🤣

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You’d love South Africa lol you should move there

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

This only furthers my point lol. dense housing doesnt even rly bring costs down, it just drives in more people that occupy those spots and create a need for even more housing. The LA housing market is unsustainable for that exact reason

1

Anonymous #2 1w

The government has attempted to build new public housing to replace it, but because this new public housing is farther from where the work is, people don’t want to live there. Relegating the poorest people far outside the city doesn’t work, because those are the people who can least afford their own transportation. Areas close to the city are easier to commute, so of course denser developments are going to arise there, rather than a place that’s far away and needs a car.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Yeah, building housing exclusively for wealthy people will do that.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

This is sad and all but it still doesn’t change the fact that they are not entitled to the pre-existing communities’ land

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Have you even been to LA? People live in people’s garages. There are dense apartments everywhere. Its inefficient. A city structured like Atlanta is way more sustainable and, thus, way more affordable

1

Anonymous OP 1w

LA is infamous for massive highways and a lack of vertical construction. Like that’s practically the defining trait of LA compared to northeastern cities.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Why not? Because you don’t want them there? Why should we care about you?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Every belief you have is centered entirely around your feeling that the entire planet should cater to YOUR desires, and nobody else’s. But who cares about you homie you’re nobody. Your wants are equally as important to me as the wants of people who are struggling.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

To clarify, i have never once criticized building vertically within the urban areas, i criticized forcing that vertical development into the established suburbs outside of there.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I mean I get it that sucks for the people living there already, but that’s just how it works when cities grow. New people move in, and the infrastructure has to shift to accommodate a different population structure. You couldn’t have New York City while maintaining the Dutch farmsteads of New Amsterdam

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Okay, why should I care about them? If me and people like me occupy a certain community, why should we care to incoorperate the people you describe? You are not entitled to our land and it is not your place to tell us what to do with it.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Correct. Which is why each individual person deserves the autonomy to vote for the way they want their community to be. If Calabassas votes to not have mixed housing, it is not the State of California’s place to force them to build it anyway

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Well you clearly already don’t even slightly. You have explicitly said that you’re okay with pedestrians dying more than is necessary so you don’t have to ride a bus.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

And you know.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

There’s more of us.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I recently visited Athens, Greece. And what struck me was that in this city you can live a good life with less than you can in the USA. You don’t need a car, you can walk or use a moped. They even managed to make a train network despite all the archaeological sites. Now it’s not where I would want to live because I adore gardening, but for most people they don’t need a big yard.

6

Anonymous #2 1w

It really doesn’t though. If you don’t build anymore, the housing market rises and people stop moving there because they can’t afford it. Plopping “affordable housing” everywhere incentivizes more people to go there and creates a cycle of overpopulation

0

Anonymous OP 1w

And your solution to that is to build slums where poor people can be overpopulated, and have to deal with all those problems you don’t want to deal with?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

In Athens, the architecture allows for a good, healthy life without nearly as much money as in the USA. In the USA under current development structures, in somewhere like Phoenix, if you can’t afford a car you’re fucked.

5

Anonymous #2 1w

Correct. And cars are intentionally overpriced.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Well then they can move to a place that has those accommodations. My whole point is that established communities should not be disrupted because people like mushroom want to bulldoze everything for section 8 housing and trains when those people can just move to a place that already exists in that fashion

0

Anonymous OP 1w

“Just move”

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Nah we want it there. You can move.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Then don’t live in Phoenix?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Or you could just make phoenix better

1

Anonymous OP 1w

“Why would we make these places not shitty when we can just move all the poor people into a slum”

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Why would i move from a place i live in to accomodate people who don’t live here?!? 🤣 I OWE YOU NOTHING

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Yeah that’s how cities grow that’s how it works. In an opposite example, building more highway lanes just encourages people to commute from farther away and then traffic stays just as bad. The only way to decrease traffic severity is to make cars less convenient while providing alternative options.

4

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

They aren’t shitty for the people who live there, theyre shitty for the transplants LIKE YOU who want it to conform to the way they want it

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You’re right and we owe you nothing, so we will be building affordable housing around you.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Which literally solves the issue you both have been talking about about building new places outside of the pre existing neighborhoods instead of on top of them

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Well communities get to vote on it, and the majority of suburbs vote against it. It isn’t until the state government forces them to comform that it happens, and that is wrong.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

“Until the state government forces them” Now you’re getting it. Guess who’s being elected more and more to state government? People who believe what I believe.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It’s not about if, it’s about when. You don’t and never had a choice. It’s happening, full stop.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Look I empathize with the desire to maintain things how they are. I live in a sleepy out of the way forested suburb. I like it that way. But we have to recognize that this isn’t a sustainable urban structure that can be maintained forever. Cities will grow, and you can’t just build the same type of suburb farther outside the city limits forever. Change happens, and a city can only be so spread out before you have to modify existing areas to be more dense.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

The state government doesn’t always represent the people in a certain community though, and thus, should not dictate localities that act and litigate on their own.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

That can be changed if necessary. And will. There isn’t a roadblock that can prevent the people of this country from getting what they deserve.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

First nyc, then the world baby.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

The sad reality is that you’re right. My beautiful and spacious neighborhood full of nature and trees will someday be bulldozed to make room for broke transplants who have no right to our land. Imminent domain is disgusting.

0

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

NYC is probably the most perfect example of a city that has spacious suburbs from which people can commute to and from. Greenwich, Staten Island, Long Island, Westchester, Bergen… etc what’s you’re point?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

What we have to do is recognize that things are going to change, and put in the effort to change them for the better. Try to make an Athens. Streets with fruit trees, restaurants, and public transport. Try our best to create communities with lost of people that are nicer to live in and maintain nature to the best of our ability. Cars aren’t good. They are necessary in many places, but they’re unsafe for people and harm the environment. Cars should be optional.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Beautiful is a strong word. I’d call it wasteful, and ugly. You know what’s beautiful? People. Community. The folks that make the machine run so you can sit in your cookie cutter house and curse their name.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

But the machine is ours baby. You certainly don’t know how to run it.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

This is a poor example because i, like you, do not agree with cookie cutter suburbs, but if you can’t notice, there are still trees and nature, which is more than what you support has to offer

1

Anonymous OP 1w

That’s what parks are for. You know what else will be decreased when I’m done? Homelessness, poverty, and unnecessary pedestrian death.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Sounds worth it to me.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I should thank you. This conversation has made me realize that I need to find my way into the local government of my suburban community.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

There isn’t a suburb in the country that someone like you could get voted into lmao

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You hope.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I very well could be running unopposed this is a very sleepy little town.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Plus I already have some ties with canvassing organizations I could use to build a local and national base of support.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

No like I could actually do this wait a second

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

People only run unopposed when their views are the local consensus. Someone will run against you. And if you conform to the local precedent to get into office, you will get voted out upon the next election. That’s how politics work.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Idk man nobody here pays attention to local politics. And imagine how much I could do in that period, and even if I get booted after a reelection I could still use that to springboard into better local or maybe even state positions. I’m gonna hit up runforsomething.net and see what positions I could run for hold on.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Considering the most liberal corners of the San Francisco suburbs even vote staunchly against your ideas, good luck.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Good thing I live in a small town in PA and not San Francisco.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Then you’re really cooked 🤣

1

Anonymous OP 1w

24 offices I could theoretically run for in my area.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Yeah lol because you’d know all about the impoverished small towns in PA, because you’re so in tune with regular people.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

You said you live in a suburb, which I would assume is, thus, not impoverished. Regardless, small towns tend to vote against their best interests anyway so…

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Fair, suburb technically isn’t the right word. Small town is better.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

And not the younger folk. And this is a college town.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Better bite down on that wallet buddy these next few years are gonna hurt 😚

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Okay well i clearly said i am fine with the communities you speak of being built in small areas like that. I said i don’t support it when its built on top of pre existing suburbs

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Right because im supposed to care what you want, apparently.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I never said you are lol

1

Anonymous OP 1w

That’s good because you won’t be getting it.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I bet I can get some folks to run in the surrounding suburbs too.

1