this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
107 points (89.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9821 readers
29 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Do ya'll ever wonder if single family zoning, and car-centric urban planning, are some of the primary factors behind modern adults suffering from rampant loneliness? Two environments renown for fostering friendships and social activities are university campuses, and seasonal jobs in remote locations. What do those two things have in common? Proximity. People work, eat, and play together. In another word, community.

In my experience, humans are simple creatures. We take the path of least resistance. For your standard adult, the concept of traveling across town to meet up with friends after a full day of work or chores is exhausting. We crave those connections, but the barrier to entry is too high. We settle for whatever scratches that itch with the minimal amount of effort. Typically that involves some form of social media or other digital communication. It's like grabbing that crappy packet of ramen because you ran out of groceries before your market day. It's not really what you want to have for dinner, but it's what is readily available so you shrug and eat it anyway.

This is all anecdotal and speculation on my part, but I'm curious if anyone else has any thoughts on this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kepabar@startrek.website -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

No way. That would fuck over way too many people who are just trying to live out their lives in the home they've built/purchased/inherited.

[–] doylio@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So what about all the people who are being fucked over by not having access to affordable housing?

Someone always gets screwed when policy is changed, we should make our decisions based on if the policy is better for collective flourishing in the long run

[–] Kepabar@startrek.website 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If your policy change is going to harm the less fortunate then you should re-evaluate the policy.

A land value tax just shifts those who can't afford it out of their homes and hands more land over to the wealthy.

Land isn't the problem with housing. The problem is that developers have figured out it's more profitable to build fewer expensive properties than a large number of affordable ones. Not only do they have to do less work, but it keeps the market artificially low and so lets them charge more for what inventory they do have.

So they do just that.

And the residential development market has such a huge investment level to enter you won't see many willing to roll the dice on mass producing affordable housing.

Show me a home builder who has plans which are less than 3k sqft these days. You won't find one.

[–] doylio@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

developers have figured out it's more profitable to build fewer expensive properties than a large number of affordable ones

You're right about this part, but you need to ask why is this the case. It's due to (among other things) over regulation and a stifling of home building.

Most cities in North America make it very expensive and difficult to build. Zoning laws means there are only a few places they can build densely, and red tape increases the cost of building. This has caused a huge mismatch of supply and demand for housing in cities. So of course in that environment, what is most profitable is to cater to the wealthy.

If developers could build faster than demand was growing, they would satisfy the wealthy demands and then move on to less profitable middle and lower income housing.

This is how all markets work in this context. Electric cars were initially only made for the wealthy, because those sales were the only ones that could be profitable for the emerging technology. Now that the tech has improved and the wealthy demand is satisfied, it has come down to middle class prices

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Kepabar@startrek.website 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Good thing you aren't making policy.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Maybe one day ;)

Trust me, the people who are home owners who would pay MORE with a land value tax are sitting on gold mines. They aren’t struggling. They can sell if the cost of a LVT is greater than the property tax.

Or, they can sell land that they’re not using and shrink the amount of land they would pay taxes on. Then the cities can keep growing and people won’t be paying so much for rent.

Usually this policy reduces the amount people pay in taxes assuming they aren’t living in a 3 bedroom house on 10 acres of land in a place relatively close to a city center.

Sounds like you may need to read up more on it because you don’t seem to understand what it is.