StreetsOfOmaha wrote:But why do they want what they want? And should they always be able to have what they want?
...
This is why we hear rhetoric attacking policies to levy appropriate user fees on people who choose to live a certain way--calling them an attack on the American way of life, because obviously, their way of life is the American way.
The former is a resounding yes, so long as they can legally acquire it and it doesn't impose a substantial harm on others (you have the right to own a gun, but you don't have a right to shoot your neighbor). We live in a regulated market economy for better or for worse. In general, the market suffices as an ample distributor of goods. This is especially true in areas with fierce competition, which is most consumer goods, including cars and living spaces. (areas where the market is less than effective include quasi-utilities like cable/satellite, cell phones, and internet, though much of that is due to gov't interference that is half***ed - essentially granting monopolies without regulating them as such).
Certainly government spending has an effect on making areas more or less desirable, but that has more to do with location than the actual housing choice. I've lived in an apartment (or its dorm equivalent) for the last decade, give or take. One of the biggest reasons I wanted a house was having four walls not shared with a neighbor, no condo in an urban core was going to give me that.
As to the latter, is that really any different than you wanting zero-liability laws for bikes and subsidization of bike trails and the like? Of course we all want our interests funded and say "to heck" with everyone else's desires. That's why we elect representatives to make policy choices at the various levels of government. To the extent that roads are an inherent subsidization of both automobiles and the suburbs, I'd agree, which makes people who rail against subsidization of rails without recognizing that fact somewhat hypocritical. But then, most suburbs don't get things like tax increment financing, historical improvement credits, or the like that buildings in a downtown area generally get, so there's certainly money being thrown at urban development, too. In a perfect world, the government would stay out of the way as much as possible and let the chips fall where they may. But this being the real world, that isn't going to happen. as to what amount of spending gets thrown in what direction, though, those are policy differences, and not something that makes either position inherently right or wrong.
You're arguing the suburbs are overly influenced by the government, I disagree to the extent that most people don't like being crammed in like sardines given the option. I grew up in the District 66 area, moved to the west burbs in junior high, went to college in a town of 10,000 along the Appalachian Trail, spent a semester living in Greenwich Village during an internship. I've covered pretty much everything short of living on a farm, and I'm much happier having a house with a yard than I was living in an apartment in Manhattan.
That people prefer to spread out given the option should neither be a shock nor be deemed morally wrong in and of itself. Humans are social creatures but they also like their peace and quiet; funnily enough, suburbs generally give them a mix of both. Consequently, the solution shouldn't be to force everyone back together in an urban core, but to eliminate some of the negatives of spreading out - better planned burbs, cleaner transportation options (which could still include individual motorized vehicles, they'll just probably run on something other than gasoline in 50 years), etc.
Essentially, Streets, I'm saying the issue isn't really your desire for more bike paths or better mass transit, but your next step which implies that people shouldn't be able to live in the burbs even if that's what they want. You're like a lefty version of Scott Walker in that you take what could be a good idea but do a huge overreach and take it too far. The moderate majority are first and foremost pragmatists. We generally like things the way they are, but know they're not perfect and are willing to try to change to make them better. Just don't change too much too quickly (in either direction) or we'll get upset and go with the other side to punish you (until they likewise overreach).