[mjevans]

I suppose that it could be interpreted that way, however the point of the tax rate being 'progressively' designed is to encourage /both/ low rents and more space for rent (as a way of reducing the taxed assessed against the property value).

Urban planing is also supposed to include parks, recreational facilities, and a generally vibrant mix of entertainment types near a population. A utopic city is supposed to be /better/ than rural lifestyle because of increased opportunity of all types. Having grown up in the suburbs, the only opportunity that affords is disenfranchisement; which is what I also hear of the rural areas.

[ghaff]

>A utopic city is supposed to be /better/ than rural lifestyle because of increased opportunity of all types.

I've got nothing against cities and have lived in them (and drive in currently for various events). There's also nothing wrong with living on a number of acres that give you a degree of privacy and separation that you don't get in a city.

Personally, I'm not a fan of classic suburbs but cities aren't a utopia for everyone either.

[eru]

If cities could be more dense, we could pack the same number (or even more) urban-loving people in less space, and there would be more space left over for the rural-lovers elsewhere.

What we get instead is low density sprawl.

[JoeAltmaier]

We are not gonna run out of rural. That's a red herring.

Sprawl happens because its a free market, and people buy that stuff (suburban housing).

[eru]

The US doesn't have a free market in housing. There's lots of stupid zoning and covenants.

Yes, some people like suburban sprawl and buy it, but the alternatives are pretty much illegal in most places. See eg http://cityobservatory.org/my_illegal_neighborhood/ (The neighourhood featured there is still too sprawly for my tastes, but already illegally dense.)

[JoeAltmaier]

Maybe where you live. I live in the country, where none of that happens. Good luck with that superior city living!