[arrosenberg]

The government pays for those things with money generated in the cities. We need rural communities to grow food, but most rural and suburban communities in the US do not generate enough revenue through taxes to support themselves without federal assistance. Sometimes it is worth doing, but the cities make the money that pay for it. So again, why should we subsidize lower density that requires more subsidy and more energy to support? Our existing cities could be redesigned to be more human friendly and higher capacity - if we are going to spend federal dollars, thats where they need to go.

[la6472]

Suburbs are not rural areas. Suburbs are sane living condition which every human being in the planet is entitled to.

Suburbs are also the source of majority of tax revenue.

[arrosenberg]

Entitled, huh? I don’t see what entitles you to any particular mode of living, but its your ethos.

Suburbs may be the majority (I have no idea if thats true), but that doesn’t make them self-sustaining. They only exist because cities paid for highways, water, and power infrastructure to make it all possible (and continue to fund their maintenance) - exponentially moreso the further west you go.

[la6472]

Nope I don’t agree. Cities have morphed into Subarus in the 1950s and since then they have been the source of more influence and revenue generation at least in NA.