[benchaney]

Everyone should pay for the resources they consume. Lower density requires massively more resources per person, so the people who want it should wind up paying more.

Nobody is advocating forcing everyone to live in dense housing. Our current political/legal system massively favors and subsidizes lower density. Removing that favoritism is not unfair at all.

[throwaway0a5e]

I'm fine with this but be aware that the catch here is that if you aren't moving dollars around you can't attach strings to those dollars. Controlling funding by gatekeeping it with specific requirements for eligibility is a large part of how the feds control the states and the states control municipalities.

If you don't fund their roads you can't tell them "but you need a sidewalk".

[ratata]

>If you don't fund their roads you can't tell them "but you need a sidewalk".

The Americans with Disabilities Act says you need sidewalks.

[throwaway0a5e]

And that's exactly why I cited it.

What's the enforcement mechanism if the entity writing the rules doesn't control the purse strings? Tie them up in court for 10yr and then when you finally win they just do something marginally different to the same end (i.e. exactly what we see with civil liberties).