[wheels]

My inclination to agree that public transit should mostly be a nationalized utility. But some experience in rural areas leads me to a counterargument that I don't have a good answer for:

Should people that live in urban spaces massively subsidize people that choose to live in rural areas for no economically useful reason? Like, some tech bros decide they don't want neighbors and want to live 20 km from everything. Should the city folk subsidize their preferences? Maybe it should be recouped in local taxes? Should that be covered by agricultural tax breaks?

Mostly I think public transit should be a public service. But I don't think it's a given that rich people's preferences should be subsidized just because they want to live in remote or suburban areas.

[golem14]

I think this is a good question, but I'm assuming that this is happening anyways: Few constitutions have provisions forcing tech bros to live in the city. If they move to the burbs without public transit, they are being subsidized via roads and car traffic, which is arguably worse.

[wheels]

I think you're also right. The framing for this is I spend some time in a village that has a part that's now been inaccessible because of a landslide. About 10 people live on the road that's now impassable. Digging a safe tunnel through the mountain would cost millions. Should the state shoulder the cost for the mostly wealthy retirees that live on the other side? I don't have a good answer.

I also have a version of this from a doctor friend that lives on a "farm" that doesn't grow anything. Who should pay for the roads / public transit to their place? Everyone else? Again, I don't have a good answer. But I'm open to the idea that people that simply want to live in rural areas as a personal luxury should shoulder some of the costs to making those places accessible.