this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
213 points (93.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

9787 readers
1238 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fried_out_Kombi 16 points 9 months ago

YIMBY:

The YIMBY movement (short for "yes in my back yard") is a pro-Infrastructure development movement mostly focusing on public housing policy, real estate development, public transportation, and pedestrian safety in transportation planning, in contrast and in opposition to the NIMBY ("not in my back yard") movement that generally opposes most forms of urban development in order to maintain the status quo.[1][2][3] The YIMBY position supports increasing the supply of housing within cities where housing costs have escalated to unaffordable levels.[4] They have also supported infrastructure development project like improving housing development[5] (especially for affordable housing[6] or trailer parks[7]), high-speed rail lines,[8][3]homeless shelters,[9] day cares,[10] schools, universities and colleges,[11][12] bike lanes, and transportation planning that promotes pedestrian safety infrastructure.[2]

YIMBYs often seek rezoning that would allow denser housing to be produced or the repurposing of obsolete buildings, such as shopping malls, into housing.[13][14][15] Some YIMBYs have also supported public-interest projects like clean energy or alternative transport.[16][17][18][19]

The YIMBY movement has supporters across the political spectrum, including left-leaning adherents who believe housing production is a social justice issue, free-market libertarian proponents who think the supply of housing should not be regulated by the government, and environmentalists who believe land use reform will slow down exurban development into natural areas.[20] YIMBYs argue cities can be made increasingly affordable and accessible by building more infill housing,[21][22][23]: 1  and that greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by denser cities.[24]

Land value tax:

A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements upon it.[1] It is also known as a location value tax, a point valuation tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating.

Some economists favor LVT, arguing they do not cause economic inefficiency, and help reduce economic inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as "the perfect tax" and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6] Economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have advocated this tax because it does not hurt economic activity, and encourages development without subsidies.

LVT is arguably an ecotax because it discourages the waste of prime locations, which are a finite resource.[21][22][23] Many urban planners claim that LVT is an effective method to promote transit-oriented development.[24][25]

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I wouldn’t be holding up Sydney as a utopian ideal

[–] 2deck 4 points 9 months ago

I was gonna say that looks super familiar.

Yeah, Sydney is not gold. The lightrail has been a nice change tho.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Sydney fucking sucks.

[–] superduperenigma 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don't think any of those things will cause Arnold Schwarzenegger to look decades younger.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

I mean it doesn't hurt to try I guess. I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

[–] sir_pronoun 5 points 9 months ago

I'm all for trying it to see if Schwarzenegger would look younger. I mean, maybe THAT'S how we get the funding?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

At least the universal healthcare could help pay for all of those broken ankles and wrists from tripping over the damn tram rails everywhere. But I guess not everywhere can have a subway system.

/s

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

I'd say why just Trolley when Trolley Buses exist.

But the number of idiot car drivers, not even Uber and Doordash drivers, that use the bus only street in downtown is insane.

Nevermind that so many taxi drivers just openly break every driving law ever created.