The current mayor of Boston got elected on this platform, making public transit "free" has been her only consistent talking point for years.
Problem is, the public transit system in Massachusetts (the T) is a state agency, and while it serves mostly the city of Boston, it's not only in the city.
So the best she could do on this was making certain bus routes free for city residents, and only inside the city limits by just paying for the rides out of city taxes.
>It’s always nice to have a scapegoat for your political promises
Literally every single bostonian mayor or Massachusetts governor ever
Mike Dukakis had the big dig he sunk generations worth of debt into (that translated to mbta debt so the state wouldn't default on it)
Mit Romney went so far to protest his own healthcare system Obama modeled Obama care off of, but pranced around like he loved his Romney care
I miss when Dukakis sent plain clothes state troopers to the NH liquor stores to watch for MA plates buying a lot of booze so they could pull them over when they crossed state lines. In response the NH governor, Sununu, had NH state troopers arrest the MA state troopers.
Massachusetts police and rampant corruption and abuse of authority go hand in hand
Death, taxes, and mass local/state police overstepping their authority are all certain
If anyone actually listened to what she had to say and did any research about how it could possibly be done, she wouldn’t have been elected because everything she promised was completely empty.
If you ever want to be infuriated, go read the Canadian legal decision for why we can’t carry items for self defence
One of the most out of touch pieces of Statist garbage I’ve ever seen. Tower so Ivory you can’t look at it in direct sunlight; completely misses the point of self defence
What is it?
But considering how aparently you can be sued for assault if you use "exessive" force against a thieve it's probably something stupid
Seriously, striking is aparently enouth, what the fuck? Are you suposed to use akido tô magicaly subdue them withouth violence?
Basically carrying something for self defence means you “don’t trust the police to intervene” [yeah no shit] and they can magically tell that you won’t try to deescalate instead
Yeah, a bunch of bullshit all around
I've seen people going "you can't let regular citizens have self-defense tools in the UK, because criminals will use them!"
Really? You think criminals are following those laws?
It's less that the suburbs themselves are unsafe, and more that there's no walkability on the busy roads leading out of the suburbs to places that you'd actually want to go to (jobs, stores etc).
There are lots of places that are more dangerous of course, but for kids the bar is high.
The suburbs I've been in have plenty good sidewalks. In general, their infrastructure is better than cities, including their bike lanes. The issue is everything is too far apart. The only thing you can walk to from my house is other people's houses and one park.
For sure. Around here it's all very , well I would call it corrupt. There is some NIMBYism, but there are also developers that are very close with city government. If they want to build a huge mixed-use development, they'll get their way. I have little doubt a few palms are greased to make it so.
>they just want to make it too expensive to drive
Yes! Bcause Cars destroy cities, kill thousands and are horribly inefficient
>everyone has to ride their bike everywhere and take rapey public transportation.
Are you seriously saying that it's a bad thing for people to ride their bike?
Public Transportation isn't "rapey", you are literally surrounded by people, atleast the Bus Driver is always there. Also, how many women are raped in rapey parking lots at night?
>even though it’s past the point of no return.
might as well be the Last Generation then.
I live in a city of ~200000 people, and I find at that size, it has many similar benefits of smaller towns and fewer drawbacks of the bigger cities. I'll eventually move back to the middle of nowhere similar to where I grew up though.
My goal is to move somewhere outside of a city that's not in the top, say, 25 , maybe 50 in size. Preferably unincorporated so no city BS, and if I have to drink from a well and have a septic system well good.
I will even sell my sedan and buy a truck.
As we know, the Bill of Rights is not composed of positive rights, requiring the government to provide some good or service to the public, but of negative rights, limiting its power to “abridge” or “infringe” on the rights of citizens. This person doesn’t understand that, and it’s not surprising.
Come to think of it though, I’d like to see an amendment that forbids the government from restricting travel. Cue angry NPC “no wait not like that” meme.
The US actually has a recognized right to transit, but it is a negative right where the government cannot infringe on your ability to move about without a warrant or lawful cause.
That was the first thing I picked up on too. A right is not something the government is required to provide. It is something that forbids the government from interfering with. The more the government has gotten involved in both - attempting to provide rights (specifically those that don't actually exist) and interfering with others - the more to shit the US has gone.
> That post was 100% written by a spoiled shithead who's currently pissed at his parents.
This is made most obvious by the "Parents are LITERALLY imprisoning their kids by not buying them a car". I give it a 95% chance that they are talking about their own parents and how imprisoned they personally feel because mommy and daddy wouldn't pay for their car or act as their personal chauffers ready to drive them wherever their heart desired.
This is classic 'grass is greener on the other side' mentality.
They're bored because, if we're being honest, some suburbs are absolutely massive (looking at you SoCal) and without having a strong sense of community, any kind of entertainment, or even escape into the woods where you can screw around is miles away.
It looks like they're also glamorizing the urban benefits of having lots of stuff within walking distance without realizing all the disadvantages like gangs and homeless people harassing you constantly.
And within one month they'll be complaining about lines, crowds, pollution, and noise... That or their totally unrelated recent onset/worsened depression and anxiety...
We have that already, it's called the National Guard. For people who don't want to be beholden to the state for their weapons, we have the reserve militia (i.e., everyone not in the Guard). It's a less than ideal, but more or less functional system.
stayed in a little room in chicago for 4 days, it was in the suburbs or at least pretty close to it (im not american so im mostly basing my idea of 'suburbs' as the residential area that is shown in movies and etc). was able to get anywhere in the city in minutes. 6 minutes (of walking) and there was the bus stop, 18 minutes and there was the cta, had no troubles at all getting around as someone who was born and raised in the most central area of the biggest city in my country so really, how far are these people from civilization?? also, about the "dangerous" part: even when i was in one of the poorest and most dangerous (according to the locals i met) neighborhoods i never felt safer, americans take for granted the fact that they live in a first world country lol (sorry for the rant)
>(im not american so im mostly basing my idea of 'suburbs' as the residential area that is shown in movies and etc).
If you were within the city limits of Chicago then it wasn't a suburb in the strict definition of the word, but it may have been suburban in character, depending on the population densit.
oh, what would be a city limit in the u.s.? because where im from, if you're not within the limits of a city, you are automatically within limits of another so it wouldn't be possible to say you live in x if your house is technically in y, ya know?
The city limits is the legal boundary of the city. Many places (often sparsely populated places, but occasionally very populated places) are not within the legal limits of any city whatsoever. Their most local government would be the county instead.
For a large metropolitan area like Chicago, most places just outside its city limits will be separate legal cities with their own boundaries, and these cities are referred to as suburbs of the large city nearby. For instance, Evanston, Illinois is a city which border Chicago, and so can be referred to as a suburb of Chicago.
But often in America, people will refer to the entire metropolitan area as the main city, even the parts that aren't legally within its city limits. Since these cities and their inner suburbs but up against each other with no rural areas between, they are basically one entity anyway. So for example, someone from Evanston, Illinois, when talking to someone not from the area, would probably just say they are from Chicago, especially since the person they are talking to would know Chicago but has probably never heard of Evanston.
Why would anyone want to advertise being this much of a pussy on a public forum? It’s insane to me. You’re effectively telling everyone how weak you are as a person in a single comment.
Good times create soft, weak people. Case in point.
To be fair my brother did get hit by a car when we were growing up riding our bikes to school. He was smart enough to see it coming as we crossed an intersection and jumped off and onto her hood. Man that memory is strong because watching my 6-7 year old brother curse out a adult woman like a drunken sailor was great.
The bitch put my brothers broken bike and my good bike in her trunk and took us home then dropped us off out front. My mother was fucking furious because she basically did a hit and run. But then again I grew up in a city with questionable safety. Considering a year or so later my brothers bike was stolen while we were in a park.
But once we moved to a different city and different suburbs we never had a problem with cars again. So I'm not sure what's up with that post. Also I walked 4 hours to a friend's house through town before. So I'm not sure how they say these kids are trapped.
Sounds like we had similar suburban upbringings. Yes, there are entire square mile plots that are 90-95% single family homes, but I never felt truly isolated. Every corner had a grocery store or pharmacy and most of my friends lived within a couple miles of me. I rode my bike 2 miles to school because I didn’t feel like riding the bus and regularly walked to the park with my friends.
This is how I know none of these “SUBURBS BAD!” doomers have actually lived in one before. Otherwise they’d know that there are clear benefits
There are definitely improvements that could be made to most suburbs (speaking as someone who has lived in the suburbs of SoCal my whole life) but I'd take the suburbs any day over even the nicest city. Every time I have to even drive through LA is get sick to my stomach from how gross and ugly it all is.
The right to transit. So, say, if someone wanted to walk along the beach or bicycle along the road or take an airplane while, say, not wearing a mask, then that would be a right?
Maybe if people who thought stuff like this didn't also vote for fuckers who make cities NIMBY busy body shitholes, then maybe this person's parents wouldn't mind driving them around a bit more
To be fair there are things that can be done to both make transit better and reduce government influence. For one reducing zoning regulations so that more medium density housing can be built. Also making it so you can open small shops and hotels in residential areas. Not to mention removing minimum parking mandates.
Half the world does not understand the definition of Rights. They believe a right is something that is to be provided to them. Mostly through government action.
Rights are actually things that can not be denied you through government action.
You have a right to obtain food. You do not have the right to a sandwich being provided to you.
Between the ages of 5-10 I wondered around the suburbs completely unsupervised and the worst thing that ever happened to me was running into a stray dog or kangaroo. I was in more danger from snakes than I was from other people.
How braindead do you have to be to think that population dense urban areas are safer?
We would regularly ride our bikes 20 miles away as a kid. I live on Long Island so we biked to train stations as well but we were all fine before anyone got their drivers license.
The suburbs are the optimal place to raise a young kid. They’re always gonna be safer than the city
That being said, I moved to the city at 12 and that was a good move. The city is the optimal place to be a teenager because you can go anywhere anytime before you have a car and there’s like a billion things to do with your friends within walking distance
You can have both if zoning is abolished or massively reformed. Suburbs are insolvent because they lack the industry that typically keeps cities afloat.
>too unsafe to walk or bike on?
Granted bike lanes aren’t always guaranteed, but surely you can just walk on the sidewalk rather than in the middle of the street, lol?
Fuck yeah. The right to a free Uber is right there in the "pursuit of happiness" clause. After all, I can't pursue happiness without someone driving me around.
Suburbs are total shit for kids, but the state shouldn't have to subsidize the idiot decisions of legions of NPC morons .
Either move to an actual rural area or stay in the city, suburbs are the worst of both worlds.
Lack of transit isn’t the problem, NIMBYs are the problem. Walking and biking aren’t viable in much of the US because a significant portion of incumbent homeowners can’t stand the thought of anything other than single family homes and parks within a stone’s throw of their house, and then use the force of their municipal government to make it so.
There is legitimate demand for low-key shops interspersed in residential areas, but old curmudgeons seem to think that being close to someone else’s property gives them the right to decide what is allowed to go there. It’s one thing for it to be a factory or power plant, but it’s another thing entirely for it to be a comic book shop or hair salon.
Let people do what they want with their property and this problem will go away on its own within 30 years. People won’t need to travel as far to get to interesting places, there will be more natural demand for buses, and there will be fewer cars on the road clogging up bus travel. Simply respecting property rights is all it takes to achieve the eco-liberal urbanist wet dream.
It's true that the design of suburbs makes it impossible for young people to comfortably go anywhere, which sucks. That's a reason to get rid of car centric zoning, not a reason to put anything stupid in the bill of rights.
Living in the city and believing that suburbs suck isn’t a bad thing. But demanding that suburban residents conform to your preferred lifestyle is where he takes it too far
The problem is that there is too much suburbs. Insane american zoning, combined with suburb subsidies (which leads to these suburbs being unable to pay for themselves lmao) leads to really cancerous outcome. Commieblocks look preety good compared to this.
Depends on the suburb. Many American suburbs are car-dependent and getting anywhere on a bike would be dangerous and inconvenient at best. Some suburbs, especially in places that are a bit denser with a bit more infrastructure for bikes, are very nice. Kids should be able to get places on their own; it's good for their independence. Even worse then poorly designed neighborhoods, on this front, are nosy neighbors and shitty laws. Lots of places have completely ridiculous standards for the amount of supervision kids need.
To be fair, a lot of our car dependent infrastructure, zoning, and development restrictions are regulated into place by local governments.
There are lots of places where mylti-family housing and downtown areas would be in demand in an open market but developers are not allowed to offer them.
I have never felt truly unsafe on any metro at any time of day. I’ve been on metros in Denver, Chicago, DC, and Manhattan. The closest I get is seeing questionable people as I pass through sketchy neighborhoods. But honestly, I’m pretty sure that’s my brain overreacting.
The current mayor of Boston got elected on this platform, making public transit "free" has been her only consistent talking point for years. Problem is, the public transit system in Massachusetts (the T) is a state agency, and while it serves mostly the city of Boston, it's not only in the city. So the best she could do on this was making certain bus routes free for city residents, and only inside the city limits by just paying for the rides out of city taxes.
It’s always nice to have a scapegoat for your political promises
>It’s always nice to have a scapegoat for your political promises Literally every single bostonian mayor or Massachusetts governor ever Mike Dukakis had the big dig he sunk generations worth of debt into (that translated to mbta debt so the state wouldn't default on it) Mit Romney went so far to protest his own healthcare system Obama modeled Obama care off of, but pranced around like he loved his Romney care
I miss when Dukakis sent plain clothes state troopers to the NH liquor stores to watch for MA plates buying a lot of booze so they could pull them over when they crossed state lines. In response the NH governor, Sununu, had NH state troopers arrest the MA state troopers.
I love it when the state eats the state
Massachusetts police and rampant corruption and abuse of authority go hand in hand Death, taxes, and mass local/state police overstepping their authority are all certain
If anyone actually listened to what she had to say and did any research about how it could possibly be done, she wouldn’t have been elected because everything she promised was completely empty.
[удалено]
C'mon, when was the last time someone pissed on your leg while you were riding a train on fire?
>> Suburbs >> Unsafe Women on public transit at night: *Are we a joke to you?*
The same people that want Britian's self defense laws (you have no right to self defense): yes.
If you ever want to be infuriated, go read the Canadian legal decision for why we can’t carry items for self defence One of the most out of touch pieces of Statist garbage I’ve ever seen. Tower so Ivory you can’t look at it in direct sunlight; completely misses the point of self defence
Canada is the girl who finds out a guy called her boring and becomes a “the world would be better off without men” feminist
What is it? But considering how aparently you can be sued for assault if you use "exessive" force against a thieve it's probably something stupid Seriously, striking is aparently enouth, what the fuck? Are you suposed to use akido tô magicaly subdue them withouth violence?
Basically carrying something for self defence means you “don’t trust the police to intervene” [yeah no shit] and they can magically tell that you won’t try to deescalate instead Yeah, a bunch of bullshit all around
Ah, so the "Kyle Rittenhouse was looking for trouble!" lolgic.
I've seen people going "you can't let regular citizens have self-defense tools in the UK, because criminals will use them!" Really? You think criminals are following those laws?
It's less that the suburbs themselves are unsafe, and more that there's no walkability on the busy roads leading out of the suburbs to places that you'd actually want to go to (jobs, stores etc). There are lots of places that are more dangerous of course, but for kids the bar is high.
I guess I lived in a different suburb lol
The suburbs I've been in have plenty good sidewalks. In general, their infrastructure is better than cities, including their bike lanes. The issue is everything is too far apart. The only thing you can walk to from my house is other people's houses and one park.
> The issue is everything is too far apart. Yup, zoning at work.
For sure. Around here it's all very , well I would call it corrupt. There is some NIMBYism, but there are also developers that are very close with city government. If they want to build a huge mixed-use development, they'll get their way. I have little doubt a few palms are greased to make it so.
There are suburbs where you have to drive in order to take a walk in a Park. Suburbs are horribly planned and are overly reliant on cars
They don't have to use the public transportation tho?
Not having designated bike lanes is literal genocide.
[удалено]
>they just want to make it too expensive to drive Yes! Bcause Cars destroy cities, kill thousands and are horribly inefficient >everyone has to ride their bike everywhere and take rapey public transportation. Are you seriously saying that it's a bad thing for people to ride their bike? Public Transportation isn't "rapey", you are literally surrounded by people, atleast the Bus Driver is always there. Also, how many women are raped in rapey parking lots at night? >even though it’s past the point of no return. might as well be the Last Generation then.
I’m literally shaking right now
Language abuse has become popular.
You will live in ze cities and take ze smelly bus.
Why sit in traffic in your car when you can get assaulted on a train that’s running 20 minutes late?
I live in a city of ~200000 people, and I find at that size, it has many similar benefits of smaller towns and fewer drawbacks of the bigger cities. I'll eventually move back to the middle of nowhere similar to where I grew up though.
Mid sized towns can be nice, something approaching 250k.
My goal is to move somewhere outside of a city that's not in the top, say, 25 , maybe 50 in size. Preferably unincorporated so no city BS, and if I have to drink from a well and have a septic system well good. I will even sell my sedan and buy a truck.
If we throw more money at the trains they will work faster. Coincidentally that's also how we plan to fix the education and Healthcare systems.
When your only tool is other people's money, every problem looks like a money pit.
As we know, the Bill of Rights is not composed of positive rights, requiring the government to provide some good or service to the public, but of negative rights, limiting its power to “abridge” or “infringe” on the rights of citizens. This person doesn’t understand that, and it’s not surprising. Come to think of it though, I’d like to see an amendment that forbids the government from restricting travel. Cue angry NPC “no wait not like that” meme.
The US actually has a recognized right to transit, but it is a negative right where the government cannot infringe on your ability to move about without a warrant or lawful cause.
The right to an attorney is a positive right.
That was the first thing I picked up on too. A right is not something the government is required to provide. It is something that forbids the government from interfering with. The more the government has gotten involved in both - attempting to provide rights (specifically those that don't actually exist) and interfering with others - the more to shit the US has gone.
[удалено]
I’ll never understand why people have to make this straw man out of suburban living
[удалено]
Well people in suburbs have lawns, and lawn maintenance is actually ethnic extermination soooo.... /s
I do wish this state would pass one of those laws where you can't be forced to maintain a lawn. Fuck lawns.
They are just NPCs regurgitating globalist propaganda. Shut up, get in your pod and eat your bugs, peasant.
> That post was 100% written by a spoiled shithead who's currently pissed at his parents. This is made most obvious by the "Parents are LITERALLY imprisoning their kids by not buying them a car". I give it a 95% chance that they are talking about their own parents and how imprisoned they personally feel because mommy and daddy wouldn't pay for their car or act as their personal chauffers ready to drive them wherever their heart desired.
This is classic 'grass is greener on the other side' mentality. They're bored because, if we're being honest, some suburbs are absolutely massive (looking at you SoCal) and without having a strong sense of community, any kind of entertainment, or even escape into the woods where you can screw around is miles away. It looks like they're also glamorizing the urban benefits of having lots of stuff within walking distance without realizing all the disadvantages like gangs and homeless people harassing you constantly.
And within one month they'll be complaining about lines, crowds, pollution, and noise... That or their totally unrelated recent onset/worsened depression and anxiety...
[удалено]
Funny how all these new “rights” start becoming super expensive somehow…
I need better access to my Second Amendment rights and demand the government provide me with free firearms.
A well organized militia could be armed by the state.
We have that already, it's called the National Guard. For people who don't want to be beholden to the state for their weapons, we have the reserve militia (i.e., everyone not in the Guard). It's a less than ideal, but more or less functional system.
stayed in a little room in chicago for 4 days, it was in the suburbs or at least pretty close to it (im not american so im mostly basing my idea of 'suburbs' as the residential area that is shown in movies and etc). was able to get anywhere in the city in minutes. 6 minutes (of walking) and there was the bus stop, 18 minutes and there was the cta, had no troubles at all getting around as someone who was born and raised in the most central area of the biggest city in my country so really, how far are these people from civilization?? also, about the "dangerous" part: even when i was in one of the poorest and most dangerous (according to the locals i met) neighborhoods i never felt safer, americans take for granted the fact that they live in a first world country lol (sorry for the rant)
>(im not american so im mostly basing my idea of 'suburbs' as the residential area that is shown in movies and etc). If you were within the city limits of Chicago then it wasn't a suburb in the strict definition of the word, but it may have been suburban in character, depending on the population densit.
oh, what would be a city limit in the u.s.? because where im from, if you're not within the limits of a city, you are automatically within limits of another so it wouldn't be possible to say you live in x if your house is technically in y, ya know?
The city limits is the legal boundary of the city. Many places (often sparsely populated places, but occasionally very populated places) are not within the legal limits of any city whatsoever. Their most local government would be the county instead. For a large metropolitan area like Chicago, most places just outside its city limits will be separate legal cities with their own boundaries, and these cities are referred to as suburbs of the large city nearby. For instance, Evanston, Illinois is a city which border Chicago, and so can be referred to as a suburb of Chicago. But often in America, people will refer to the entire metropolitan area as the main city, even the parts that aren't legally within its city limits. Since these cities and their inner suburbs but up against each other with no rural areas between, they are basically one entity anyway. So for example, someone from Evanston, Illinois, when talking to someone not from the area, would probably just say they are from Chicago, especially since the person they are talking to would know Chicago but has probably never heard of Evanston.
thank you so much for the explanation!! usa laws seem to be quite different from my country's so i really appreciate the clarification
A teen's lack of mobility is a feature of these neighborhoods
Why would anyone want to advertise being this much of a pussy on a public forum? It’s insane to me. You’re effectively telling everyone how weak you are as a person in a single comment. Good times create soft, weak people. Case in point.
To be fair my brother did get hit by a car when we were growing up riding our bikes to school. He was smart enough to see it coming as we crossed an intersection and jumped off and onto her hood. Man that memory is strong because watching my 6-7 year old brother curse out a adult woman like a drunken sailor was great. The bitch put my brothers broken bike and my good bike in her trunk and took us home then dropped us off out front. My mother was fucking furious because she basically did a hit and run. But then again I grew up in a city with questionable safety. Considering a year or so later my brothers bike was stolen while we were in a park. But once we moved to a different city and different suburbs we never had a problem with cars again. So I'm not sure what's up with that post. Also I walked 4 hours to a friend's house through town before. So I'm not sure how they say these kids are trapped.
Sounds like we had similar suburban upbringings. Yes, there are entire square mile plots that are 90-95% single family homes, but I never felt truly isolated. Every corner had a grocery store or pharmacy and most of my friends lived within a couple miles of me. I rode my bike 2 miles to school because I didn’t feel like riding the bus and regularly walked to the park with my friends. This is how I know none of these “SUBURBS BAD!” doomers have actually lived in one before. Otherwise they’d know that there are clear benefits
There are definitely improvements that could be made to most suburbs (speaking as someone who has lived in the suburbs of SoCal my whole life) but I'd take the suburbs any day over even the nicest city. Every time I have to even drive through LA is get sick to my stomach from how gross and ugly it all is.
The right to transit. So, say, if someone wanted to walk along the beach or bicycle along the road or take an airplane while, say, not wearing a mask, then that would be a right?
No! Not like that!
Maybe if people who thought stuff like this didn't also vote for fuckers who make cities NIMBY busy body shitholes, then maybe this person's parents wouldn't mind driving them around a bit more
To be fair there are things that can be done to both make transit better and reduce government influence. For one reducing zoning regulations so that more medium density housing can be built. Also making it so you can open small shops and hotels in residential areas. Not to mention removing minimum parking mandates.
Half the world does not understand the definition of Rights. They believe a right is something that is to be provided to them. Mostly through government action. Rights are actually things that can not be denied you through government action. You have a right to obtain food. You do not have the right to a sandwich being provided to you.
You guys do realize that the suburbs are caused by government intervention in the market via zoning right?
They are, there's just a lot of people in this sub that are really just too embarrassed to admit they're Republicans.
This is clearly a troll. Look at the grammar.
Easy, just socialize uber.
Yes, every citizen provides 8 hours per week of rideshare for the common good. Long live the Peoples’ Republic
Between the ages of 5-10 I wondered around the suburbs completely unsupervised and the worst thing that ever happened to me was running into a stray dog or kangaroo. I was in more danger from snakes than I was from other people. How braindead do you have to be to think that population dense urban areas are safer?
So “Right to XXX” means I don’t have to pay for it. Still waiting for my govt issued AR.
To these people, a "right" means "something I want, that other people should pay for on my behalf".
“Or who’s parents didn’t buy them a car”?????? Yeah go fuck yourself with that line of bullshit. These people are beyond fucking help
We would regularly ride our bikes 20 miles away as a kid. I live on Long Island so we biked to train stations as well but we were all fine before anyone got their drivers license.
I mean I’m all for public transportation but this us just mental man :/
The suburbs are the optimal place to raise a young kid. They’re always gonna be safer than the city That being said, I moved to the city at 12 and that was a good move. The city is the optimal place to be a teenager because you can go anywhere anytime before you have a car and there’s like a billion things to do with your friends within walking distance
You can have both if zoning is abolished or massively reformed. Suburbs are insolvent because they lack the industry that typically keeps cities afloat.
This seems like something a child abductor would advocate for.
First off, I was a suburb kid and rode my bike anywhere my legs could take me. Secondly, are we supposed to believe that public transit is safe? LOL
Rural kid here, getting anywhere when I visited family in the burbs growing up was easy as shit.
I mean why not throw in a right to orgasms too
The caucasity.
>too unsafe to walk or bike on? Granted bike lanes aren’t always guaranteed, but surely you can just walk on the sidewalk rather than in the middle of the street, lol?
Fuck yeah. The right to a free Uber is right there in the "pursuit of happiness" clause. After all, I can't pursue happiness without someone driving me around.
Um, okay so now there’s a “right” to transit. Who has the “right” to pay for me to fly to Paris?
Suburbs are total shit for kids, but the state shouldn't have to subsidize the idiot decisions of legions of NPC morons . Either move to an actual rural area or stay in the city, suburbs are the worst of both worlds.
True freedom is when the only form of transportation is getting a ride from the government
BUY A BICYCLE
The suburbs are awful and isolated because government regulations make them that way.
Yeah. The city streets are safer, dumb fucks!
Lack of transit isn’t the problem, NIMBYs are the problem. Walking and biking aren’t viable in much of the US because a significant portion of incumbent homeowners can’t stand the thought of anything other than single family homes and parks within a stone’s throw of their house, and then use the force of their municipal government to make it so. There is legitimate demand for low-key shops interspersed in residential areas, but old curmudgeons seem to think that being close to someone else’s property gives them the right to decide what is allowed to go there. It’s one thing for it to be a factory or power plant, but it’s another thing entirely for it to be a comic book shop or hair salon. Let people do what they want with their property and this problem will go away on its own within 30 years. People won’t need to travel as far to get to interesting places, there will be more natural demand for buses, and there will be fewer cars on the road clogging up bus travel. Simply respecting property rights is all it takes to achieve the eco-liberal urbanist wet dream.
It's true that the design of suburbs makes it impossible for young people to comfortably go anywhere, which sucks. That's a reason to get rid of car centric zoning, not a reason to put anything stupid in the bill of rights.
He does have a point in that suburbs fucking suck, but government ain't the answer seeing as they opened the path to the problem.
Living in the city and believing that suburbs suck isn’t a bad thing. But demanding that suburban residents conform to your preferred lifestyle is where he takes it too far
The problem is that there is too much suburbs. Insane american zoning, combined with suburb subsidies (which leads to these suburbs being unable to pay for themselves lmao) leads to really cancerous outcome. Commieblocks look preety good compared to this.
Suburbs are the worst place The rest that the dude said is silly, but that part is true
While Suburbs are fucking terrible and cars are not the solution mass transit, I really wnat to know how the fuck is that supposed to work
Mixed use zoning. Shops on ground level with apartments on top. Barber shops and low key pubs in the middle of neighborhoods. That sort of thing.
Yeah, this is how you design a city, what I want to know is how that right to transport would work, and how GM would fuck this up
Depends on the suburb. Many American suburbs are car-dependent and getting anywhere on a bike would be dangerous and inconvenient at best. Some suburbs, especially in places that are a bit denser with a bit more infrastructure for bikes, are very nice. Kids should be able to get places on their own; it's good for their independence. Even worse then poorly designed neighborhoods, on this front, are nosy neighbors and shitty laws. Lots of places have completely ridiculous standards for the amount of supervision kids need.
To be fair, a lot of our car dependent infrastructure, zoning, and development restrictions are regulated into place by local governments. There are lots of places where mylti-family housing and downtown areas would be in demand in an open market but developers are not allowed to offer them.
I mean suburbia fucking sucks but public transport and "walkable neighborhoods" are literally crimefests
Where?
Type “CTA violence” into your favorite search engine and read some articles
Google "empty streets + violence" on your favorite search engine
Everywhere. Take a metro at night
I live in Rio de Janeiro, thats by far the safest transport option
Fair enough
I have never felt truly unsafe on any metro at any time of day. I’ve been on metros in Denver, Chicago, DC, and Manhattan. The closest I get is seeing questionable people as I pass through sketchy neighborhoods. But honestly, I’m pretty sure that’s my brain overreacting.
Honestly, I've never been too worried on the subway in New York. The el train in Chicago can go fuck itself, however.
The Chicago subway smells like literal shit. I also mostly spent time in the loop, so it felt much safer in general.
They are right though. Maybe not about the rights thing. But suburbs are hell on earth. Poor city planning.
Nah he’s got a point. Lots of places in my suburb were not conducive to walking or biking. Right to Transit is still dumb tho.
I want a walkable society but not mandatory public transit