People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

If anything, it's probably the suburbs that do most of the subsidizing, because that's where a majority of taxpayers live. And the idea that you aren't creating imaginary people to rail against is laughable.

If there's anything the "left wing" got consistently wrong in the twentieth century, it's trying to change people's minds about perceptions, biases, and the other elements which make us human.

― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 3:41 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

ease up on the pol pot business man!! we just want better designed bus service, in addition to internment camps for soccer moms

so when we all live in LA and NYC, what the hell do we do with all this stupid land were stuck with.

sell it to canada?

Too much "externalities" in LA, mang.

is kind of concentrating on the larger picture so much that no one wants to be in your club.

What's funny is that jj, for one, is already IN the club and doesn't want to be because of the delivery of the club manifesto.

yeah! fuck Canada! they can have all this useless shit were living on! xxxpost

otm

What's funny is that jj, for one, is already IN the club and doesn't want to be because of the delivery of the club manifesto.

― the soul of the avocado escapes as soon as you open it (Laurel), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 Suggest Ban Permalink
1:51 PM Bookmark

^^^

Same here, pretty much.

What's funny is that jj, for one, is already IN the club and doesn't want to be because of the delivery of the club manifesto.

I am not the leader of the club and shouldn't be treated as such. I'm just a hardline member. this has always been political issue #1 for me, so it's like, I dunno, arguing with an abortion activist.

yes. yes it is.

look, I admit it!

I'm so obviously not getting any more shit done here now, but here's what I believe:

Many of the things you're going for are good ideas, iatee, but you're missing the source. The situation we're in, where we have lots of sprawl and large resource pipelines (oil, agriculture, transportation) that fuel us, are a result of mass utilization of natural resources and corporate/government action over a hundred years. The system does need to be restructured. Proposing massive restructuring at the personal level works if a person feels it is their duty, but advocating that for everyone doesn't make you a game-changer, it makes you a dick.

We know that a lot of things you're saying are neat ideas, but you need to be honest and admit that the city structures you love wouldn't be shit without the massive subsidized pipelines I've just mentioned that are fueling not just the countryside, but the CITY. The countryside doesn't have air pollution issues, farms are the largest polluters due to immature farming practices (that are most definitely adapting), but the majority of foodstuffs are going to where the majority of people are.

So you can wipe out all subsidies to the rest of the country, but that's what's propping up urban america.

So what I'm saying, is we need to kneecap urban america first, then work on the rest.

And, full disclosure, I am totally looking forward to going on my summer vacation to the rural resort-oriented countryside where I will stay on a ridiculous amount of land in a house where there are sometimes breezes in my bedroom even with all the windows shut, and be driven around in one of the several family vehicles to such destinations as "the beach" and "town, where all the stores are." My family (and their whole town, and every town like it, which is most of the state of MI) would be one of the first to go in our new fascistic energy crisis solution.

haha uh forgot that there was an iowan in the thread when I mentioned subsidies

btw, i think my whole take on all of this could have just been me answering the original thread question with "dudes"

I can't wait to see these imaginary cities that can absorb 5-10 times their current populations and provide housing and employment for everyone. I bet they'll look like this:

http://www.willhines.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/logans.jpg

something tells me that iatee wouldn't be this gung ho about cities if they weren't where he himself preferred to live. seems a bit selfish tbh.

I like how we are ready to wipe out all the middle Americans, but keep all the douchebaggy city dwellers that live in 4-story single-family homes and drive their SUVs 4 blocks to the Whole Foods.

We're going to be like the pioneers who foolishly tried to take their pianos in covered wagons across the prairie and had to leave them beside a river somewhere, only in reverse.

ya seems reasonable that there would be some correlation there xp

haha uh forgot that there was an iowan in the thread when I mentioned subsidies

― iatee, Wednesday, June 9, 2010 8:56 PM (58 seconds ago)

yeah see now you are just being kind of a dick

I like how we are ready to wipe out all the middle Americans, but keep all the douchebaggy city dwellers that live in 4-story single-family homes and drive their SUVs 4 blocks to the Whole Foods.

Oh, don't worry -- their time will come.

i am more inclined to want to wipe out those people first

me too

i liked the thread a lot earlier when it was talking about different types of suburbs (and city!)

Haha, I was just reminding some of the people in this thread that not all urban citizens can be held up as models of eco-friendliness.

The streets of at least three boroughs will be littered with abandoned grand pianos, sectional sofas, grandma's sideboards, and anything else that can't be carried to the 5th floor walkup.

you don't have to remind me of that! I care way more about that than rural subsidies ffs. xp

haha uh forgot that there was an iowan in the thread when I mentioned subsidies

fwiw, I think a lot of farm subsidies are total bullshit and weighted too heavily toward farms that are already profitable, and a little too much gets weighted toward the ADMs of the world. That and I hate Chuck Grassley, but that's mostly not farm-related.

just echoing mh, jj, rev in that agree w/the iatee's general argument, but bringing it down to a personal level is totally wrongheaded.

you don't have to remind me of that! I care way more about that than rural subsidies ffs. xp

I'm honestly not trying to single you out dude! Like most people here, I think you are on the right track, but I'm not 100% down with your hardline approach.

That's not most people, though, Jon, no matter what the NYT Style Section would like you to think. As opposed to outside of cities, where nearly every household has at least 2 cars.

As opposed to outside of cities, where nearly every household has at least 2 cars.

At the risk of opening a whole other can of worms here, its usually much more "necessary" for households to have 2 cars way out there. No public transportation, job centers up to 40-50 miles away, two parent working households, etc etc. Not saying this is "right", but pointing out why they all have 2 cars.

Yeah, um, duh.

yeah but it's necessary due to historic/political/economic/whatever decisions that were made.

You know who I really hate? Reasonable national or regional chains who finally decide to expand to your area, but they place their store in the ring of stores around a large shopping mall in the suburbs. I have no experience with them, but Trader Joe's is finally putting a store in around here and it's going to be near the monstrosity of a mall out west. So basically, the only reasons I ever go out there are:

Apple Store
Costco
Possibly this Trader Joe's
Giant movie theater that occasionally has a film that's not elsewhere

I'd kill for any of these things somewhere closer.

I live an 8-minute walk from TJs. The Costco here is somewhere ridiculous I can't remember.

this all (massive freeway expansion, clearing of urban neighborhoods, streetcar removal, subsidies for new suburb construction and sale, car sales as desire, then as necessity) goes hand in hand as a designed political direction presumably rather than an organic process, at end of ww2. interesting that its the one of the few areas where regulation was seen as a plus

This ties right into the food-desert thing where grocery chains refuse to build or maintain stores in depressed areas, leaving the residents with no access to fresh foods/staples. This is where govt has to step in, right?

Or do you think communities have to rally and convince the stores that business will be worthwhile, as if they have to show good enough effort to EARN the right to purchase groceries, but at least it's self-supporting and not based on government grants/intervention...until corporate looks at the balance sheets again in 5 years...?

yeah but when there isnt a chain in the area, things like my much beloved asian groceries or mexican/lebanese delis actually can survive there, which is shit tons better than another fucking cub imo

laurel otm about jjjusten living in park slope

No doubt. Food deserts, though, are neighborhoods where there are no other suppliers. In my limited experience, NYC is actually pretty well supplied with groceries even in marginalized areas, but I'm told that large parts of Chicago and Detroit, for instance, are devoid of anywhere to buy a thing that isn't from the corner store.

I mean "isn't a chain in the area" - how many suburban areas can fit this description?

No no, that's not a suburban problem. But since we're talking about government encouragement/requirement that stores be peppered throughout residential areas instead of in separate enclaves that everyone drives 50 miles to...?

No one in the suburbs lives 50 miles from a grocery store.

I just said that!!! But the stores you WANT to shop at might be that far away, like mh just said about the new Trader Joe's going in near him.

i grew up on a farm, it was pretty cool

That fate is for the near future (2014-2030) as petroleum distribution brakes down.

On the bright side, suburbia permits a modicum of self sufficiency. Where's your copy of Square Foot Gardening....