A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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.
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:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/07/20/opinion-broadway-upzoning-parking-chicago/
"If the city becomes more dense, where will people put their car?!!" he asks.
The way public infrastructure expansion works isn't a ponzi scheme.
We typically require a maintenance contract from the developer for the first few years and a special tax for the owners of the developed land that lasts between 10 and 30 years, depending on the specifics of the agreement. That tax is put into escrow, and by the time the infrastructure needs to be maintained, there's enough money in the fund to maintain that portion of the infrastructure off of interest.
The mistake many cities make is putting that revenue into the general fund. But if you put it into dedicated funds, it can't be diverted to other city expenses and used by the next Council to cut property taxes while leaving future maintenance unfunded.
That sounds less like "the way public infrastructure expansion works isn’t a ponzi scheme," and more "my city is the exception to the rule that does it right."