News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Low-Cost Solution to Traffic by galdosdi on Friday February 10, 2017 @06:58PM (#13620008)
Why should the rest of us get burdened? I'm not in favor of that at all. If you build something that requires more water/electricity and thus requires more maintenance/building more pipes or something by the city, then you should be the one to pay for that, or else you continue to get the same old service as before.

That's what I propose anyway. Yes, I am very aware of what a big problem we've had in the 20th century with private developers colluding with municipalities to take land from the poor, use it to build things for the wealthy, and get taxpayers to pay for as much of the related infrastructure as possible.

Re:A Low-Cost Solution to Traffic by dcosson on Friday February 10, 2017 @07:09PM (#13620078)
The same old service as before is an ongoing cost for everyone - loans are taken for municipal projects that the city pays back with taxes, pipes break and have to be repaired, if there's a natural disaster outside funds will repair the service, etc. To some extent you pay the utility provider for your use, but not always.

There are even more things you definitely don't and can't pay for your own use - fire stations, police, the salaries of the DMV employees that regulate drivers licenses so someone who doesn't know how to drive doesn't crash into your house. There's a huge long-tail of public goods that serve everyone in every urban or suburban area, no getting around it.

Re:A Low-Cost Solution to Traffic by galdosdi on Friday February 10, 2017 @07:11PM (#13620090)
Um, well, then they should have to pay for their share of that too. Given that, still confused what the objection is.