Nothing authoritarian about that if the majority of the population agrees that’s the best way to move forward.

We already regulate where cars are allowed to go (e.g. which direction in which lane on which streets). All anyone means around "banning" cars is to have changes (reductions) in which places we allow cars. There's no increase in authoritarianism with that.

Ok here’s what we can do: pass laws significantly reducing the places cars can go. Tax automobiles. Buy up used cars and destroy them to keep prices high and ensure cars use recent environment technology.

Then create public transit districts, which operate like school districts. Real estate is taxed, and the proceeds go to busses.

Areas with high real estate values will have excellent public transit. Those with lower real estate values will have worse transit.

The advantage is (1) support by middle and upper class voters, who are traditionally opposed to public transit, (2) funding sustainability, (3) money is kept in local communities.

The downside is a drastic increase in inequality.

I’m obviously joking … but do you see how discouraging cars would increase inequality unless it was combine with an extremely equitable political system? A political system America doesn’t have?

I see effort at nuance here, but the conclusion is both almost right and also not at all right.

America's deeply unequal political system WILL NOT ever get us better equality. It's *incidental*, a symptom of the political reality that discouraging cars would be done in a way that exacerbates inequality.

Almost any policy can be done in ways that exacerbate inequality. And a more equitable political system would be needed in order to have more equitable policies.

There's nothing specific to cars about this stuff. So, there's no point in focusing on discouraging cars as inherently part of this trend. Gentrification is a real issue. But don't blame yoga for gentrification just because yoga studios are in gentrified areas. Policies that encourage healthy tree canopy also exacerbate inequality because richer areas can hire urban foresters and so on. I mean, every single worthwhile thing you can think of exacerbates inequality if the policies are set up to make the worthwhile thing go along with already-wealthier places. None of the worthwhile things are themselves the cause of inequality.

I currently live in a nice wealthy suburb. The folks who run the place go through great effort to ensure we do *not* have access to public transit.

Public transit attracts people who can’t afford cars. It also allows the “wrong element” to pass through our neighborhood.

Politically, how do you propose forcing public transit into communities that actively campaign against it?