Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
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.
Posting Guidelines
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:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
The answer is jobs, and privacy.
The more roads, the more opportunities your citizens have access to. Also, those same people don't want to live in Apartments that they'll never be allowed to own, packed like sardines in a population dense building.
So, roads allow them to have their own houses out in the suburbs - and the more of them, the faster they can get to their destination. The faster they can get to their destination, the further out they can move. This also supplies businesses with a wider reach of the population for whatever their needs are.
And people don't want to waste an extra 45 minutes getting to their destination by waiting on public transportation. We're a population of people who - when we want something done - we do it now. Delays are unacceptable.
I don't think this is true.
You can own an apartment
Density has a number of benefits. More cultural output, less isolation, it doesn't feel like a post apocalypse scene when you go outside.
This is satire, right? Poe's law is real.
Foot traffic is good for businesses and neighborhoods. Car traffic much less so
Public transit is often faster. Plus I can do many more things on the train than I can while driving (reading, games, some kinds of work, etc)
Car based transit introduces many delays.
Your post is a joke right? I can't tell.
I was gonna respond to them but honestly, I couldn't even begin to think of where. That comment was so wrong on so many levels.
Just the simple fact that someone would unironically say that you can't own a condo is just wild to me, let alone the rest.
You don't own a condo. In a condo, there is generally no individual ownership of land; the unit owners jointly own the land and building exteriors. Each unit owner has rights only to the unit's interior space. All other spaces are controlled by the condo owners' association.
It's so wild that you're so uneducated, and so confident all at the same time. You're not taking reality for what it is, instead you've reached a conclusion - and then you work backwards to justify that conclusion, even to the point of deluding yourself into thinking something is one way, when it clearly isn't; and then mocking someone for correcting you.
Peak Lemmy right here folks.
Nobody is talking about land, they're talking about housing. Nobody thought they owned the land underneath a condo, and frankly you're the idiot for assuming as much.
You don't own the interior like you think you do either. The condo can force you to sell it at any time they like. The concept of ownership begets control. If you don't control it, then you aren't the owner.
An HOA in a neighborhood of single family homes can do the same thing.
Isn't the whole idea that you dislike people being annoying? The point of that legislation is to remove people who are being egregiously annoying by breaking the rules of the HOA...
It's designed specifically for people like you!!!
HOAs were designed to keep black people, the poor, and other 'unwantables' out of rich white neighborhoods, so no - they were specifically designed to keep me out of them, but thanks.
Wouldn't you know it, car culture, roads, and suburbs were designed for the same exact reason and perpetuate the same bias to this day- looks like we have a common cause! The answer, however, is not creating an even more antisocial society or abandoning society altogether. Quite the opposite, actually.
Yeah, I'm gonna disagree on that one.
You've never heard of white flight? Redlining? The black neighborhoods that were paved over in cities to create highway interchanges smack in the middle of them, enabling whites to flee to redlined neighborhoods newly built with government subsidies, into homes bought with VA loans that weren't offered to blacks? The highways dividing white neighborhoods from black neighborhoods in cities to this day? Reliable transportation and all the things it enables being locked down just to those who can individually provide it for themselves, after black people were discriminated against and locked out of wealth for decades? Other community amenities, like schools and libraries and community centers, being funded by property taxes and therefore drastically lower quality or completely non-existent in lower-income neighborhoods (where blacks have been pushed to) that can be completely ignored by the wealthy because they are now a problem that is over there in a different area code than theirs? All of this taking place in the era of the southern strategy, where lawmakers refrain from using the N-word or stating their goals outright, but the intention and outcome is "blacks get hurt worse than whites".
It was re-segregation under the guise of "progress" in a deeply racist society that collectively shit their pants because blacks were finally catching up, developing things like black wall streets and thriving, prosperous communities (that were first on the chopping block when they wanted to level things for a highway) and black businesses, and using their collective voice to fight back after centuries of injustice. Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago, these cities were all fucking powerhouses with high percentages of black population for their times, that were destroyed by suburbanization and the construction of highways and the physical division they created.
Yeah, save it. You can disagree, you're entitled to your opinion, but you would be deeply mistaken.
Yes, absolutely there are some examples of that through history - but the things you talk about weren't done for the express purpose of harming black society. They didn't install roads JUST to roll over black neighborhoods, it's that those neighborhoods were conveniently black so it aligned with their racism.
And the other things you state are tax distribution moreso than roads. Car culture is not anti-black, as it's one of the few things that actually allow a lot of minority cultures to express themselves. Donks, Lowriders, etc - all allowed Hispanic, Black, and otherwise marginalized communities to come together over something we all enjoyed.
I don't know why nobody understands that cars aren't just transportation for a lot of people. They are a point of pride, they are something that people enjoy, customize, and genuinely love. It would be wrong to say that cars and car culture is anti black.
All I have to say about the first part is the cope is off the fucking charts 📈
Please, let's not get caught up on semantics. If cars are your hobby, that's perfectly fine, that's not what I'm talking about. It's not a zero-sum game.
It's different when every single person has no other option but to own a car and have the physical ability to drive or else be completely reliant on someone who does in order to provide for themselves. You don't work and you don't eat without a car, and society treats that like a moral failing. Kids don't go anywhere without (likely white collar) parents chauffeuring them. Elders don't get groceries without home care assistance. That is the car culture I'm talking about. I don't give a shit about your hobby tbqh, do whatever the hell you want in your free time.
I personally abhor owning a car. I hate fueling it, I hate paying for it, i hate maintaining it, I don't want it. I hate sitting in traffic, I hate the stress of risking my life to get from a to b, I hate missing out on the exercise and fresh air I would get by walking if at least the streets were designed to accommodate me as a pedestrian. I have to own a car to get to work because my work is both a massive complex that I couldn't walk or bike to even if I lived right outside of it, and the immediate area is exclusively million-dollar homes each with tens of acres to the property. Not just my work, even the community I live in is impossible to traverse without a car. Half the streets don't even have sidewalks or convenient crosswalks. The streets that do are only designed that way to get kids to school and nowhere else. I can't afford to live somewhere walkable because those homes are low-supply and high-demand and therefore pretty costly.
So speak for yourself.
You own a condo. That's how it works. The shared land is a different matter.
Please stop. You're making embarrassingly bad arguments.
If you can't read the article I referred to, I guess you can't exactly discuss this in good faith now can you.
The condo association controls how long you have that condo for. If they can force you to sell it at any time, then you don't own it, do you...
Can you make improvements to the condo? Put in a jacuzzi tub? Oh -- you can't. How about building new walls? Can't do that either. Can you choose a different internet service provider? Oh, weird -- condos have contracted providers that you've gotta use. For all of this "I can totally own a condo"...you sure aren't able to do the things which beget actual ownership, now can you? So you can purchase temporary residence in a housing-cubicle -- but don't pretend that is actual ownership. If you owned it, you could demolish everything within and nobody would care. But that's not the case. So you don't own it.
If I wanted to demolish my house tomorrow, I could. Because I own it. If I want to add walls, change electrical, paint it a new color, change the roof, add a second floor, add a jacuzzi tub, all things that I can do. Granted I have to get permits for some of those things, but condos control IF you can do those things at all.
That's not ownership. That's a lease.
Yes, you own it. All of what you bring up is a legal issue that can be changed.
I'm perfectly happy living without those things. Especially if it means my neighbor's stupid Jacuzzi tub isn't going to cause mold in the building or come hurdling down through my ceiling.
If I don't like my condo, I'll sell it and buy a better one, as there are improvements that I did which didn't involve changing walls or electrical (which you can do with board approval if you really want to), like updating the kitchen and bathrooms and floors, and therefore it has most likely appreciated in value since I bought it. I have exclusive rights to the proceeds from the sale because I own it and I really have never had any urge do anything stupid that would piss off the HOA (re: my neighbors) because I'm a decent person and considerate of others. The community is worth that small sacrifice of not being an asshole.
But ultimately, I'm not owning it as an investment vehicle. I'm owning it to live in and to keep my money in my own name instead of putting it into some landlord's pocket.
Demolition will not be necessary because I don't care about the land underneath it, I care about the building itself.
The internet is perfectly good and if it's not, my neighbors will probably agree, and we can vote to change providers because we are all voting members of the HOA, but ideally that would be something provided by the city as it doesn't really make sense to run multiple lines for multiple providers in a dense urban setting. In that case, the whole city gets to vote! I have up to 600mbps fiber optic in my current complex, though, so I don't think that will really be necessary.
I'm sure you'll find a problem with that, but you're way out in the country and don't like cities anyways, so catering to you would probably not be very healthy for the city.
Can I haz walkable city now?
Being co-owner does mean you own it. It is a form of owning that is perfectly acceptable to me. I would gladly own a condo if I could afford it. I don't need to own the land my property is on to consider myself a homeowner.