High density developments are erected in existing cities while "green space" areas are set aside, conveniently occupied only by employees of the Trusts that "own" them (they never buy them, the land is basically stolen by manipulation of zoning laws or extortion against the existing owners).
So the "environmentalist" model for livable commoonities is...Manhattan. A tiny sliver of land, hyper populated, people living in rabbit warrens, and outside....blissful wildernesses occupied only by the Chosen Few.
Sound familiar?
The Soviet Union was the same way. Horrifying, deadening concrete apartment houses, soulless prisons, but the Nomenklatura, the bureaucrats, lived in peaceful Dachas in the countryside, away from the prying eyes of the Proles.
All been done before.
” You can already see the effects of this stupidity in California.
High density developments are erected in existing cities while “green space” areas are set aside, conveniently occupied only by employees of the Trusts that “own” them (they never buy them, the land is basically stolen by manipulation of zoning laws or extortion against the existing owners). “
California has been on the “leading edge” of self destruction for the past 20 years. I left in 06 ;-)
Two points
1) Living in Manhattan is actually great, if you can afford it. Contrary to your assertion, a large fraction of the elite in New York live in Manhattan, just for this reason. There's a reason why its real estate is as expensive as it is.
2) If not for the huge hidden subsidies we give suburbanites (i.e. free highways, commuter rail, subsidized phone, postal and broadband service to people in less populated areas, etc), more of the country would look like Manhattan.
3) The correct policy is to remove the subsidies and force the people who choose to live in the sticks pay the full cost of their lifestyle choice. Instead, our masters want to maintain the subsidies but then try to coerce people to live how they want them to. Go figure.