I think there's a lot of truth to this. I've said for some time that the basic strength of private property ownership got tossed out the window once this "ownership" involved suburban homes that really have no connection to the underlying economic principles of private property.
What are you saying ? That owning rowhouses in the city promotes more of an understanding of private property than an acre in the suburbs ?
I'll bite - how do suburban homes differ from city homes in their private property aspects ?
Let's see - people in cities pay property taxes, wage taxes, city taxes, and usually extra sales taxes, while people in the suburbs pay property taxes, township taxes, and that's it.
I think you have your statement backwards.