Inevitably you'll have to grandfather in existing infrastructure because a lot of it is from ancient times and all you'll do is make it impossible to have a Chinatown, or a NY brownstone. So what you'll get is that almost nothing new gets developed because the cost structure makes it impossible.
Everyone always thinks "why don't we make it harder to make things and that way they'll be nice" but they can't connect the dots to "but to do that we have to grandfather in the existing stuff" and from that to "nothing new will happen and all the old things will stay that way".
> Inevitably you'll have to grandfather in existing infrastructure because a lot of it is from ancient times and all you'll do is make it impossible to have a Chinatown, or a NY brownstone. So what you'll get is that almost nothing new gets developed because the cost structure makes it impossible.
I don't see how that's true - if you create cities or neighborhoods which are more walkable, such as New York's Chinatown, then you'll have less civil liability than suburban car-centric infrastructure. I would think that NY style neighborhoods would be MORE incentivized
Because you people and the sum total of the "well intentioned" regulation you peddle across the myriad of issues you peddle it render the kind of organic incremental and piecemeal development that yields those sorts of neighborhoods an economic non-starter.
Haha, it's clearly beyond my ability to explain this to you. You're just going to have to try it and learn.
But I'll give it one last try:
One can only hope that you're either exceptional enough to succeed or that when you fail you understand that it wasn't because "suburbanites ruined a perfect plan because they can't imagine a blah blah blah" and learn that you're constraint solving in a democracy where other people have voices and your perfect solution needs to have graceful degradation as it makes allowances for their opinions so that it can get sufficient support to pass.
If all you do is create additional liability with grandfathering in of existing designs, all you do is lead to propagation of current designs.
I mean, seems like a smart idea until you realize at least the US is a democracy (well hopefully still) and the moment you tell people they can't drive their car home they will vote you out or lynch you. So there's that.
Unfortunately the answer isn't going to be telling people they can't do something. We already don't give a damn about the number of deaths we cause, so the actual answer is probably somewhere closer to attempting to educate people so eventually we won't want it.
Usually the problem is the locals do want traffic calming but they are overruled by suburbanites who have more power and want to force their cars in to old neighbourhoods (and then complain about parking)
Everyone always thinks "why don't we make it harder to make things and that way they'll be nice" but they can't connect the dots to "but to do that we have to grandfather in the existing stuff" and from that to "nothing new will happen and all the old things will stay that way".
Thing of the obvious effects, man. Come on.