>>1938179It would be a pointless argument to make if it was simply a matter of preference, but it’s not that simple.
The fact is, the style of life you prefer is wildly wasteful for cities. I have absolutely no problem if someone wants to move out to rural farm land and live on a giant parcel of land filled with whatever the fuck they want. The problem is that people who live like that still want to be close to city amenities. They still want to have everything they need within a 15 minute drive, they want city water and sewage, they want to be on the city’s electrical grid, they want garbage pickup, police/fire/ambulance service, they want roads and car infrastructure. And despite that all these services cost exponentially more to bring out to the suburbs, our city municipalities do it anyway. The only reason that our local municipalities have the resources to provide all the infrastructure and required services so far out into the suburbs is because of 1. government subsidized suburban growth, and 2. The dense urban areas existing and actually creating a net gain for the city in the form of tax revenue. Your suburban lifestyle is subsidized by those who choose to live less wastefully, and it shouldn’t be. You should be taxed more for demanding your local municipality bend over backwards to provide you infrastructure at an exponentially higher rate.
My preferred style of life is to live in a middle density walkable neighborhood and use transit to get places that are too far to reach by bike. In the vast majority of American cities that’s not even possible because everything outside of the high density city center has been completely displaced by suburban sprawl. So no, it’s not just a matter of preference. It’s far more complicated than that.
