&gt; Your completely un-sourced article has nothing to do with the OP article<p>Yes, you noticed that I was addressing something in your comment rather than the OP, good job on noticing the obvious.<p>&gt; which detests the option of people living in suburbs.<p>He does not, in fact, detest the option of people living in suburbs. He detests <i>American</i> suburban design. I&#x27;m sure he would love to live in a more European-style suburb, but in most of America (and especially somewhere like Atlanta) they don&#x27;t even exist.<p>&gt; But you can&#x27;t also then turn around and argue for cities that have massively subsidized transit systems that themselves, despite the massive subsidies, are breaking down and crappy.<p>Wow, way to completely misunderstand both transit and sprawly American suburbs. Here, let me explain it to you:<p>Transit is subsidized, yes. So are roads built for cars, so are sidewalks and bike lanes. Every form of transport is paid for by taxes.<p>Property taxes are ostensibly designed to support the extra services and infrastructure that more people and businesses require. If the replacement cost of infrastructure for a new suburban development is greater than the amount of tax revenue those suburbs bring in, when it comes time to replace that stuff, <i>the city will go into the red</i>. Meaning, either it draws the revenue from somewhere else, likely the more economically productive urban core (or even more development, furthering the problem), or it goes bankrupt. That&#x27;s not good!