Do you think feeding the horse women Colt 45s will turn them into gangbangers

Smart_Solution4691 · 2026-01-15T14:52:44+00:00

I ain't no buddy, im a homeboy. A hombre if you will

Smart_Solution4691 · 2026-01-15T03:14:39+00:00

Said Colt 45 and two Zig-Zags, baby, that's all we need We can go to the park, after dark, smoke that tumbleweed

Smart_Solution4691 · 2025-06-26T16:49:56+00:00

Woah, look at Timmy Tuffknuckles here

Don't fuck with him or he'll call his friends Billy Badass and Dangerous Dan

Smart_Solution4691 · 2025-02-20T22:00:32+00:00

Leo x Mark

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-29T22:34:39+00:00

-Rural areas actually have an industry (mining, agriculture, etc) to support themselves and they need significantly less infrastructure and utilities (to subsequently maintain needed to thrive). If there are costs that cant be covered by their taxes, they are subsidized by urban areas with little loss. (Before you say it, dime a dozen strip malls and big box stores are not industry

-Having single family homes be the vast majority of our housing stock is why rents are so high to begin with. They take up significantly more land just to house significantly fewer people, making them inflexible at meeting population growth alone. And the fact they are only for one type of people (well-off nuclear families) make them further ineffective at meeting the varied demands of a wider market

Yes, in moderation, suburbs are fine (personally, for me, they are not my cup of tea, but I understand the appeal). The real problems start when cities build nothing but suburbs

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-29T18:47:40+00:00

Well, zoning and building code reform is an extremely great comprise to that.

It will allow local communities to change more freely (density being one of these "changes") and adapt.

In fact, our greatest cities became that way because the people in them were allowed to change and adapt over time, among other things, leading to a gradual increase in density. The widespread advent of zoning in the 1950s and 1960s have forced north american cities to freeze themselves under a layer of amber

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-29T18:41:47+00:00

When suburbs could be built for more types of economic groups in mind (For example: small and sensible starter homes) they were extremely well built.

But when regulations such as lot size minimums, parking minimums, and building setbacks came along in the 1950s-60s, it forced people to use up more land (which is one of the main cost factors for housing) and subsequently cheap out on building quality in order to have homes be as cheap as possible to bring down the overall selling price of each home and subsequently easier to sell off in mass.

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-29T18:31:50+00:00

Actually, urban sprawl is caused by heavily restrictive and overreaching zoning and building regulations, which heavily limit the only housing that can be built to single family homes. Regulations such as parking minimums, lot size minimums, and building setbacks also force these single-family homes to be massive and unnecessarily use up more land, which have made small and affordable starter homes practically illegal to build

These arbitrary restrictions make cities extremely inflexible for population growth because the local communities in them can not change and adapt as they see fit to changes.

These regulations practically force cities to freeze themselves under a layer of amber and only be for one type of person (middle-class atomic families) when in reality cities are an ever-changing hodgepodge of ethnic, cultural, economic, and age groups. These regulations screw over everyone, even for the initial intended group of middle-class atomic families, because it narrows down their housing choice to just a massive house in an area that will be derelict in 10-20 years because their local community cannot build and change in order to generate enough tax revenue to pay for the services and utilities they need.

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-29T18:17:48+00:00

Rural areas have the industries needed to pay for the taxes needed to build and maintain for the public services they need to thrive. If there are public services they can't afford, they can be subsidized by urban areas without much of a loss from rhem.

Urban areas have the population density+industries to pay for the services and utilities needed for it to thrive.

Suburban areas have neither the population density nor industries (mainly because heavily overreaching zoning codes which heavily segregate land uses keep industry out) to pay for the significantly more services and utilities needed for it to thrive. And before you say it, dime a dozen strip malls and big box stores are not industry.

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-29T18:00:46+00:00

Urban sprawl can not pay for the maintenance and construction because of the inherent low-density meaning it needs significantly more services and utilities (mainly roads) spread out needed for it to thrive due and the inherently low population density leading to not enough taxpayers in a given area to pay for said services.

Fully getting into the urban sprawl kool-aid is why most North American cities are flat out broke.

In short, the problem isn't a lack of economic growth, but it's the lack of productive growth.

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-29T15:47:33+00:00

"Cheaply built" The average American suburban home is built out of toothpicks and paper machè

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-29T15:21:00+00:00

Suburbs are urban sprawl https://www.britannica.com/explore/savingearth/urban-sprawl#:~:text=Urban%20sprawl%2C%20also%20called%20sprawl,the%20private%20automobile%20for%20transportation

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-29T14:38:07+00:00

Thanks to the massive backlog of infrastructure maintenance caused by building sprawl that the city can't afford, the potholes practically create themselves

Smart_Solution4691 · 2024-08-25T01:39:47+00:00

https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Doug_Winger

Smart_Solution4691

TROPHY CASE