Nazis are in power in the US. We need to have a general strike to stop the economy, their god.

So far TODAY Israel has: - bombed Gaza City - bombed Khan Younis - shot and killed five Palestinians in Gaza City - refused to open the Rafah border crossing - announced they would once more block aid This is what a "ceasefire" with Israel looks like. This is what it has always looked like.

Damn. This is amazing. £325 per week, paid monthly, for 3 years - and the result was a profit for the Irish economy: www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employmen...

Portland: Neighbors Welcome urges City Council to reject the proposed camping ban ordinance. Portland must embrace housing first strategies that offer dignity and respect to our most vulnerable neighbors. Let's house all our neighbors, together.

The fascists want people to lose their cool and get violent on the streets. The goal is to remove rights and start to disappear citizens en masse. We need a peaceful general strike. Stop the economy.

TRUMP AND HIS NAZI TROOPS CAN EAT MY ASS.

Literally no one is saying cycling is *THEE* solution. There are many... - Mixed use & housing density so folks can live where shorter trips are possible - Make it safe and convenient to take transit, walk, or bike to those short trips - Mitigate car externalities when driving is the best choice

We do just fine as a car-free family without a cargo bike. We live within a 10 min walk of 5 grocery stores, a subway line, 5+ bus lines. I have 2 car rental places a 5 min walk away plus Zipcar. Density, transit, and mixed-use zoning eliminates the need for cars or cargo bikes for our household.

I think we agree that forced car dependency and forced sprawl doesn't help this issue, though, right? Increased density, mixed use zoning, efficient public transit and safe bike/ped infrastructure helps.

Higher mixed use density: 1. lowers costs, 2. Brings downward pressure on housing cost 3. creates demand for transit and safe bike networks 4. lowers need for a car. 5. Improves sustainability and promotes more open public space 6. builds stronger local economies 7. creates more vibrant places

The U.S. needs more of this: density, mixed use (residential and businesses in close proximity), bike/ped/transit infrastructure. It was a bad idea to do sprawl & forced car dependency almost everywhere in the U.S. Let’s fix that!

High density housing with lots of mixed use zoning around transit areas would be awesome, and also environmental friendly. Getting people away from cars is a good thing, and I say that as an Engineer. It was a mistake to let car culture take over - glares at car and oil companies!

More density, less sprawl, more mixed use zoning, better and safer infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, more priority for transit all throughout the city, especially in the core. All of these would do wonders, and have been proven over and over again to do what you're asking for.

High density housing adjacent to public transit is actually a good idea

It's hard to find something more American brained than people who insist the car monopoly is somehow more accessible than options through density and public transit.

Our cities deserve better than to be car sewers! They need safe traffic calmed street that put pedestrians and cyclists before cars Our cities need dense mixed use housing Our cities need reliable fast public transit Following the same formula of car dependency has been a complete failure!

Questions that weren't asked of the councillor: how does the increasing density provided by infill change the viability of public and active transit? What are council's plans to expand and improve transit service and bike infrastructure in areas with increasing density due to infill?

It’s not just population density, it’s political will (both elected officials & voters). I live 3 miles outside Boston in the most densely popped city in New England. During rush hour, it’s faster to *walk* the 3 miles to my office downtown than to take public transit, bc of decades of underfunding.

Yes. Rural voters keep making themselves clear: they do not want shared prosperity, they want everyone else to suffer. Look at PA. Rural legislators broke public transit and are promising to keep it broken forever. Why? Because their voters want us to suffer. www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/transpo...

In my town it would make such a huge difference if we had much better public transit. The high density on roads that already have traffic but not transit is the biggest problem.

Lord, grant me the confidence of an old rich person equating housing density near public transit to an attempted auto-coup.

We need fewer cars, fewer delivery services, more pedestrians and manual bicycles, better public transit, and more density and mixed zoning to make that all sustainable.

We need more jobs closer to where people live and higher density along high capacity public transit like subways. We need great schools within walking distance of every family. Housing, zoning, education, tax, and transit policy all need to be aligned to create a great city.

Car dependent sprawl is a form of class warfare. Car ownership is an enormous mandatory expense that cripples working people’s finances. A progressive society builds dense, affordable workforce and family housing around public transit. There’s nothing “moderate” about being a YIMBY urbanist.

While I'm sympathetic to those who lost their homes in the fires, I'm not sure spending our limited public funds helping them rebuild low-density, non-affordable housing in fire prone areas is the best use of those funds. We should be focused on building dense, affordable homes near transit.

BREAKING: A new experiment in Philly shows cash rental assistance slashed homelessness rates by 57–67%.

Mandatory parking minimums make public transit worse. Car infrastructure is incompatible with public transit infrastructure. More parking = less density, and less density = bus routes are not financially viable More parking = more car usage, and more car usage = car accidents and bad air quality

One thing that's incredibly hard to reconcile is people simultaneously suggesting that we massively densify Toronto, but also that we mostly don't build subways, the highest density and highest capacity form of public transit.

the politics of this country would be radically different everyone lived in medium/high density areas with high walkability, ample greenspace, plentiful food options, demographic and socioeconomic diversity, low income inequality, and public transit.

Metro LA has a higher population density than the Netherlands, so it seems it would be even more suited to active and public transit. Not flying cars.

I've thought about this a lot. Population density and public transit plays a large role in getting people places. That said - Vietnam protests, Civil Rights, etc. required mass travel.

Tall buildings, density, shade, sustainability, public transit and a walkable downtown are all excellent things. And yes, cities like Chicago, Toronto and NYC get plenty of sunshine. But as you note, NIMBYs prefer parks, parking lots and the status quo.

If we’re serious about meaningful cost of living issues it’s not the price of a meal eating out. It’s 1) Allowing reasonable density that; 2) Supports consistent public transit Resulting in lower housing costs, lower transportation costs, and improved public health outcomes.

If we converted all public golf courses to high-density, transit-focused housing, how many families could we house? How much pollution could we avoid?

Yes, ideally we want transit and public services everywhere, but there will always be resource constraints and how we prioritize where resources go is important. And it should be used as another tool to leverage communities to support density.

The irony here of it all being, older folks are the ones at city hall and ballot box trying to prevent the expansion of public transit and higher density mixed used neighborhoods. They insist on driving everywhere even when they admit that they get startled and confused easily.

CA’s restrictive housing policies also undermine public transportation. Without housing density, it’s hard to sustain transit & give people that transportation choice. Simply put, without housing density, people will struggle to access transit & we perpetuate endless driving & traffic congestion.

This is why the gop hates unis, transit, density, and public third spaces like libraries, they want to do away with social condensers in general.

The only regulations I want is for transit orientated development that comes with shops and services in walking distance to be the default. Density tied to the capacity of local public transport makes sense. I find it crazy when we expanded London with Metroland that most of is semi-detached houses!

nobody wants to hear this but in order to solve climate change, society needs to be ok with high density housing, mixed-use buildings, and using public transit. It is not realistic nor feasible for every single person to have a house with a white picket fence and a yard. It doesnt scale.

I’m not anti-car but I am anti-requiring-a-car-to-live-a-normal-lifestyle Why can’t I have just a crumb of high density construction and public transit???

Cowgirl #1: "This town ain't big enough for the two of us, partner." Cowgirl #2: "Yer right, darlin'. There's way too much suburban sprawl. We should form a planning committee to build more public housing, focus on density, eliminate single-family zoning, and improve our public transit."

Being anti-density means being against the type of environment that makes public transit practical, walking/biking to work and shops impractical, and makes it less likely there will be affordable housing options. Anti-density is inherently regressive.

Anyone who genuinely thinks density inherently means traffic or congestion should visit Tokyo. I mean it. 38,000,000 people in one city, and somehow the streets are so empty of vehicles that people walk or cycle right in the middle of them. All you need is good public transit and walkability.

“urbanism isn’t about density or buildings or even that smell of transit brakes in the rain. Sure, that’s all city stuff, but urbanism…[is] the knowledge that one’s entire life is made better by the public lives of others.”...

We need to remove freeways from the metro area (ring roads around an unmovable urban growth boundary are fine). We need much more robust transit (buses in dedicated lanes, rail). We need more dense housing (social to luxury).

You can thank our low density zoning that has made commuting by car lowest cost and only viable option. American cities are heavily car-dependent due to sprawl, limited public transit mostly, and prioritizing automobiles caused by giving locals full control of zoning with bad guidance.

Zoning reform for more density & commercial ("3rd") spaces End hostile architecture/over-policing of public spaces Fund transit over cars Make it easier to join/start a union Restrictions on overtime Regulate addictive tech (algorithms/online gambling) Fund youth activities and community centers

We need more cities to consider doing this. The concept of minimum parking space not only assumes that people commute by car, but also encourages single-passenger car commute, which is INCOMPATIBLE with decent urban living. We need to build more density around public transit and to invest in it.