>Yeah, it's simple: fix the glaring problems in urban areas, and have people move there. If there's a housing shortage, build more housing. Fix the stupid zoning laws that prevents that. That's a lot easier than this ridiculous HSR ring idea.
And leave folks who live in rural areas to rot, without even a hope of revitalizing their communities? That seems both reductive and likely harmful.
Because the issue isn't just housing shortages in urban areas, it's also the decline of much of the US by flight from rural areas. Which has been the source of a great deal of the economic dissatisfaction in the US for many folks for a long time.
I'd point out that people who live in rural areas are humans too and, at least in the US, for the most part Americans, with just as much right to exist and thrive as anyone else.[0]
I'm not saying that you feel this way, but the sense I get from your response is: "I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." If that's not what you're trying to say, my apologies -- although you might want to try to be more clear about what you're saying if you don't want to be perceived that way.
[0] I'd note that I was born, raised and have lived almost all of my life (and still do) in the most urban city in the US.
If people in rural areas want the services and conveniences of urban areas, they should move there. It's very simple.
>"I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die."
No, my attitude is that rural people live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by city dwellers. Why should rural dwellers get this if they're not able to afford the extravagance of rural living on their own? If they want money and jobs, they need to move to where the jobs are. Human societies have been working this way for thousands of years now. This isn't something brand-new.
If rural dwellers like it so much in rural areas, they need to learn to accept and live with the downsides that go with that, such as lack of medical services, instead of complaining.
> rural people live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by city dwellers
I see this idea in a lot of places but don't understand it. You could equally fairly say that city dwellers live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by farmers in Kansas or oil drillers in North Dakota.
You have trouble understanding this? Try this: can 90% of the population live in cities, supported by food and oil produced by the other 10%? The answer is yes. Now, can 90% of the population live with the farmers and oil workers (in a very rural lifestyle) and still yield the level of civilization and economic development we have now? The answer is no. Without cities, there's no modern economy: just look at any place that's still agrarian, or was in the recent past. Or even the US during its civil war (the agrarian, rural South had no chance against the industrialized North).
And leave folks who live in rural areas to rot, without even a hope of revitalizing their communities? That seems both reductive and likely harmful.
Because the issue isn't just housing shortages in urban areas, it's also the decline of much of the US by flight from rural areas. Which has been the source of a great deal of the economic dissatisfaction in the US for many folks for a long time.
I'd point out that people who live in rural areas are humans too and, at least in the US, for the most part Americans, with just as much right to exist and thrive as anyone else.[0]
I'm not saying that you feel this way, but the sense I get from your response is: "I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." If that's not what you're trying to say, my apologies -- although you might want to try to be more clear about what you're saying if you don't want to be perceived that way.
[0] I'd note that I was born, raised and have lived almost all of my life (and still do) in the most urban city in the US.