Quote from: idontknow on September 27, 2011, 03:43:41 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 27, 2011, 03:13:30 AM

Quote from: idontknow on September 27, 2011, 03:07:48 AM

I like the idea that each tax $ gives you a vote on what to spend it on.

That's a start. Where would you direct those dollars? Make this thread less tax centric and more issue driven.

Well, personally I would spend more of it on public parks. I'd rather an area was 50% public parkland and 50% apartment-style housing, rather than 99% separate houses all spread out with no where to go except a tiny park bench with 1 duck to feed. The former would be actually less claustrophobic despite the higher density living arrangement.

Not to mention apartments are far more efficient for things like water, sewer, electric, etc.

That's cool. I totally agree with this. What about suburban sprawl at the edge of town? Would you advocate a simple reduction in plot size plus the park, or simply set aside the wilderness that would normally be encroached upon?

I've often envisioned wilderness corridors through a town or city. Imagine developments comprised of sections that look sort of like Mont St Michel (see picture), where each section connects to its neighboring sections via a bridge. Now imagine a whole town like that, and flowing between those sections is wilderness, with hiking trails. The idea is, the natural native wildlife (coyotes, racoons, whatever), are not displaced, and may pass through the town without really being in the town.

It's sort of a miniature version of what is known as wildlife corridors - which are components of a plan to (in the case of North America) to rewild North America (see the book). It begins with the premise that connected natural preserves maintain and allow greater biodiversity if they are connected, rather than fragmented. The plan is ambitious.