Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

For public transit in particular, the US has billionaires and politicans who actively campaign against such projects [1]. The effect of this cannot be overstated. People buy into the propaganda that their taxes will go up and/or it will bring crime to their idyllic locales (where otherwise property prices keep the riffraff out).

Landowners in the US have very successfullly voted in measures that limit further construction (including higher density housing and public transit systems) and increase the value of their holdings.

I've mentioned housing here because it directly impacts a lot of potential construction, particularly public transport. You cannot build anything other than single-family homes in much of the US. This lowers population density and makes public transport less viable. It also diverts tax revenue to build infrastructure for the required cars: highways, parking lots, etc.

There are a lot of local problems here too eg NYC's scaffolding laws [2], corruption in NYC construction projects [3] and CEQA in California [4].

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub...

[2]: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2020/10/08/585902...

[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

[4]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-...

> People buy into the propaganda that their taxes will go up

That's not propaganda. State and local taxes in Wa state have gone nowhere but up for the last 40 years I've lived here. Sound Transit has gotten themselves huge tax increases.

It is propaganda, the only reason you don't pay higher taxes is that car infrastructure is heavily subsidized compared to transit.

I certainly do pay taxes for the roads, bridges, and infrastructure.

When you factor in externalities you're living on borrowed time, debt and climate wise.

That's a different topic.

It's related since there's a very strong argument you (and Americans in general) aren't paying enough taxes and some things should be outright banned (single family homes on 75% of built land, in a country with an ever-growing population and a housing affordability crises and some of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions; maybe that percentage should be 50% or 33%)).

But that's political suicide to say out loud as a politician.

Propaganda can be true and factual; perhaps what the parent comment meant is that a minor detail can be exaggerated to dissuade / influence a voter's behavior.

Google's definition:

"information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

Emphasis is mine.

biased does not mean incorrect. the devil is truly in the details, here.

> Propaganda can be true and factual;

so that's what's called a convincing argument then?

when done by a state-entity with the purpose to influence, yeah exactly.

There is no more room for roads - transit is the only alternative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com