The developers are (probably) paying off politicians to get permits, but there is no money (due to low taxes) for the necessary projects.
EDIT: roads are being built, but slowly.
Imagine if half the single family homes spreading out for miles were instead townhouses, 4-6 floor apartments, duplexes, quadplexes with mixed use like groceries and schools placed within walking distance of most neighborhoods. I bet traffic and costs would be a fraction of what they are now, much easier to serve density with good infrastructure. With an added bonus, more farms and greenspace would be preserved.
Sorry, but what is your point here? This is the same recycled “strongtowns” argument that they repeat endlessly.
Worst case, property taxes increase to help with local infrastructure.
You dismiss the "strongtowns" argument as if there is some consensus that it has been debunked, but I don't think there is such a consensus, so you'd need to support that claim.
Further, the worst case is not that property taxes increase, it is that other people, usually less fortunate, end up subsidizing them further through federal, state, and county funds, rather than their own local taxes.
The rich inner suburbs full of busybody jerks are unfortunately rich enough to almost certainly be self sustaining if they want to be. No starving that beast.
Not everyone wants to live like that.
In densely populated areas of Europe we have apartments everywhere. It's not that bad, if the building was well-built you barely hear your neighbors.
> Walking groceries up multiple floors of stairs is great too.
With the average American BMI it's great indeed!
European homes are built to a higher standard than US homes and many are built from concrete and stone. US apartments are usually built using cheap particle board for floors that turn into bouncy, noisy trampolines over time and thin walls between units.
None of that deals with the many other disadvantages of apartment living.
Dense urban apartments should be available for those who want that lifestyle (primarily childless young people) but it's not a model that we should be pushing as the default for the general population. That would be a real step backwards.
Are you just pretending city kids don't exist?
In San Francisco there are now more dogs than children. Pretty much the only parents who stay are the wealthy who can afford large homes in safe neighborhoods regardless of price, and the poor who receive subsidized housing and have no where else to go. When the middle class has kids they move out to the East Bay suburbs, where they can afford a back yard and don't have to put up with junkies on their doorstep.
If that is all the zoning allowed then people just wouldn’t live there.
Most people in the US simply don’t want to live like that.
Consumer demand should dictate what kind of housing gets built, not naive central planners.
And yet all across America, zoning restrictions laid down by "naive central planners" eliminate options, suppressing options for consumer demand.