This story reveals how backwards US thinking is on both oil and economics. When one describes exurbs as "unsustainable," the claim is fundamentally _not— that exurbians are immoral--it's that they're _foolish_. It's been both obvious and well-published for years now that suburbs--and especially exurbs--are economically feasible only when subsidized with cheap energy (read: oil) and cheap infrastructure (read: nearby cities, which provide jobs, institutions, and other services). Throughout all human history, suburbanites have never paid their fair share for their quality of life. The NYT would, it appears, have us believe that the economically rational consequence of insufficient subsidy is an "assault" on "American suburban life." Please.
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment