Reply #217: Defending the status quo vs. acknowledging that there is a reason

[Inland]

behind people's choices. You can argue that it isn't the best reason or best choice. You can argue against the incentives and system that limits choices or gives bad ones. But you can't really discuss it at all if you fail to recognize there are reasons behind a choice to live in the exurbs. If you don't know the reasons, and to add a sense of disparagement to the individuals who make the choices, it is merely alienating.

To use your example, I don't suggest that anyone accept the failure of some school systems. But a single family is going to make a choice. They may not see their system turning around in a year or four. They may be in a minority. Moving or a private school isn't "accepting" the failure of the public schools, and it is an insult to so imply, because there may be those who wish things could be different, would work to make them different, and may even be in the vanguard, but have kids that need to be educated in a safe environment *today*.

Similarly, I echo all your observations on sprawl. It's an awful idea. The lack of a common space--which I would term "public space"--is a sine qua non of new development. Turning over most of our homes and land to the automobile is another. But then again, one quiet summer evening in a large backyard with a grill and a drink--

However, I also believe that the people who make it and live in it aren't evil or martians or androids but responding to reasons that make some sense, and no public policy is going to change unless those reasons are understood and addressed--because, for one thing, the people or make and live in sprawl are going have to be on board, for a political matter.