redblack
ceebee: i was joking. your posts suggest that the city actually do something pro-active to support greater density, which requires capital. but the current anti-taxation political climate hamstrings municipalities when they’re trying to fund infrastructure improvements.
urban growth and density requires investment from both the public and private sectors, and while pro-business folks are all about developing private property, they seldom think about how that development impacts our aging utility systems. or, as you point out, how local emergency responders can access and provide rescue services for new developments and denser residency during disasters.
what’s worse is that any suggestion of raising taxes to improve those systems is met with scorn for “wasteful big government spending.”
any conversations about increasing local density should automatically include increased public funding to support said development.
btw, is ceebee and acronym? construction battalion? (sea bee?) citizens’ band?