256

Why libertarian cities fail (onlysky.media)

submitted 10 months ago by rimu@piefed.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Rio Verde Foothills is an unincorporated rural community in the wilds of Maricopa County, Arizona. As you may know, Arizona is largely desert, and deserts are well-known for lacking abundant water.

Arizona law requires homebuilders in active management areas to secure a reliable source of water expected to last at least a hundred years. However, there’s a loophole: the law only applies to subdivisions of six homes or more. You can guess what some clever developers do: they simply build lots of “subdivisions” each consisting of only five homes.

These so-called “wildcat” communities are all over the state. They’re miniature havens of freedom, perfect for stubbornly independent libertarians who want to get out from under the thumb of government bureaucrats telling them where they can and can’t live. Rio Verde Foothills is one such.

But then they made an awful discovery. It turns out, even when you find a way to skirt regulations about water… humans still need water .

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] blurg@lemmy.world 68 points 10 months ago

They don’t have a water district because it’s literally too expensive to build and not because some taxes Boogeyman.

This is nonsense. It's precisely because of a belief in a "taxes Boogeyman."

Necessities "too expensive to build" for individuals are what taxes are for: water, sewer, roads, fire departments, etc. Individuals buying into 5-house developments without water are finding out the consequences of their philosophy -- and don't like it. And rather than recognize the predictable outcome of their belief, they demand necessities from nearby people more responsible than themselves.

[-] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Its not though. This isn't a community of dumbfuck libertarians. They expect to haul water. They're poor people buying cheap housing in the desert, they're single houses not 5 house developments, and then suddenly having the price of water double on them, it wasn't poor planning, it was Scottsdale, a haven of rich fucks you REALLY shouldn't sympathize with, bumping costs to buy water. Fuck I'll find the NPR story on this exact community later.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

It doesn't matter how rich some other town is, doesn't make sense to build somewhere in the desert and not have a secure water source. Whether that's libertarianism or not I don't know, but not smart.

[-] Breve@pawb.social 6 points 10 months ago

Sounds like the free market at work! Surely if the price is unreasonable then a private company should have a clear profit motive to swoop in and provide the service at a lower cost. Otherwise that's simply the cost the market has determined for this product. 🤷

[-] L3mmyW1nks@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211949655/building-in-arizona-with-no-water

this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024

256 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers

1138 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News