That's fine, so long as you're willing to pay for your infrastructure. Low-density suburbs with full utilities, storm sewer, etc, must have it's cost paid for by those who choose to live that lifestyle.
Those of us living 27 stories up are more efficient and shouldn't have to pay for your roads.
Because you grow crops on the roof, weave cotton in the basement, and build for furniture on another for? Roads are used for more than moving people around, they also move good around,which almost everyone partakes.
>Because you grow crops on the roof, weave cotton in the basement, and build for furniture on another for?
There's this thing that lets you present those expenses to consumers - it's called pricing.
You have to pay more for road maintenance - you raise prices to cover it - I now see the actual cost of your product instead of it being subsidized by my tax money regardless of using them.
A vanishingly small proportion of suburbanites farms, weaves or works in furniture factories. Indeed I wouldn't be amazed if more apartment-dwellers are engaged in those activities than McMansionites.
It seems to me that both urban and suburban landlords charge what they can get away with (aka "what the market will bear",) which is a much larger number in sought-after urban areas than in the suburbs. The kind of subsidies you talk about may also exist, but they're not the primary factor.
Those of us living 27 stories up are more efficient and shouldn't have to pay for your roads.