So essentially punish those with less income? That still does not remove the ridiculous burden it imposes on the richer citizens, so it Just Won't Do!
People with
lower incomes are actually less likely to own a car, particularly if they live in an urban environment.
What does "you don't see", mean exactly? Have you done a poll of sane/normal people? Are you making up BS?
If most of them could snap their fingers and have things like a bigger back yard, a car to drive, and other amenities, without any detractions, they would. What it is instead, is a choice of what to sacrifice for their idealism of living the urban life, and as I've already stated previously, most people wise up as they get a little more time/experience in that environment, and choose to abandon it, if they can afford to move and own a home, since the high rent area can leave them little savings.
The world is full of tradeoffs. People juggle these considerations when they are choosing where to live: price, location, amenities, size, etc. Just because YOU value something doesn't mean OTHER PEOPLE value the same thing. And heck, if you have enough money, can buy a single family lot in the middle of a big city. Plus, there is also nothing wrong with being a life-long renter. Plenty of reasons to rent versus buying. Also plenty of reasons to live in a city, including saving thousands of dollars per year owning and maintaining personal vehicles. Plenty of reasons to live in a suburb too, if that's your bag.
As for whether people
want to live in denser urban environments or not, we can look at prices. The median prices are a good metric for looking at demand: higher prices, higher demand. We can see from prices alone, $/sqft is substantially higher in cities, because there is more demand to live there. And we can see that as well with former rust belt towns: people aren't burning down the doors to buy into them, so prices reflect that and you can buy a property for tens of thousands of dollars instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Practically nobody wishes to live in NYC as a senior, except those who ended up there and are glass-is-half-full type personalities who try to see the brighter side of things. Younger yes, to get a taste of what the excitement is about, but then it becomes more burden than anything else, when someone is no longer desperate to socialize to find a mate.
Are you sure about that? Where is your data to say people don't want to live in NYC as seniors?
There are plenty of reasons to want to abandon the suburbs as you get older: downsizing so you don't have a huge property to maintain, moving before you become disabled in older age, choosing a place that is ADA accessible so you don't become locked into your non-accessible home as you get older, moving to a community where you can get to the places you want to go sans-personal automobile (since old people have this habit of also losing their ability to drive safely). Nothing like being locked into your non-accessible, surburban home having to cross stroads to buy some basic groceries or go to any number of nearby places to socialize with friends and family.
I have lived in a dense major city environment. The novelty wore off, but we haven't even addressed the elephant in the room which is that many people enjoy having the things they worked for, not just their needs but their toys as well, and enjoy the freedom of driving, and as soon as some ignorant fool trys to suggest that they should give up what they want, then it becomes a more broad topic like, okay then, let's look at what you value and decide you shouldn't have that, either. I am pretty sure that anything you value that is a material thing, I could make an argument against, if I had my panties in a knot like a couple people in this topic, one of which I've blocked already but clearly I need to block more.
Bully for you. If you don't like city life, that's fine. Live where you want to live. But for those in cities and inner-ring suburbs, people should be able to densify their property if they want. And if you want to buy a single-family home with a big yard, buy a single-family home with a big yard. I don't want to stop you from doing that.
It's very simple. If you want to control what someone else does, you are treading on their freedom. Your short sighted argument seems fine to you, until it happens to you.
I don't want to control anyone. I just want people to have freedom to do more with their property instead of having NIMBY neighbors tell them what they can and can't build on their property. And I want to make it easier for my neighbors and future neighbors to be able to afford to live in cool neighborhoods instead of having prices driven to the sky by artificial restrictions imposed by local governments. I also just want people to have the freedom to safely get from point A to point B, and America's love affair with unnecessarily large and heavy vehicles runs counter to that philosophy.
If my neighbor wanted to convert their house to a duplex or a triplex, that would be perfectly fine with me. In my old neighborhood, people were gut renovating post-WW2 capes and splits and turning them into little mansions. What's the difference if it becomes a multi-generation household versus just having two nuclear families living side-by-side? The building envelope and number of vehicles would effectively be the same.