My point is that the principle of existing homeowners funding infrastructure for new homes is only tenable when

• developers are not creating huge externalities by creating ever larger suburbs with infrastructure funded by the core (take Ottawa as an example for that dynamic)
• when the base of established homeowners is large enough to support the rate of growth.

In the first case, development fees based on lot size for new sprawling burbs are a reasonable way to push the market towards density.

In the second case, with a high rate of growth in a specific market, other means of redistribution such as government subsidies may be a better way to redistribute.

But you’re not in agreement with charging the full economic cost of the sprawl to the homeowners who choose to live there?

We’re in Ottawa, so that may be an exception, but generally here it’s been extraordinarily expensive to develop the suburbs beyond the greenbelt, and until the development fees were increased in the late 90s, studies showed that new homeowners only bore about 1/5th of the cost.

Much of the development classification from farmland was effectively unplanned and forced through by suburban municipal councils before the amalgamation in the 1990s.

The costs of extending utilities across the National Capital Commission lands was extraordinary and no one inside the greenbelt benefited. A major bridge had to be built because the traffic impact was not considered etc.

There have been more recent improvements such as the retroactive construction of separate wastewater and storm water systems in the core that benefit everyone by keeping sewage out of the rivers.

The O-train construction unfortunately has been a burden on all without the benefits that should come with a modern rapid transit system.

We live in a society - yes.

But that’s the reason many of the development fees were put in back in the 1970s and 80s - there were significant equity issues where the exponentially growing new shiny suburbs were built on the property taxes of a much smaller base of urban homeowners who were left with old, inferior and unmaintained city infrastructure.

So, let’s seriously consider whether what the equity issues are now and whether those fees are reasonable cost recovery for infrastructure vs a tax cash grab - or if there’s enough of a base of established homeowners that they could carry the development costs for new homes through reasonable tax increases.

Actually, they did not get subsidized by prior generations of owners - unless you’re talking about people in their 90s.

That’s what the development fees and taxes were put in place for - especially in places where extending services out across greenbelts into suburbs was incredibly costly.

Having crumbling roads and community infrastructure in the core and polished, higher quality infrastructure in the burbs was an equity issue that was taken on in the 1970s, long before my generation was anywhere near buying homes.

I do think it’s fair to have lower development fees where there’s densification - that bringing more people to use and support existing infrastructure.

But subsidizing sprawl remains as problematic as it was in the 1960s.

Last thought, Intergenerational Inequity wa ma first recognized and discussed in the 1990s regarding GenX.

GenX remains the most ignored generation but the fact is that the generation suffered two very deep recessions in 1983 and 1987-1991 plus faced incredibly high (18%) interest rates and inflation in the 1980s. This meant that none of them were buying homes before their 40s without the help of parents. While Canadian GenX ducked the US mortgage-backed securities disaster in 2008, it’s really a false narrative to suggest they are or have been in the ‘I’m all right Jack, devil take the hindmost’ frame of mind. If anything, they know the social safety nets and equity provisions were the only thing that made things possible for them.

Explain to me please why existing owners should subsidize the building of city infrastructure in new developments.

I don’t live in Toronto but building new sewers, water systems, roads, community centres etc. shouldn’t be funded by existing taxpayers who still have above ground utility cables and no sidewalks.

I’m rather interested to see where they go with Korby.

It’s important for Christine Chapel’s character that the backstory they are developing for the TOS relationship is credible.

It was really rather sad and mortifying for Chapel in TOS to be shown as a intelligent and successful scientist, who took a Starfleet starship posting as a nurse to track down a missing fiance only to have him revealed as a dark mastermind turning people into androids.

Having what appeared to be a one sided, unrequited longing for Spock as well, made Chapel come across as pathetic, and very much shifted it to misogyny. Or, at least a complete failure of a Bechtel-type test where a female character exists for more than her interest in male characters.

(Even Majel Barrett’s Number One in ‘The Cage’ was put in an unrequited attraction situation with Pike.)

The show clearly shows Murderbot as being ACE and uncomfortable with the sexual and gendered reactions of others towards them — which is as important in my view the outward and physical apparent gender.

I have started (another) rewatch of TAS recently.

This time, what’s struck me is how much the Kirk in TAS aligns with Paul Wesley’s performance.

Despite TAS being animated to look like Shatner’s Kirk and Shatner voicing the part, somehow there’s less swagger and a more intellectual Kirk in TAS.

It’s in the writing surely but perhaps the creators had a sense that they needed to shift the tone to sell the drama on an animated show — especially one that took advantage of the medium to show even more trippy aliens and phenomena.

I wasn’t looking for it but there it is.

The Animated Series that ran in the mid 70s although it was originally just called ‘Star Trek.’

It had the same cast as TOS. Roddenberry was the showrunner again (after leaving before season 3 of TOS) and DC Fontana was the Supervising Editor in charge of the scripts.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series

And yet, you’ll see many people posting elsewhere on social media that it shouldn’t be relevant.

Can’t imagine trying to share a life with someone who didn’t share my values, but there seems to be a contingent that think that other things should be more important.

At 22 episodes total, and only 6 in TAS second season, it could go either way.

I am willing to concede so that those who don’t love TAS much as I do can get their proper closure to the 5 year mission.

And then there’s part of me that very much wants Vanguard to be the new, darker station-based serialized ensemble show to fill the DS9 niche we haven’t quite had in this era.

TAS is the 4th season of TOS - with some of the scripts adapted from the prep for a live-action TOS season 4 that never happened. (Yes, TAS IS canon!)

Now, we know that Arex and M’Ress are difficult to bring to live action, but who’s to say that their rotations on Enterprise aren’t done, and Chekov isn’t back, as year 5 begins?

Indiewire has a less positive review - “Brings the Fun — and Zombies — but Misses Chances to Go Deeper”

https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/shows/star-trek-strange-new-worlds-season-3-review-1235132207/

As I share this reviewer’s opinion on Tomorrow-cubed, I think I’m at the point of wanting to stop myself from reading more reviews now…

I’ve been wondering how much of the decision to wrap SNW with a short sixth season might have to do with Goldsman’s contract with Paramount coming to an end and his new one with another franchise and major studio.

SNW really was his project, regardless of Alonso Myers being the co-showrunner.

There’s a possibility that this is also about a change in leadership as the show transitions to a true TOS show, perhaps hopping to a time post-TAS but before the movies, and even shifting somewhat in tone.

All of this would make sense of casting an older actor as Jim Kirk.

Ryan Britt had a good review for Inverse, and an interesting take on the show overall.

It’s tempting to say that SNW succeeds because, of all the newer Trek shows, it’s the one that feels the most like fan fiction. Or perhaps, to put it another way, it’s Star Trek version of Marvel’s What If? In this case, the “What If?” scenario that is floated in nearly every episode is “What if the 60s Star Trek show were made today?”

Given how much of a OG fan Akiva Goldsman is, this seems a fair assessment - even if other, mostly younger fans, have different ideas about where the show should link up with the original.

https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/star-trek-strange-new-worlds-season-3-review

Losing a spouse and choosing to focus on raising your kids when you have the financial resources seems a value-based choice.

Martin Short, another Canadian comedian of the same generation, also stopped working for many years when his wife died in 2010.

His return to work in Only Murders in the Building has been enormously successful - and has reportedly led to a romantic attachment with Meryl Streep who also lost a spouse to cancer and had a hiatus in work.

One has to wish Moranis similar professional and personal success.

I was hoping that SNW would focus on Pike and his crew and less on the legacy characters.

But it seems Goldsman has had his ideas about it since the early 1970s and he’s fulfilling his fan dreams, as an EP and writer, of filling in the backstories of the characters he and we love. I can’t naysay that and it certainly sold the suits on 5 seasons of an excellent show.

We have to keep in mind that we’ve only seen 20 of 46 episodes, less than half the full run.

I believe that the new benchmark for selling a licence for reruns on other streamers and linear has dropped from over 70 episodes to a bit over 40 based on various industry reports. So this definitely puts SNW above that threshold.

This does raise the question though whether there is a plan to morph this into some kind of TOS continuation past year 5 and TAS.

So a half season + a one-hour series finale?

Having only 5 seasons seems the new normal since they haven’t been able to actually produce one season per calendar year and actors’ contracts run 7 years.

But having a short season seems weird, like some kind of negotiated compromise.

This is just going to feed the ‘Kurtzman is done when his contract expires …’ speculation.