#adj4mp

[adj4mp]

The Costs of Trans Health Care for Children

Going privately the cost for puberty blockers is less than £100 per month.

Puberty blockers allow Teens to learn about themselves and the world. To take the time to make a reasoned and rational decision.

Half a century of use suggests that they are safe and entirely reversible.

They are seldom the first option for people questioning their gender, they're something that remarkably few take.

Teens who take puberty blockers have regret rates that are less than almost every surgery. The same statistic holds for most Gender Affirming Care

Typically a teen will be on them for 2-3 years representing a cost of £6000 in total.

A teen without access to them, when they believe they're important, will cost an order of magnitude more than this.

The cost of educating someone costs the UK government £19k

The cost of the environmental impact for one person growing up in the UK is approximately £30k

Every episode of self-harm costs the NHS a minimum of £800

The list of things goes on and on...

And these are just the things that the government has to pay for, it doesn't include the costs shouldered by family and friends.

The Samaritans estimate the cost to the economy of each suicide in the UK is around £1.5M

If giving 250 trans kids medication saves even 1 life that's a genuinely cost-effective measure. There were fewer than 100, but taking the option away has sent many teens for whom this wasn't an option (yet) into a spiral of concern.

So for those who don't believe like I do that it's a moral imperative to do everything possible to avoid preventable deaths, there's your economic reason. The treatment prevents the waste of government funding and thwarts the economic impacts, being a good person is the most cost-effective solution.

[adj4mp]

Yvette Cooper

The job of the Secretary of State for the Home Office is about national security, spycraft, policing and immigration. I doubt that there's anyone who's an expert in all aspects of this job who could take it on.

Cooper's education is in philosophy, politics and economics. She's worked in the US and as a journalist, and for 27 years she's been a member of parliament with roles in many areas of both government and shadow government.

She was sidelined under Corbyn following her own leadership bid, but she did dedicate that time to Home Affairs including immigration issues.

Cooper has served as shadow secretary for 3 years under Starmer's Shadow government and a further 4 years under Miliband. So she's got a base line of experience for the new role.

I think she has a lot going for her and I see why she's a good fit for the role.

I do see that some of this role is being picked up by Starmer, Cooper's response to the recent rioting has not been front and centre in the same way Starmer's has been.

The way that Spycraft works I'm not sure that there is any public evidence for sucess or knowledge in the feild, only for failures.

I understand why Cooper has this job but that doesn't mean I know how to feel about it.

[adj4mp]

What are the hidden costs of the two child cap? (I saw you breakdown the costs of failing to give trans healthcare surely there's an economic justification for removing the two child cap too)

First off thank you for my first question!

I have I think touched on the two child cap in other posts, but I this is an interesting exercise

At a glance I can think of a number of costs to having the 2 child cap. Firstly you're punishing people for something out of their control, second pregnancy twins, or multiple births beyond triplets at any stage lead to parents who have additional struggles.

You're in effect strong arming women into abortions for their financial security which is horrific. I'm pro choice but there's the choice aspect of that. I don't think we should be adding pressures to the choice, especially a choice where one side can make a woman feel like they murdered their unborn kid and on the other side is a life of poverty and inability to adequately raise their kid(s) in the happy nurturing environment that all kids deserve.

There will enevitably be more kids that are put up for adoption which is not that much more pleasent than abortions, if it's a multiple birth situation you're forcing parents to pick a child to abandon. Or they are forced to give up all the children from that pregnancy, this adds to the problems of the adoption and foster care systems which are already struggling.

Then if the parent persists and keeps the child and the choice pushes them into actual poverty then the child will face additional challenges growing up. Being in poverty risks a child's physical health if they are effectively starving, I know families who have had to make the choice for a parent to effectively starve in order to buy nappies and baby formula. Parents who only eat what their children do not finish.

Children will experiences additional social stress being the kid who doesn't have the nice things will make them the odd one out at school and will push them to becoming a victim of bullying or an instigator of bullying as a way of protecting themselves.

There may be a need to involve Social Services, Police, Mental Health Sevices and so on within the effected children's lives and all these things have a cost associated with them.

One child over and above the benefit cap will impact 4 lives at the very least, adding stress, anxiety, pain and suffering in many cases.

I do not believe that there are many people are not out there getting deliberately pregnant so that the supplementary benefits will make life easier.

A child costs far more than the child benefits covers and most parents know that, they realise another child won't ultimately help them and they cannot bare the suffering of giving up a pregnancy preterm or after birth even with that knowledge.

I haven't looked into the individual costs because the costs largely depend on a number of factors some of which cannot easily be accounted for. However Child Benefits are a means tested benefit, you do not get them unless they would make a significant difference to your household, as a result I believe the ultimate costs per person would be significantly larger for implementing the cap than for removing it.

But even if this wasn't true I'd be in favour of scrapping the cap because the aleviated suffering would be worth the price.

[adj4mp]

David Lammy

Lammy has spent a lot of the last few years overtly building international connections, it's not just his study of law at Harvard but he's made efforts all over the world as part of his job as an MP and shadow foreign secretary.

He has built partnerships with people across Europe and America working with his political equivalents and building bridges to people of influence both within the current governments there and their current opposition. He's been somewhat pragmatic with his approach it seems to me.

Lammy has spend the last quarter century embedding himself in british politics, getting selected for a by-election and elevated to an undersecretary position soon after.

As with his international approach, Lammy has somewhat played the Labour Party, supporting both Corbyn and Starmer at different times to take their places as leader and being considered on good terms by each.

I think this is actually good evidence for his suitability for the role his ability to build relationships across the political spectrum and seemingly come out of tricky decisions better than could be expected.

I fully expect that Lammy is going to end up in hot water over the next parliament for playing the international politics game well and not appealing as well to the national audience or his local constituency as a result.

[adj4mp]

Foreign Affairs

Before getting into the details of David Lammy and his appointment, I thought it important to write a post on international politics.

International politics is more complicated than one issue of moral injury.

As individuals its very simple to condemn single acts or even campaigns to declare our support for or against one action without concern for repercussions or the ongoing relationships.

I stand with civilians in all conflicts, civilians didn't sign up to put their lives at risk, didn't have a choice in war coming to their doorsteps, and can't once it's their easily escape that trauma even if they can get themselves, their friends and their families out of the hell their lives will be uprooted and changed forever.

But things are rarely that simple when it comes to governments. Governments and Nations have to be considerate of the power they have and the control they can exert. There's hard power the form that flows from the barrel of a gun, and soft powers that come from diplomacy and talking.

Using hard powers destroys any soft power you had, putting soldiers in place to draw a line completely negates any convincing a nation could take part in. You resorted to a threat and so any talking you do to convince the other party to back down can come across as an unwillingness to actually follow through with the threat, make your hard powers seem weaker.

And the wrong words by the wrong people destroy soft power too. In a world where everything that a politician says is available to be seen, read or heard the other side of the world in seconds or minutes, a leader declaring that they will never use a diplomatic tool or that they intend to fully use a diplomatic tool to appeal to their nation for support takes options out of the palms of negotiators.

It is far easier for a diplomat or negotiator to talk through side channels and back channels to convey messages about what the Prime Minister, Government, Ministers, Generals or anyone else is thinking if there's deniability about their stances. If a Prime Minister says they will never commit troups to helping to solve a problem then the envoys can't say "if you do X thing to stand down your attack we'll help by offering 1000 of our soldiers to act as a diplomatic force that's seen more neutrally by both sides" similarly if they publically declare they will bring the full force of their military to bare then the negotiator may be killed as an enemy spy.

When it comes to international politics there are no friends just interests, where interests align you have allies but being enemies now doesn't mean you'll be enemies forever, and being allies now doesn't mean things will stay that way.

I think it's unreasonable to expect our leaders to tell us things to put our minds at ease if it jeopardises our ability to achieve the goals we want.

And yes it is going to make our government complicit in some actions that the majority of people would find reprehensible at times but that's the cost of being a respected and respectable nation and an active part of international affairs.

[adj4mp]

Kemi Badenoch and the King's Speech

As with Sunak I'm not certain as to Badenoch's ultimate future within the oposition shadow government but in Badenoch's case I am skipping her present appointment and jumping straight into her statement on the King's Speech because it's fascinating in the way that it tells on the previous government.

Her speech follows directly from the one given by Angela Rayner and is overtly friendly with a subtext of hostility. Hostility that I believe informs on the actions of the previous government.

Some highlights

Taking credit for the current itteration of the party for things that were achieved more than a quarter century ago. There are very few MPs who are still in parliament that bare any responsibility for those achievements. I am unconvinced as to the actual merit that should be applied to the then government, the systems existed before the government in the 80s so the credit likely lands closer to the World Wars.

Conflating a military dictatorship with socialist propaganda to socialist policies in a democratic nation

She accuses the other members of government of setting up Rayner with an impossible task and taking all her previous work away from her.

She misunderstands or misrepresents the role of the oposition.

She offers a hand of friendship while in the same breath being rather nasty about Rayner's collegues, motives and work ethic

I have a feeling some of this reflects Badenoch's actual experiences, she was put to work without support, given tasks that were not to her liking, and was denied oportunities that she put effort into.

I can see a pervasive attitude to demonise people with whom they disagree and to offer only false friendship in order to achieve their own ends evident in the speech too.

The contribution added little to the discussion on the kings speech.

I am going to be critical of any claims of credit that are not by people who were there and who did the work and where their oposition can have a rebuttal. The way UK parties realign themselves with every few election cycles and leadership change overs the parties that exist today bare only broad concepts and a name in resemblence to their incarnation 25 years ago, achievements are 50 years old should not be claimed as a win for a current version of the party. The people who did those things are if they're still alive likely 80 or 90 years old and very few of them remain influential members of british politics.

I would like to note that it is my belief that if you want to make friends if you want to build bridges you should not do so by setting an antagonistic tone. You will not make someone your friend by attacking them or their friends, questioning their character or their motivations.

I do not understand what Badenoch was hoping to convey with this speech but for me it set off many alarm bells.

[adj4mp]

Time Out

After my health concerns (which might be gallstones yay) and a not-insignificant amount of burnout I took a much-needed couple of days off from writing posts to reorientate myself. I realise I'm the only one putting this pressure on myself but the never wanting to fall behind is exhausting.

I've seen some people I think of rather fondly take much-needed breaks from their public platforms after years of non-stop work and it made me appreciate the sheer amount of effort I'm putting into this.

Not all of the work for this blog is the writing. Reading, watching and sometimes just thinking about the ideas for a time is productive too. The writing has been some what of a benchmark I like seeing my number of queued posts tick up every day, like I'm giving myself breathing room. But the other aspects of this are just as important to my progress.

I'm reading some of my old posts and comments made in other places and I'm working on reformatting them and rewording them for here. That lets me reconsider and improve on those previous ideas.

I've also taken to reordering some of my posts in earnest now as you'll have no doubt seen a pattern over the last few days. I've also had a couple of Anon Asks some answered quickly at the time while others will be here in the next few days.

[adj4mp]

Pat McFadden and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

The role that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seems to fill is one that's simultaneously very important and yet has almost no responsibilities. While Raynor is the deputy leader of the Labour Party and deputy Prime Minister the Duchy of Lancaster is the second highest rank within the Government. And while historically there were responsibilities to the Duchy of Lancaster those have largely been usurped or delegated making the one that's primary responsibility is advisory to the cabinet, PM and King.

In some ways the role is one that mirrors the Speaker for the House, they're the one who chairs meetings and discussions and ensure all the business is brought to the table. Though as chairman they're permitted to have their own say and opinion in meetings a way that the Speaker is not as a representative of the whole house.

McFadden himself was a minister under Gordon Brown, and a Secretary of Tony Blair so his expertise as an advisor comes from his presence during the last Labour Government. He has also worked within the shadow cabinet in several positions giving him a fairly rounded outlook of the role of the cabinet.

This is one of those jobs that I don't really have any opinion about the appointment mainly because I can't really judge the role, it's not especially prominent to the public and the requirements are somewhat unintuitive.

[adj4mp]

Copyrights and Patents

The purpose of Copyrights and Patents is to give the original author a chance to make money on their work, to derive profit from their mental labour.

In principle it's about ensuring that people have the opportunity to protect their ideas and work that are difficult to create but easy to replicate.

But every right comes with a responsibility and the responsibility for Copyrights and Patents is to actually use them in some way.

Once something costs more to run or produce than you profit by selling it then the responsibility to put it into the public domain kicks in.

You've made your money, you've had your opportunity to profit from your work, you've decided that to continue is not within your interests and so others should be permitted to innovate upon your original works.

There are several works I remember from my childhood that are no-longer accessible anywhere, be it TV shows, Movies, Radio Series, archived recordings of news broadcasts or live performances, scripts for plays and music, and videogames. There's so much intellectual property that had a small audience and so has become abandoned and now only exists in the heads of those still alive to recall it. This should never be permitted to happen.

Similarly many patents sit idle and unused with clear benefits to the world, ways of producing medicine, ways of architecting computers, things that were once bleeding edge and easily available and were supplanted by the same people or companies that produced the original. Things where it was more profitable for the company or people to effectively impose obsolescence by removing the original product(s) from the market.

Things are made unrepairable and unable to be enjoyed simply by the march of progress and the shelving of ideas that have finished being profitable just so other people can not catch up.

When it's no-longer in your interest to support or use a thing you've created then it should be released to the public domain for fans to take care of, for other companies to step in and provide parts for, for competitors to challenge you because doing that is in the best interest of everyone.

The idea of these things expiring after some amount of time may on the face of it seem reasonable but I think that fundamentally lacks nuance that's necessary for the modern pace of technology, consumption and progression.

[adj4mp]

Reeves, the King's Speech and Public Spending: Inheritance

On the King's Speech Reeves talked about some of the conservative legacy, echoing many items that Starmer talked about.

She focused on the economy and that was the way to get to a better situation, I understand that Economic pressures take time to come to bare fruit, if you do something today the result may take several months or years to have an impact. Reeves shows she understands the economic pressures but she should have talked about the time to fix things and that people would still be feeling the pains of political decisions made by the last government in the mean while.

Instead she focuses on the things she did quickly and implies that the results will come equally quickly. Nothing Reeves did in July will be felt by the average person until October or November at the earliest. And with the summer riots, people feeling the tightness in their budgets in the run-up to Christmas and so on what people might remember from this election is that it didn't have the immediate and total reprieve that seemed to be promised.

Reeves' contribution to the Public Spending: Inheritance debate consisted firstly of laying a lot of troubling accusations at the feet of the previous government. While I don't like negativity in politics to allow the truth of the budget shortfalls to go unrevealed would be a massive disservice to the people, on the assumption that this is true of course.

Hunt denied the accusations of hiding the data which is the only position he could take regardless of the truth of the matter to admit the failings would be a political blunder. I'm inclined to believe that there was overspending and that Hunt was if not complicit at least benefiting from that failure in disclosure.

But this is about Reeves. Reeves answered questions for 2 hours at the dispatch box and kept giving more and precise details throughout. I get the sense that she knew that this would be a very tense topic and she did her best to answer what she could at the dispatch box rather than as many do rely on written answers.

From both contributions, I get the sense that she has extreme competence on the matters at hand but I do not fully understand her personal stance, she is speaking with the authority of the office and made her contributions in that light, but I can't tell very much about her position as a result, it's why I ended up talking about two debates for Reeves rather than one. I get the impression that she's on the right half of the Labour Party, but I cannot confirm that either way.

[adj4mp]

Rights and Responsibilities

I believe every right that exists comes with an associated responsibility.

The right to life comes with the responsibility to provide protections and safeguards from violence in the form of policing and courts.

The right to freedom and liberty comes with the responsibility to not prevent others from living their lives the way they would like to.

The right to free speech is a responsibility to use that speech wisely, to be educated and to ensure others can be educated.

The right to property and ownership comes with the responsibility to not hoard more than you need to take more than what is fair and reasonable

This is just a small sample, but I think the principle is good and more people should embrace the idea

[adj4mp]

Rachel Reeves

Chancellor of the Exchequer is the first role I'm looking at that I consider to need a certain level of expertise. Some of this can be gained as part of a parliamentary career, but it also takes considerable knowledge of economics and critical thinking as well as some understanding of philosophy and sociology.

Reeves certainly has the qualifications in all economics and philosophy, the critical thinking is covered by a master's in science, while the sociology is a major part of politics. I knew very little of Reeve's CV before writing the description of the qualifications I think about with regard to that job so that she ticks so many boxes makes me believe my inferences for the job requirements wasn't too far off the mark.

Her expertise and experiences have brought her into shadow ministerial positions for almost her entire parliamentary career. Being new to parliament and pushed quickly into higher ranking roles means her talents were recognised very early on. And given she was even chosen to contest a by-election her skills might have been recognised and wanted by the Labour government under Blair and Brown as well.

Before Parliament her work for the Bank of England at least on the surface level mirrors Sunak though she claims that she avoided the excess wealth that working within the banking system can provide, skipping out on a job with Goldman Sachs an investing banking company. Assuming this is true and guessing that the head hunting took place before Reeve's first political campaign it shows a serious level of forethought and commitment, where Sunak made his millions and left the banking sector after the financial crash Reeves seems to have avoided being embroiled in the worst excesses of that recession adding to her personal credibility for the job.

Her approach and methodology as I understand it is a case of "If we build it they will come" make the foundations good enough and it enables others to build systems upon it. Infrastructure projects, education, roads, the NHS, telecommunications, rail, and more have been somewhat neglected by public funding in recent years and the cracks in those foundations can be seen in all mannor of places.

She is a very promising proposal for Chancellor and I am excited to see her budget.

[adj4mp]

Anarchy in the UK

Okay a slight exaggeration but the UK has had some troubling riots recently and I've been following the news rather than commenting on it.

I was surprised and delighted to hear Kier Starmer wanted to use existing police powers and the existing systems in place to deal with the disorder, reactionary and hasty legislation is often poorly thought out and poorly executed.

I was horrified to hear the news that people talking about the rioting in the wrong context may be subject to criminal prosecutions, however there is no absolute right to freedom of speech in the UK.

I deplore the use of violence for political ends. It rarely solves the problem at hand and often damages the causes for which you stand.

The threat of violence is an unreasonably effective tool for achieving political ends and that threat means nothing if you aren't willing and capable of following through. But the ends rarely justify the means.

I think protests are good, I think that standing up for the things in which you believe has value but there is a line between protesting legitimate grievances and rocking up in a place in order to hurt the people who live there. Be that direct action against individuals or groups or businesses and community centres.

Staging a demonstration outside parliament and filling in the required paperwork to legitimise that protest is a far cry from arriving at various cities and trashing their town centres, attacking people including the police protecting their area, and destroying things people care about.

I expect the law to act swiftly but I fear that this is only going to exacerbate existing issues.

(note: I am deliberately not legitimising the rioters by discussing their 'grievances')

[adj4mp]

Rishi Sunak

Leader of the opposition is a job that like PM and deputy prime minister has no real job requirements other than a tentative support of the largest minority of MPs. It helps to have the confidence of those MPs and a certain level of competence to provide an effective and robust eyes of scrutiny to the government.

I do not believe that Sunak has the confidence and his showing at PMQ's since the election have left a lot to be desired with regards to posing a genuine challenge to the labour party's agenda. I think the reasons for this are threefold.

Firstly the Labour party just presented themselves as having a substantial mandate to govern, not an insurmountable one but certainly a large enough one to make any of the 5PMs that preceded Starmer jealous. An Election defeat as striking as that in 2024 would make nearly any politician rethink their position and shake their confidence and eat humble pie.

Secondly is the support that Sunak is used to, with the number of MPs cheering and supporting him at least in gross numbers reducing from more than half to one in 5, Sunak will be contending with a lack of expertise that largely agrees with him from within the chamber as well as a severe reduction in the amount of staff support.

And Third but by no means least Sunak's position as leader of the Conservative party is one that has it's expiration date almost set in stone, my understanding is that he will not contest the next leadership election by putting his own name forward, either he's stepping down by choice or he's being forced out by other factions within the party neither of which are particularly tenable positions. If he feels he's only keeping the seat warm and has lost the will to fight he won't make a good Leader of the opposition anyway.

I hope that inspite of the loss of position his expertise remains highly respected within the shadow government, even if he's not the leader of the opposition for the whole of the current parliament Sunak's background in finance and his experiences as PM and Chancellor would make him a reasonable fit for the Shadow Chancellor position.

If the Conservative party elect a leader who will put country before party, one who will do more to stoke unity than pile on within the existing divides of both the conservative party and the wider they will not let pride and vindictiveness relegate Sunak into obscurity or make him feel like it's in his best interest to trigger a by-election for his constituency.

I don't like wasting talent and skills, even if I disagree with a politician I don't think sidelining them and there expertise is always the best option. Sunak has the potential to hold Reeves to account if he wanted to, to challenge spending and taxation policy and provide an equally viable path through the quagmire of treasury decisions. They might not always align with the agenda set by Starmer, Reeves and Raynor but it could provide a credible alternative to consider.

That is the largest job of being in opposition. Failure to scrutinize and examine legislation and its potential impacts allows a government carte blanche to enact decisions with wide ranging and potentially catastrophic impacts. This is also the role of the second chamber but they have far less power to curtail governmental overreach as the power of fatal and regret motions are limited by the parliament act, a rogue and super majority party if left unchallengdd could choose to enact almost any legislation it likes.

This will likely go live while the leadership contest is likely in full swing so what this means for the future of the shadow cabinet is anyone's guess. For now, I shall continue down the list of prominent members of the House of Commons in no particular order but I fully expect there to be a "corrections and amendments" post in the future

[adj4mp]

Picking a Direction

I've been told that if I get into parliament I need to specialise and really I should pick those specialties right now and just focus on them and let other people worry about other things.

I have some specialties I can bring to the table there are definitely things for which I'm passionate about, I understand well and I can bring that expertise with me.

Social Housing and the Benefits system, I have experience working with my Social Housing provider and I've done Work Experience with the Job Center, I've been though homelessness and I've been though the benefits system and even been on the receiving end of glitches and errors.

Mental Health and the NHS, I've struggled with my health for most of my life, I was the fat kid at school, I've had undiagnosed or untreated conditions, I've dealt with physical disability, been treated and mistreated by the NHS but I see how most people within the NHS are genuinely caring and want to help. I applied for nurse training during the pandemic and want to see the NHS thrive.

Computers and Technology, my first passion as an adult was computers and computing, I studied Computer Science, AI and Mathematics at Aberystwyth University at 18. I know the things to look out for and the questions to ask. I understand the research process and I have experience reading technical papers. I understand the skill it takes to make things seem effortless and the limitations computers have. I want to see technologies that make the world a better place and see people with good ideas get funding for their projects, ideas may fail or reveal themselves to be infeasible but that's a cost of research, but failure is often just as important to science as the successes.

I have a whole range of issues like these that I have intimate and detailed personal knowledge of and I will want to pursue all of them. I will not be an expert on all the issues, I cannot know everything.

I know that saying "I don't know anything about X" is going to be seen or used as a weakness.

I don't think it is, I think that acknowledging there are things I don't know is a strength, it shows that I'm willing to learn and listen, and that I'm not going to jump to conclusions and give answers to things based on limited information.

However, I want to have some answers for most of the issues that I might encounter. I know it means there's a lot of work to do but I feel like the vast majority of the questions I'd need to have answers for are those that relate to the labour government and their implemented policies, I feel like those are going to be more at the forefront of people's minds in the next election than anything presented by the last government. Especially if the Labour government proves that they can deliver any amount of improvement.

[adj4mp]

Rayner and the King's Speech

Rayner got her opportunity to speak on the king's speech on Friday.

Highlights include

Repeating the claim of 14 years of Chaos which Starmer mentioned, continuing to point fingers

Getting to building more homes, not necessarily all cheap homes but the right homes for the right areas and in co-operation with local authorities and existing residents

Discussion of Building projects other than Housing, I'm particularly interested in Data Centres on this list, I know my constituency has a number of factors that would make Data Centers here a good fit. Not uniquely so but it would revitalise the area with new modern jobs including both high skill positions, lower skilled labour and security work, all of which would be a boon to the area.

Onshore wind, I'm always interested in these projects I am one of the weird people who find the industrial design of wind farms charming, they're poorly suited for my area, yet any renewable energy sources are a good move. They do have downsides but I think these are manageable.

I largely think that Rayner's outlook is solid and she addresses many of the things under her scope as well as a few things that have wider-ranging impacts.

I would have liked to see fewer snipes at the previous government but the outlook seems positive on the surface.

One thing I would have liked to have seen more of is about building communities, balanced and sustainable communities, including all the necessary infrastructure to make housing developments work, the inclusion of mixed zoning, 200 houses shouldn't be built without a corner shop, 1000 houses shouldn't be built without a doctor's surgery or school or other amenities with wider impacts to pick up the stresses of the local areas. Every community should have communal green spaces and safe locations for families to enjoy together and teens to exist without harassment. Building communities that work for everyone requires a lot more thought than just houses to live in and work within commuting distance. Building walkable suburbs and reasons to be part of the community are vital to it's long term value and sustainability. I understand that time was limited but this would have been a valuable addition to the debate.