On the corner of Connecticut Avenue and Albemarle Street in the neighborhood of Van Ness, there is a consistent traffic hazard. Flagship Carwash is a thriving local business, amassing a long line of customers waiting through the intersection and down Albemarle Street from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. almost every day. Drivers who do not know that they have ended up in a carwash line cause congestion, confusion, honking, and excessive noise. The blockage causes dangerous traffic issues and restricts access to the road by the public.

Along Brooklyn’s Q subway line sits a small wooden cottage with a chimney, wooden shingles, and surrounded by antique rocking chairs. This is not a set piece for “Country Living,” but an active subway station which serves the neighborhoods of Midwood and Flatbush. This unique stationhouse, the only one in NYC with wooden shingles, was nearly lost. Its survival owes to its history and a Supreme Court decision defining regulatory takings.

Is the internet an essential service? If so, should the government regulate internet service prices? This past January, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that internet access was a “fundamental right” as New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) went into effect. This law requires that internet service providers (ISPs) in the state provide low-cost internet access to qualifying low-income households. ISPs argued that the ABA would increase demand on their networks and raise their expenditures, while the low state-set prices would not provide them with the necessary money to cover these additional costs. According to these ISPs, this will lower internet speeds for all state residents, regardless of whether they have internet access through the ABA or under an ordinary internet plan. A California legislator recently introduced a similar bill in her state. She argued that families need to access the internet for education, telehealth, employment opportunities, and more.

Comcast is the largest internet provider and often the sole provider in many areas of the United States. Without competition, Comcast has postponed upgrading its internet infrastructure in these uncontested regions, leaving millions of Americans with DSL internet that is too slow for subscribers to engage meaningfully in an increasingly digital world. Along with slow internet speeds, the lack of competition has allowed Comcast to adopt predatory pricing practices, further marginalizing some of the most vulnerable communities. To address these issues, what if a city or state took ownership of Comcast’s physical infrastructure, such as cables and service equipment, and allowed other service providers to sell to their residents, fostering competition? The idea of government-run physical network infrastructure, with competitive services run atop it, is not unknown.

Colorado Springs is renowned for its majestic views of the Pikes Peak mountain, overlooking the entire Eastern plains of Colorado. When viewing a map of Colorado Springs, it is evident that the city has grown naturally in accordance with each property getting to have a stellar view of this crown jewel in the Rockies. What makes the map particularly unique is its vertical sprawl—from North to South—each neighborhood seems almost curated towards this particular peak. However, new developments (and developers) have arrived in “the Springs” to attempt to ameliorate the local ongoing housing crisis. This proposed development (dubbed “One Vela”) would place a 27-story skyscraper right in the heart of downtown, a record-breaking 11 stories taller than the current tallest building in the city. Many Springs locals claim this is against the centuries long ban on tall buildings in the city—but is this a fact or fiction?