funding idea

Hi folks. Here's a notion I've held for years, but never subjected to 
real scrutiny. Your comments would be interesting at minimum. 
Above and beyond all the oft-repeated issues to be addressed in 
converting an auto-centric North American town (practically a 
redundant phrase)is the bedrock issue of money. Lots of it would be 
needed to jump-start a project of a sufficient size, and to sustain 
it through the pains of resistance and cultural change required for 
it to be accepted and thrive. 
Short of some zillionaire stepping forward (ain't happened yet so 
ain't gonna)how about this: most towns are sitting on a fortune in 
real estate they don't realize they can liquidate, to great profit. 
Roughly half the land area of a typical North American town is 
consumed by publicly-owned roads and rights-of-way. Sell much of this 
to private developers to build housing and use the proceeds to not 
only build the required extra infrastructure but also incent 
otherwise skeptical voters to assent, plus fund city services that 
are strapped in the best of times and evicerated in downturns such as 
we are now in. 
Who might accept such a scheme? Taxpayers and civic leaders of 
liberal-leaning towns being hammered by upside-down budgets. (These 
are in abundance at the moment.)
For example, a town, or a portion of it, would dangle the prospect of 
substantial remuneration to existing property-owners (and renters)in 
return for the sale and development of their streets. Perhaps every 
third or fourth street would be left open to vehicles and to parking 
facilities for same, the rest turned into housing or 
housing/commercial structures connected only by walkways. Some 
portion of most blocks could be set aside as public open space. The 
typical property-owner might get a hefty cash payment or a long-term 
property-tax credit in compensation. 
This leverages the vast influence of lucre (often filthy but useful 
if well-directed) towards a goal - carfree living - that most of our 
North American neighbors simply cannot appreciate until they see it 
for their own eyes.
I'm grossly oversimplifying the concept but I trust the readers of 
this group may see the possibilities.
Not too long ago, while living in Berkeley, I mentioned this in brief 
to a neighbor who described himself as a dyed-in-the-wool Berkeley 
radical. He regarded me with some horror, as if I was a Martian or 
maybe some kind of Republican. I haven't broached it since. Maybe my 
good neighbor was just too used to driving his ancient Volvo over the 
local potholes, or hadn't been able to visit Venice, the Cinque 
Terre, Gulangyu, Zermatt, and the other places where one can 
experience car-free life. 
But just think of the stupefying sums that could be raised by selling 
the streets in a place like Berkeley. Think how civic leaders and a 
critical mass of voters, open to a convention-bashing notion of 
greatly-constrained auto traffic (with its currently-popular 
undertones of making loud statements against the Bush-oil-SUV 
paradigm)might be pursuaded to overcome their reticence in the face 
of such a potential windfall. 
The ideal of car-free (or nearly so) living is sufficient to motivate 
the readers of this posting, all of whom I presume are of limited 
resources as am I. It is not, by itself, going to motivate anything 
like a critical mass of the public, anywhere in our continent, for 
the forseable future. But add the money from the sale of streets, and 
the political mindset may change. Developers, if properly incented 
and managed, may be relied upon to fund the speculative building 
required. 
What thoughts are stirred by this idea?