Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

mapstoryblog.thenittygritty.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 172 posts

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#91

Post by ars »

BurningFrog wrote: post #22
rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that some of the most charming neighborhoods in the country (e.g. Chelsea in New York, DuPont in D.C.) were built before all that crap. You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together. But most of the rest of the country feels dead in comparison.

Make that the world. At least in Stockholm all the most desirable locations would be illegal to build today for dozens of reasons. Meanwhile, newly built areas range from awful to tolerable.

> Make that the world.

Please don't!!!

I stay far far far away from the dense cities. I can't stand those places.

I'm quite happy with the way in the US you can pick where you want to live - anything from superdense, to urban, to suburban, to rural.

Whatever you like, there's a city that will match you.

Even better is how in some cities there is a mix, all within 50 miles of each other you have all the types. You get the benefit of business city center without actually having to live there.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#92

Post by ars »

rayiner wrote: post #13
clarkmoody wrote: post #8

First and foremost, we need to abolish the laws that caused this all to happen. Yes, that’s right – all of this was required to happen, by law. Many people think that sprawl is a free market phenomenon, and they are exactly wrong. Sprawl is caused by the following policies – I call these Sprawl Laws; you can find them for yourself in your local city code (for the most succinct explanation, see this paper[1]): * Zonin…

It's interesting that some of the most charming neighborhoods in the country (e.g. Chelsea in New York, DuPont in D.C.) were built before all that crap. You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together. But most of the rest of the country feels dead in comparison.

> charming neighborhoods in the country (e.g. Chelsea in New York

That's charming to you???? Looking at photos of it gives me the creeps. How can people stand to live in places like that?

> But most of the rest of the country feels dead in comparison.

?????

The rest of the country feels open and alive, not crowded and oppressive.

I've very glad that in the US you can pick and choose what you like, and it's not all a monoculture. You live in a density you like and I'll live in one I like.

But please don't go out and advocate for more of what you like while pretending other people's desires are somehow "bad".

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#93

Post by aaronbwebber »

theanomaly wrote: post #55

I'm confused It’s simple – here’s how it works: Say a community is built in Year 1. The community’s streets need to be rebuilt every 30 years. In Year 30 a new, identical community is built. Now twice the amount of taxes are coming, and so for time being the property owners only need to pay half the amount. And 30 years later, in Year 60, two new communities are built; as long as the number of properties and property…

Community A doesn't take out a loan. The roads were built with exogenous funds. Starting in 30 years, Community A has to start paying X dollars a year in maintenance on it's roads. Community A taxes itself $X/2 per year and pays for a fire department with it.

In Year 30, Community B is built with exogenous funds. Starting in 30 years, Community B has to start paying $X a year in maintenance on it's roads. Community A has to raise taxes to $X, half of which goes to maintenance on it's roads and half of which goes to A's fire department, and Community B starts paying $X in taxes every year, half of which goes to maintenance on A's roads and half of which goes to B's fire department.

In Year 60, Community A and Community B each have to come up with an additional $X/2 per year in taxes or cut their fire departments.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#94

Post by [deleted] »

ars wrote: post #91
BurningFrog wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make that the world. At least in Stockholm all the most desirable locations would be illegal to build today for dozens of reasons. Meanwhile, newly built areas range from awful to tolerable.

> Make that the world. Please don't!!! I stay far far far away from the dense cities. I can't stand those places. I'm quite happy with the way in the US you can pick where you want to live - anything from superdense, to urban, to suburban, to rural. Whatever you like, there's a city that will match you. Even better is how in some cities there is a mix, all within 50 miles of each other you have all the types. You get…

[deleted]

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#95

Post by ars »

cletus wrote: post #62

I wonder if at some point we'll look back at the 20th century for what it was: a complete disaster of urban planning as sacrifice to the Church of the Car. I live in NYC. It still befuddles me when I see people driving around Manhattan (why??). On a Saturday you can see traffic backed up half a mile to get to the Holland Tunnel. How was any of this not entirely foreseeable? Why do people endure it? Anyway I discussed…

> I wonder if at some point we'll look back at the 20th century for what it was: a complete disaster of urban planning as sacrifice to the Church of the Car.

Never, that's when. Some people (not you) actually like to have the space to live in. So you need a car. The goal is not the car, the goal is space.

It's not a disaster at all, it's a breath of fresh air, having space.

> I live in NYC.

You do that, and I'll stay far away from that place. I've been there, I would absolutely loath to live there.

> ....gun....car....crime

You have got to be kidding. The crime rate in cities is much higher, if anything cars reduce crime.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#96

Post by jws »

r00fus wrote: post #89
jws wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

St. Louis City also has a problem with its beloved "earnings tax". At one point as our office space lease renewal was approaching I plotted all of our 100+ employees at the time on a map, almost all software engineers, about 2/3 of them lived west of the city and 1/3 lived east, and only a single one lived in the city, and he was in a temporary apartment immediately post divorce, didn't get the house. To me that says…

First time I've ever heard the highways fawned over as "teleporting"...

Depends where you live and when you drive. Stay out of the evening rush hour in certain areas of town and you can count on 65mph to your destination. If you are popping across the river in the middle of the day there is no problem. Some people do have jobs that turn them out a 4-5pm in unfortunate locations. When I worked in one of those locations I shifted my schedule a bit so I worked until 6pm instead. Waiting 60 minutes turned a 45 minute commute into a 15 minute commute.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#97

Post by rayiner »

ars wrote: post #92
rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that some of the most charming neighborhoods in the country (e.g. Chelsea in New York, DuPont in D.C.) were built before all that crap. You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together. But most of the rest of the country feels dead in comparison.

> charming neighborhoods in the country (e.g. Chelsea in New York That's charming to you???? Looking at photos of it gives me the creeps. How can people stand to live in places like that? > But most of the rest of the country feels dead in comparison. ????? The rest of the country feels open and alive, not crowded and oppressive. I've very glad that in the US you can pick and choose what you like, and it's not all a…

I think "desire" has little to do with it. Right now in my age demographic tons of friends are gnashing their teeth because "public transit" and "decent schools" are apparently incompatible among American urban planners.

And suburban sprawl is hardly "open and alive." Here in NoVA it's just mile after mile of asphalt and concrete with most of the greenery strategically planted as highway noise breaks and to separate subdivisions. If you want to see "open and alive" go to cities in Europe. If you start driving out of Amsterdam, it's crazy how quickly you're in the middle of dairy farms.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#98

Post by drivers99 »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #82
ecopoesis wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some places are building this. Assembly Row in Somerville is a prime example. Usually it's called transit oriented planning.

I have walked around assembly row and it isn't terrible but it certainly doesn't feel like downtown Boston. Check out what standing at the intersection of Grand Union Blvd and Artisan Way feels like: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3948862,-71.081131,3a,75y,11...

So one side of the street is big box stored with giant parking lots, and the other side is parking garages with 1st floor businesses. Looks 1000% for cars and not transit.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#99

Post by codingdave »

I can only speak for my own city, but the cost of building out new roads and infrastructure for new development is paid for not by property taxes, but by the building permits for the development. They actually just had a city council meeting outlining the expected growth over the next 5 years, its expected cost, and the resulting fees for building various types of residential and commercial development.

So the article is correct, that property taxes do not pay for it all. But that is not the only source of revenue.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#100

Post by Wile_E_Quixote »

I'm guessing this partially depends on region, and is of course partially dependent on both, but what is the primary factor limiting the lifespan of road surfaces: usage or weather (rain, snow, winter salt, etc.)? Certainly, there are some types of city infrastructure that deteriorate less from usage and more so from exposure to the elements over time (telephone poles, bridges, drainage systems). It seems that increased housing density would increase the amount of tax dollars for a given area of land without necessarily increasing the need for more roads or roadway area. One might argue that higher housing density means more cars, but if doubling the number of cars doesn't half the lifespan of the roads, then it's a win. Also, double the housing density doesn't necessarily mean twice the cars, because higher density regions are generally more walkable and there are greater opportunities for carpooling/ride-sharing/public transit.

So, basically, increase housing density so that more people are sharing established infrastructure. Fund the maintenance of this infrastructure using taxes that are population (or perhaps income) dependent, rather than property taxes.

Oh, and based on the cost and longevity numbers provided in the article, why would anyone ever use asphalt over concrete for a roadway surface? I assume some key factor has been left out of this comparison.

Post reply on HN