11–20 of 70 posts
It's apparent from looking up Charles Marohn that he's contributing to a lot of pieces on the web to push this idea, but I don't buy that infrastructure expansion is a straight up ponzi scheme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in the linked Dallas News article: > County Commissioner Duncan Webb told business leaders at a forum Wednesday that the county will need $13 billion for roads over the next three or four decades. Later Wednesday, former Commissioner Mark Reid, during a presentation to the Frisco Tea Party, said the figure is $12.6 billion. So not malicious or misleading at all. ST is using the commissioners own numbers.
So is it 30 or 40 years? Constant or future dollars? Capital or operational spending? Local or Federal expense? It’s a dumb number to quote and was cherry picked to make a point. All local governments in New York combined spent around $3B in 2009 ( https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/snapshot/... ) as a comparison.
The offered solution:
>For automobile flooding (congestion), the only way to deal with it and still have a successful economy is to address it at the source. We need to absorb those trips locally before they become a flood. Instead of building lanes, we need to be building corner stores.
I'm thinking hard about this article - I'm an ex-Houstonian. I can't go back. They worship the vehicle. They brag about their hour+ commutes one way. It's been wrapped up in machismo Texan pride. Because, inevitably when you bring up how much it sucks that no matter what we want to do, we've got a 20 minute drive ahead of us at least, instantly everyone's anti-tax hackles are raised. "Socialism" is on everyone's lips, you're getting suspicious glances.
So hell yea brutha, we drivin! At least we don't have state income tax or zoning laws like those stupid Californians, just look at all the good that did them! /s
If Strongtowns can find a way to start convincing Texans that cornerstores (which sounds to me like, need zoning) can be built without increasing taxes, I bet they could make the pitch. I remember as a real young kind in Green Bay, WI and then Charleston, SC, we could ride our bikes around and go places. I remember as a slightly older kid in Houston being tremendously bored on my friend's couch, suggesting we bike somewhere, and then realizing we had nowhere we could go. It was nothing but miles of suburbia encased in impassable freeways. Life got fun again at 16 when I finally got a car.
In my opinion the best way to change behavior is to make an incentive for that behavior. Reduce taxes on urban areas and housing. Unregulate businesses that promote local economy. Make small businesses more favorable instead of giving large exemptions to big corporations.
Perhaps the biggest thing you can do is to participate in the local government and municipalities. Find out who and what is driving the local economy and make reasoned recommendations for change.
The premise of the argument is that Collin county needs to spend $12.6 billion on roads over the next 30 years, but no citation is provided for that number. The authors managed to have found citations for most of the other numbers. I suspect the $12.6 billion figure was not calculated using the same set of assumptions about inflation as the other numbers. Edit: Over 30 years, $230 million / year with a 4% annual esca…
It's in the linked Dallas News article: > County Commissioner Duncan Webb told business leaders at a forum Wednesday that the county will need $13 billion for roads over the next three or four decades. Later Wednesday, former Commissioner Mark Reid, during a presentation to the Frisco Tea Party, said the figure is $12.6 billion. So not malicious or misleading at all. ST is using the commissioners own numbers.
bmurray7jhu is right to call out this mistake, because TFA says $381m is the current yearly budget, which is actually enough to fund it. (other issues not withstanding). Messing this calculation up makes me question the rest of the TFA's integrity.
>Collin County has traffic problems. Collin County's traffic problems are a function of its land-use pattern—which spreads development extremely thin on the landscape, and segregates uses, ensuring that people have to make lengthy motor vehicle trips to accomplish pretty much every one of their day to day needs. The offered solution: >For automobile flooding (congestion), the only way to deal with it and still have a…
What is the counterpoint to this argument? I feel like I'm only getting half an explanation here. It's apparent from looking up Charles Marohn that he's contributing to a lot of pieces on the web to push this idea, but I don't buy that infrastructure expansion is a straight up ponzi scheme.
It's really common, the whole "ignore future repair costs" thing. I lived in an HOA a few years ago that enjoyed low dues for many years, and everyone was always really happy about that. Guess what, the roofs and siding was ten years past due for replacement, and we had nothing in the bank. I want to say we were looking at special assessments of $30-40k/unit.
>Collin County has traffic problems. Collin County's traffic problems are a function of its land-use pattern—which spreads development extremely thin on the landscape, and segregates uses, ensuring that people have to make lengthy motor vehicle trips to accomplish pretty much every one of their day to day needs. The offered solution: >For automobile flooding (congestion), the only way to deal with it and still have a…
As someone who grew up in Collin county and now lives in SF, isn't zoning the reason there aren't more corner stores in either? I know Houston doesn't have a "proper" zoning system, but according to a developer friend of mine, their development regulations are actually much more strict than most places, with huge setback requirements for instance.
>Collin County has traffic problems. Collin County's traffic problems are a function of its land-use pattern—which spreads development extremely thin on the landscape, and segregates uses, ensuring that people have to make lengthy motor vehicle trips to accomplish pretty much every one of their day to day needs. The offered solution: >For automobile flooding (congestion), the only way to deal with it and still have a…
So, I would say until traffic gets much worse people would not support the corner stores.
What is the counterpoint to this argument? I feel like I'm only getting half an explanation here. It's apparent from looking up Charles Marohn that he's contributing to a lot of pieces on the web to push this idea, but I don't buy that infrastructure expansion is a straight up ponzi scheme.
I think there isn't usually a direct counterargument to be found. One of ST's core points is, hey, you're deluding yourself because you're not accounting for eventual repair costs of all the infrastructure you've already got. There is either no reply- because, heads in the sand- or the reply is that all the new people who will move there and the growth of the tax base will make it affordable. Which, while not exactly…
The big roads Strong Towns despises have many lanes, road networks have many paths from A to B, and vehicles that are resilient to low-quality roads are readily available for purchase. On the other hand, the failure of any component anywhere in a rail network can ruin the whole system until it's fixed. If I have to live with a falling-apart transportation system, I'll take crumbling roads over crumbling trains.