Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can wind down certain things, but at what point are you winding down stuff that's more on the necessity side of things? The US has a lot of crumbling infrastructure that needs repair and replacement and I don't think people want to be told "sorry, your house is only accessible by off-road vehicle now." We're spending over $20B to increase rural broadband because people in rural areas don't want to be told "sorry,…
> It can be things like roads or safe drinking water. In most rural areas the roads are maintained by the county outside the town, and people maintain their own drinking water using wells. You pay someone to drill you a new well if it runs dry, and you're responsible for maintaining your own pumping system and getting your water regularly tested and treated if necessary. I have no idea what you're on about... rural a…
> An important thing to remember is that cities/towns/counties often take out debt for spending that will pay off over time.
They are very obviously talking about 'decline' in general at this point, not exclusively rural areas where most people or everyone gets their water from wells.
Hell, just look at the comment they're replying to:
> It seems peculiar to me that there is no standard process for the winding down of city governance when population dwindles.