111–120 of 208 posts
Found the text version more compelling myself: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm in a smallish town that owns its own power and water utility and maintains its own roads, and isn't "wealthy" or "exceptionally taxed" compared to other areas Are you in a net contributor state as well? I live in a similar town, but it's in Wyoming, a state which benefits from federal transfers from urban centers.
Not sure, is there a list of "net contributor" states? And I suspect those look at federal budgets only, and ignore the other methods of "contributing".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks; the "Why", or the interesting part of "Why", seems only alluded to, rather than explicitly discussed. Is it that the low density of suburban development means that tax collected per area unit, is less than infrastructure maintenance per area unit? And is the even more implied solution to increase urban density at least to the point where revenue per area matches expenses per area?
Basically, yes. The typical American suburb, even "dense" inner suburbs, often don't generate enough tax revenue to maintain infrastructure. The areas get built out with various subsidies from different levels of government; it's only 30 years down the road, when major infrastructure needs updated that the costs become apparent.
I am biased because I quite like living in the suburbs, and get quite suspicious when some manifesto comes up that dictates I should feel bad for it. Why is the solution to live in better designed cities instead of better designed suburbs? Are cities still necessary given the modern conditions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with that analogy is, suburbs doesn't benefit anyone besides the people living in them. So, by that logic, they should sustain themselves. Maps, Docs, and etc provide value to people outside themselves.
This is incorrect on a political and economic level. Fwiw I live in lower Manhattan, so I’m not saying this because I benefit from suburban subsidies. But if the country as whole subsidizes roads and services for a suburb of net positive income tax payers with otherwise low usage of welfare services, there is an economic logic to that. And obviously it gets votes. As much as I like living in a dense area and riding m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The city resident needs the labor of the residents of the suburbs in order for the city to function.
Which doesn't necessitate the presence of the suburban environment. If suburban residents want a lifestyle distinct from living in the city, that is absolutely fine - but they should pay the costs of that lifestyle as it is a choice (just as living in a single family home versus an apartment is a choice urban residents make and should pay the corresponding costs to support).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A great many US cities were losing population in the post-WWII era including some that are now regarded as "elite" coastal cities. Boston, for example, was losing population well into the nineties and, lots of universities notwithstanding, had no real major tech industry left by the time Teradyne moved out. (All the local computer companies and defense contractors were out in the suburbs/exurbs.) So some cities did w…
Wouldn't these be good examples? Boston is a pre-car city that weathered population decline well. Detroit was a city that rebuilt itself around the car and experienced decline.
Does the tone put anyone else off? I feel like I should be his perfect target audience (I cycle everywhere and prefer living in cities with good bike infrastructure) but I find the way he makes his arguments leaves me wanting to disagree with him.
Aside from tone, he uses terms like "stroad" without explanation. Such terms will be known to people who watch a lot of similar content and likely already agree with him but not so much to people who don't, which are the people he that he needs to convince.
I also find things a bit one-sided. He might bring up problems with the way things are today and propose a solution to them but the solution always sounds like a silver bullet that magically solves all the problems. In reality there are always obstacles and downsides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's difficult for someone to have much perspective on how much their own lifestyle is subsidized when the same can be said for the vast majority of people who enjoy benefits from the government, regardless of where they choose to live. Most people take more than they contribute, I don't think someone making $120,000 and paying $40,000 in taxes should feel any guilt for living in the suburbs when so many othe…
The person making $120,000 is heavily benefiting from a public infrastructure that makes $120k/yr jobs possible. A ditch digger needs almost no infrastructure besides a shovel to do his job. An engineer needs schools and universities to educate his colleagues, roads and railways to deliver parts required for the product he's working on, and police services that deter theft of those products once they're built. Not to…
Tearing out cement and putting down differently arranged cement is just wasteful. The Channel likes to dwell on how the Netherlands do all these things, but the creator fails to ever mention what pays for them there. Hint - It's oil and gas revenue.
If we properly addressed infrastructure spending on bike lanes and all of the things done to ensure bike safety through creating a bike registration tax and an insurance system, then a lot more could likely be done... Currently all of the new bike infrastructure going in to cities is subsidized by car taxes and things like speed cameras.
If extremely wealthy individuals paid their fair share in taxes, and if cities stopped subsidizing their huge sports stadiums and warehouses, then it possibly would be a lot easier to maintain and update infrastructure. We tolerate a revolving door of corruption and mis-use of funds in local and federal government, yet the middle class and poor are taxed at around half of their annual income every year once all the various taxes that can be levied are paid.
It's not about subsidizing poor low tax neighborhoods to me... The biggest offense is in the deceptive welfare system that is constantly subsidizing private companies and greedy individuals that really don't build growth and opportunity in communities for anyone but themselves...
Also we do have to admit that road and infrastructure work regularly is excessively overbilled to local governments...
The employees that do it are underpaid perhaps, but there is a long history in this country of infrastructure repair contracts being well overpriced in cost and time...