Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you ever consider the idea that not everyone wants to live in the typical "urban" environment? Not having public transportation or high-density housing nearby is a feature and a desirable property. > I’d first need to load myself up with a car payment and spend 4-5 figures per year Also a feature: if you can't afford this, perhaps that isn't the community for you? This is a fairly typical agenda: "I want to spend…
Part of what I think they were getting at is that suburban living is usually a long term burden on state budgets because the lower density means that maintenance costs aren't fully covered by tax revenue. If people want to live in these communities they should be expected to cover the costs, but since the necessary tax increases aren't popular they never get passed and the budget becomes unbalanced
1. New suburb is built, new residents are attracted by new housing stock and good value.
2. 40 years pass, the built infrastructure has aged to the point of needing refurbishment or replacement
3. Suburban government is forced to raise property taxes to cover maintenance
4. Affluent residents leave as they are attracted to a more recently built suburb with new housing stock and lower property taxes
5. Repeat steps 2-4