5 ms·

It is a poor comparison, because the services provided by the state of Idaho and the city of San Francisco are so different. The author should have compared the

by arebop 17y ago

It is a poor comparison, because the services provided by the state of Idaho and the city of San Francisco are so different. The author should have compared the sum of budgets of all cities in Idaho, or better yet found cities that are individually similar to San Francisco in ways other than spending (such as San Jose or Jersey City). I think you're wrong about population and density though. I'd expect that the huge concentration of people would lower per-capita infrastructure costs and enable other economies of scale. Comparing San Francisco to New York City, we find that NYC, with 8.3 million residents [1] in 305 sq. mi [2] has budgeted $43.4 billion for FY2010 [3]. San Francisco has 47 sq. mi [4], so it's much less dense and yet spends over 50% more per capita. [1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml [2] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/landusefacts/landusefactshome.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/landusefacts/landusefactsho... [3] http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/downloads/pdf/sum1_09.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/downloads/pdf/sum1_09.pdf [4] http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pRkHCezT76IJ:www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/mainpages_page.asp%3Fid%3D15216+%2Bsite:www.ci.sf.ca.us+square+miles&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pRkHCezT76IJ:www.ci.sf.c...

ahi 17y ago
Density lowers per capita infrastructure cost, but it also decreases tax revenues per capita. High density cities have to support the infrastructure used by commuters but can only capture a little of their tax value. During the day DC's population nearly doubles so they have to provide infrastructure for 1,000,000 people with a tax base of 600,000.
- ghshephard 17y ago
  ...Except for the fact that in California, with the inability to increase Property Taxes quickly (Thank you Prop 13), an inordinate amount of revenue actually comes from commercial taxes (Sales Taxes being a large one). As a result, counties engage in a game of _discouraging_ residential zoning, and encouraging commercial zoning. I'll find a citation. [Edit - http://www.caltax.org/MEMBER/digest/feb2000/feb00-4.htm http://www.caltax.org/MEMBER/digest/feb2000/feb00-4.htm - See: What are some of these side effects? ]

by arebop 17y ago

ahi 17y ago

Density lowers per capita infrastructure cost, but it also decreases tax revenues per capita. High density cities have to support the infrastructure used by commuters but can only capture a little of their tax value. During the day DC's population nearly doubles so they have to provide infrastructure for 1,000,000 people with a tax base of 600,000.

ghshephard 17y ago
...Except for the fact that in California, with the inability to increase Property Taxes quickly (Thank you Prop 13), an inordinate amount of revenue actually comes from commercial taxes (Sales Taxes being a large one). As a result, counties engage in a game of _discouraging_ residential zoning, and encouraging commercial zoning. I'll find a citation. [Edit - http://www.caltax.org/MEMBER/digest/feb2000/feb00-4.htm http://www.caltax.org/MEMBER/digest/feb2000/feb00-4.htm - See: What are some of these side effects? ]