The analysis seems to include the material and labor costs of building the street. Most peoples' street was already built by the time it became theirs, so, of c

The analysis seems to include the material and labor costs of building the street. Most peoples' street was already built by the time it became theirs, so, of course their taxes didn't pay for any of the substantial costs that were previously laid out. Moreover, looking at only a single year's budget would not represent the years with large expenditures on streets, or take into account increased, future amortized payments to cover costs. Ultimately, we can know that this particular article is invalid because it is representing "long-term costs estimated by unnamed civil engineer as a global average" as "the actual costs of the streets in my city", and "the actual costs of the streets in my city" for "all my city wants to bill me for my streets, even though they actually cost a lot more". Further, the article never explains who actually paid the costs, nor how this all relates to a claimed Growth Ponzi Scheme, or even evidence of property taxes halving...ever.