5 ms·

The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis

The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis is correct or not. The government is not a bank. You're not supposed to "get out what you put in" or "pay for what you use." The government provides things for the public good: roads, education, police, military, etc. Of course some government is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that some people "pay for more than they use." That's called progressive taxation. So if the evil sprawlsters are subsidizing the older roads...so what? The evil sprawlsters can afford it. It would be just as ridiculous to write an article about how "people with children in schools aren't paying the cost of the school" or good grief even "people who have a fire aren't paying the cost of the fire department." Roads are provided for the public good. So it really doesn't matter that the author doesn't even address the fact that many of these supposedly deadbeat property owners are paying a whole bunch of taxes that are keeping the city of Ames afloat, along with its supposedly inaccurate road tax scheme.

x0x0 11y ago
The point, as I read it, is this only works as long as there is enough growth to pay for upkeep of older infrastructure. The second the growth slows, or even stops, there's trouble. And nobody is arguing you should only get out what you put in, but on average, if property taxes are barely high enough to pay for the street in front of that house, it's obvious there will be a problem.
dionidium 11y ago
So if the evil sprawlsters are subsidizing the older roads...so what? The evil sprawlsters can afford it. I think you (and probably the author) have got this exactly backwards. Sprawl creates blight when the rate of building outpaces the needs of population growth. The evil sprawlsters are creating new costs, but they aren't subsidizing old roads. The sprawl usually happens outside of long-ago drawn city borders, anyway. If you have 5 families living in 5 houses in the urban core and you build 5 new houses for them to live in out in the suburbs, then population needs to double for there to be full occupancy. As a case study, take a look at my home town of St. Louis. Much has been made about the city's population loss. But that's just in the urban core; the region's population has actually grown slightly over the last 40 years. It just hasn't grown fast enough to fill up all the new houses we've built out across the river. The sprawlsters aren't subsidizing the old roads. They have completely abandoned them and are leaving them to nature.
- jws 11y ago
  St. Louis City also has a problem with its beloved "earnings tax". At one point as our office space lease renewal was approaching I plotted all of our 100+ employees at the time on a map, almost all software engineers, about 2/3 of them lived west of the city and 1/3 lived east, and only a single one lived in the city, and he was in a temporary apartment immediately post divorce, didn't get the house. To me that says 99+% of professionals don't want to live in the city. Our first office plan had been to put one in the city, but the earnings tax on our side and the employee's side was a deal breaker for a business with payroll as its predominant expense. So instead we got an office on each side of the river and teleported across the city as needed with the interstate highway system.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    First time I've ever heard the highways fawned over as "teleporting"...
    - jws 11y ago
      Depends where you live and when you drive. Stay out of the evening rush hour in certain areas of town and you can count on 65mph to your destination. If you are popping across the river in the middle of the day there is no problem. Some people do have jobs that turn them out a 4-5pm in unfortunate locations. When I worked in one of those locations I shifted my schedule a bit so I worked until 6pm instead. Waiting 60 minutes turned a 45 minute commute into a 15 minute commute.
    - khuey 11y ago
      Some American cities have seen significant population declines since their infrastructure was built and thus have surplus transportation/housing/etc capacity.
  - throwawaybookst 11y ago
    The fact that burbs are the most desirable places to live in STL is pretty much the reason I'll never move back. It's an incredibly depressing metro area.
thescriptkiddie 11y ago
You seem to be reading a tone into this article that I'm not. I didn't perceive a complaint that people don't pay for what they use, I perceived a complaint that the city of Ames is spending a huge portion of their budget on roads that may or may not be necessary. Putting the cost of these roads in terms of property tax is an interesting way of looking at this problem, which doesn't necessarily imply that everyone has to pay for their share of the road in full.
msellout 11y ago
> some people "pay for more than they use." The author was addressing the opposite situation -- people using more than what they pay for. > It would be just as ridiculous to write an article about how "people with children in schools aren't paying the cost of the school" A more similar analogy to what the author was pointing out would be that current taxpayers will receive more Social Security benefit over their lifetimes than the future value of their lifetime payments, meaning that the system is only financially sound if we assume the working population will grow at an appropriate rate such that we'll always have enough workers to pay for retirees. Or, adjusting the analogies you provided: we are borrowing from other countries to pay for our schools and fire departments. This happens to be true. Is it bad? Unknown.
- mattmanser 11y ago
  Not the working population, simply the tax revenue. You could theoretically have one robot producing trillions of $ and tax that one robot and pay for everything. That's one of the reasons why everyone's obsessed with growth, if the economy grows, the tax budget goes up without tax rates going up so the country can afford to pay for more stuff.
  - msellout 11y ago
    Good point. That's why it's likely the youth and the not-yet-born will pay a higher percent of their lifetime incomes in taxes while probably receiving less benefit. Americans have a history of voting wealth transfers to themselves from their grandchildren.
lubesGordi 11y ago
That taxes go to pay for things the gov't provides is clearly presupposed. You seem to be saying things that the gov't provides don't have costs associated with them.
bufordsharkley 11y ago
> The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis is correct or not. It's worth reading up on Joseph Stiglitz's work in the 1970s that demonstrated how government spending in public goods is transformed exactly into land rents under many conditions.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem
- eru 11y ago
  Thanks for the link! That's awesome.
tamana 11y ago
Don't confuse "public good" with "special interest good for a small subpopulation's lifestyle choice".

x0x0 11y ago

The point, as I read it, is this only works as long as there is enough growth to pay for upkeep of older infrastructure. The second the growth slows, or even stops, there's trouble. And nobody is arguing you should only get out what you put in, but on average, if property taxes are barely high enough to pay for the street in front of that house, it's obvious there will be a problem.

dionidium 11y ago

So if the evil sprawlsters are subsidizing the older roads...so what? The evil sprawlsters can afford it. I think you (and probably the author) have got this exactly backwards. Sprawl creates blight when the rate of building outpaces the needs of population growth. The evil sprawlsters are creating new costs, but they aren't subsidizing old roads. The sprawl usually happens outside of long-ago drawn city borders, anyway. If you have 5 families living in 5 houses in the urban core and you build 5 new houses for them to live in out in the suburbs, then population needs to double for there to be full occupancy. As a case study, take a look at my home town of St. Louis. Much has been made about the city's population loss. But that's just in the urban core; the region's population has actually grown slightly over the last 40 years. It just hasn't grown fast enough to fill up all the new houses we've built out across the river. The sprawlsters aren't subsidizing the old roads. They have completely abandoned them and are leaving them to nature.

jws 11y ago
St. Louis City also has a problem with its beloved "earnings tax". At one point as our office space lease renewal was approaching I plotted all of our 100+ employees at the time on a map, almost all software engineers, about 2/3 of them lived west of the city and 1/3 lived east, and only a single one lived in the city, and he was in a temporary apartment immediately post divorce, didn't get the house. To me that says 99+% of professionals don't want to live in the city. Our first office plan had been to put one in the city, but the earnings tax on our side and the employee's side was a deal breaker for a business with payroll as its predominant expense. So instead we got an office on each side of the river and teleported across the city as needed with the interstate highway system.
- r00fus 11y ago
  First time I've ever heard the highways fawned over as "teleporting"...
  - jws 11y ago
    Depends where you live and when you drive. Stay out of the evening rush hour in certain areas of town and you can count on 65mph to your destination. If you are popping across the river in the middle of the day there is no problem. Some people do have jobs that turn them out a 4-5pm in unfortunate locations. When I worked in one of those locations I shifted my schedule a bit so I worked until 6pm instead. Waiting 60 minutes turned a 45 minute commute into a 15 minute commute.
  - khuey 11y ago
    Some American cities have seen significant population declines since their infrastructure was built and thus have surplus transportation/housing/etc capacity.
- throwawaybookst 11y ago
  The fact that burbs are the most desirable places to live in STL is pretty much the reason I'll never move back. It's an incredibly depressing metro area.

thescriptkiddie 11y ago

You seem to be reading a tone into this article that I'm not. I didn't perceive a complaint that people don't pay for what they use, I perceived a complaint that the city of Ames is spending a huge portion of their budget on roads that may or may not be necessary. Putting the cost of these roads in terms of property tax is an interesting way of looking at this problem, which doesn't necessarily imply that everyone has to pay for their share of the road in full.

msellout 11y ago

> some people "pay for more than they use." The author was addressing the opposite situation -- people using more than what they pay for. > It would be just as ridiculous to write an article about how "people with children in schools aren't paying the cost of the school" A more similar analogy to what the author was pointing out would be that current taxpayers will receive more Social Security benefit over their lifetimes than the future value of their lifetime payments, meaning that the system is only financially sound if we assume the working population will grow at an appropriate rate such that we'll always have enough workers to pay for retirees. Or, adjusting the analogies you provided: we are borrowing from other countries to pay for our schools and fire departments. This happens to be true. Is it bad? Unknown.

mattmanser 11y ago
Not the working population, simply the tax revenue. You could theoretically have one robot producing trillions of $ and tax that one robot and pay for everything. That's one of the reasons why everyone's obsessed with growth, if the economy grows, the tax budget goes up without tax rates going up so the country can afford to pay for more stuff.
- msellout 11y ago
  Good point. That's why it's likely the youth and the not-yet-born will pay a higher percent of their lifetime incomes in taxes while probably receiving less benefit. Americans have a history of voting wealth transfers to themselves from their grandchildren.

lubesGordi 11y ago

That taxes go to pay for things the gov't provides is clearly presupposed. You seem to be saying things that the gov't provides don't have costs associated with them.

bufordsharkley 11y ago

> The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis is correct or not. It's worth reading up on Joseph Stiglitz's work in the 1970s that demonstrated how government spending in public goods is transformed exactly into land rents under many conditions.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem

eru 11y ago
Thanks for the link! That's awesome.

tamana 11y ago

Don't confuse "public good" with "special interest good for a small subpopulation's lifestyle choice".