3 ms·
This ignores the impact on all the services and infrastructure that would be effected by additional housing: transit, roads, hospitals, schools, etc.
by stevewilhelm 10y ago
This ignores the impact on all the services and infrastructure that would be effected by additional housing: transit, roads, hospitals, schools, etc.
- Houshalter 10y agoAll of which could be paid for much better by distributing the taxes over the new residents. Economies of scale should make denser cities cheaper and more efficient.
- stevewilhelm 10y agoIt is very expensive and time consuming to do major infrastructure projects in San Francisco. Case in point: "Due to the capital cost ($1.578 billion for the 1.7 mile light rail line), the Central Subway project has come under criticism from transit activists for what they consider to be poor cost-effectiveness.[20] In particular, they note that Muni's own estimates[21] show that the project would increase Muni ridership by less than 1% and yet by 2030 be adding $15.2 million a year to Muni's annual operating deficit." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway
- int_19h 10y agoI don't know about SF, specifically. But some places already tax new developments - in order to fund existing infrastructure (because property taxes aren't high enough to actually pay for it). So it becomes a pyramid scheme, where you have to constantly build more to maintain what's already there. For the city councils, it becomes a game of hot potato - what matters is that the pyramid doesn't collapse while you're in charge...