12 ms·

EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes

183 points by dionmanu 10y ago

Dowwie 10y ago
Is anyone using an under-sink water filtration system? If not, why?
overcast 10y ago
"The state of Michigan is contributing matching funds of $20 million for a total award of $120 million." So, not really matching?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  "matching funds" can (and very often do) have matching ratios other than 1:1; it's the general term for a required proportional cobtribution.
  - ihaveajob 10y ago
    They can also be capped to a maximum amount. You can see this often on NPR listener donation rallies, when companies match funds up to something like $5k for the duration of a show. If more than $5k is reached, the company still donates only $5k.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      I think OP's intuition is understandable. Search Results match·ing ˈmaCHiNG/ adjective adjective: matching 1. corresponding in pattern, color, or design; complementary. "a blue jacket and matching skirt" **2. equal in number or amount; equivalent. "the college will provide matching funds to complete the project"**
      - Retric 10y ago
        It does not need to be 1:1 to be corresponding in pattern.
        wallace_f 10y ago
        I'm aware, but the second definition I think is also valid, and perhaps one that many people are more colloquially familiar with. After all, a match (singular) is a 1:1.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - overcast 10y ago
    Then I would have clarified that sentence, by saying matching funds UP TO $20 million. If my employer says they are matching my 401k contribution, I'd expect that is 1:1, not a hidden, oh we really only meant 20%. I'm just being pedantic.
    - neuronexmachina 10y ago
      You'd be assuming poorly, then. The most common 401k(k) matching is actually 50%.
      - spydum 10y ago
        (Up to 6%)
      - overcast 10y ago
        So you would just go into a 401k plan assuming 50%? My company has ZERO matching for 401k. You'd be assuming poorly, then.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      "Matching funds" is an established term of art in government (and some other) finance for contribution with some proportionality factor required by the granting agency to be spent toward the same goal by some other agency (often the recipient themselves) as a condition of the granted funds. The term was used correctly in the sentence, and since the exact funding split was specified, there was nothing to be clarified.
- shshhdhs 10y ago
  Ya, more importantly this is strange. This is more of a city/state issue than a federal issue.
  - arthur_pryor 10y ago
    is this statement implying that you don't believe in federal disaster relief for local emergencies?
  - no_wizard 10y ago
    I think I'm gonna to go ahead and assume what you are saying is 'why isn't the state and:or city already handling this' just more poorly worded. I'm going with that because I want to take a moment to highlight this is one of the things that is very wrong with American infrastructure. You see most states aren't like the federal government in that they are often competing with other states for things like industry, job creation, and this in turn has a very high curbing away from infrastructure projects from say a town like Flint which isn't really a thriving economic center like to once was. The state itself is going to choose rightly or wrongly to dump money into places like Ann Arbor, which is much more of a thriving place in Michigan. Cities also are competing more wholly in this regard and it's unlikely Flint could even come close to paying for this being caught up with all the other services that city has to run. This is before we factor for political favors, corruption, ill fated projects and the like. For all but the biggest metros/cities and most populous and still thriving states like California, New York, or San Fran, LA, NYC, hell your thriving and well run Minneapolis-St.Paul and the like. You have a great inability for cities and even entire States that without influx of Federal funds would be unable to do even minimal investment in infrastructure. It's a huge problem. One of the reasons that calls for a Federal Infrastructure Investment Act is so broadly supported in both sides (though what infrastructure that would be built isn't and it is always about Roads it's seems before anything else)
pstuart 10y ago
And how much did the city originally "save"? This affair should be poster child for being pennywise and pound foolish with our infrastructure.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Framing it that way misses an important part of the story. It was the institutional and regulatory failure during the switch away from Detroit city water that made the lead an emergency. Part of the reason that happened is that Flint had depopulated and was basically a failed city. It's not acceptable that it happened, but it didn't happen just because Flint was trying to skimp on infrastructure 40,50,60 years ago.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    They skimped (ie entirely did not use) on corrosion inhibitors when the water supply was switched. I believe those are the "savings" OP was referring to. "By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. " http://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-the-flint-water-crisis-corrosion-of-pipes-erosion-of-trust-53776 http://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-the-flint-wate... "Replacement of Flint’s lead service lines, which is the only permanent solution to address its lead vulnerability, is estimated to cost up to $1.5 billion, according to Flint’s mayor, Karen Weaver."
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Yeah, that it was a financial decision is an institutional and regulatory failure. It shouldn't have even been on the table to switch without properly treating the different source water.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Well, when your state is broke, you try to cut corners. You cut the wrong corners, people are maimed or are killed. So, I suppose I agree with you that its institutional and regulatory failures in the most general of ways, similar to how Enron would have been considered "a breakdown in internal controls". And those responsible should go to prison and have civil penalties inflicted on them. Has that happened? I don't know.
refurb 10y ago
where lead-contaminated water damaged service lines. This is wrong isn't it? My understanding is they changed water sources, which changed the pH, which resulted in lead being leeched out of pipes.
- lisper 10y ago
  Yes, you're right: the original piece got the causality backwards.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  Not just the pH. The salinity too. Plain old road salt in the water messed with the calcium plaques that were protecting the pipes.
joshmn 10y ago
Anyone feel like this is a political move to say "hey, we're good people, keep us around and make sure your congress(wo)man knows hears about it" Not a bad thing by any means, but heaven forbid it took them this long.
- hawkice 10y ago
  This was put into effect under Obama, it seems, by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, an act introduced and sponsored by a Texan Republican. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/612/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/612...
- d--b 10y ago
  I definitely agree with that. Even though this was initiated by the Obama administration, they probably could have scrapped it as part of the drastic budget cuts they are making. My guess is that they will remove everything that is to protect the environment (deregulation of anything oil-related), and spend what's left on creating federally-funded jobs in de-industrialized regions like this.
clumsysmurf 10y ago
Flint is one of thousands of places in the US with poisonous levels of lead. I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-testing/ http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-...
- stouset 10y ago
  > I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it. That's a pretty bold assumption you're making in that statement.
  - huehehue 10y ago
    fwiw I don't really see anything inflammatory in the parent's statement, or any indication that they feel the current administration is any more/less equipped than previous ones to deal with the water crisis.
    - nothrabannosir 10y ago
      It was a joke
    - jacobolus 10y ago
      The parent comment’s implication is that the administration does not have any plan for dealing with the problem. It was phrased in a sarcastic/jokey way, which doesn’t always read clearly on the internet.
      - pharrlax 10y ago
        I wonder how you came to that conclusion. (I am not implying you did not come to that conclusion.)
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        10y ago
dmode 10y ago
Good thing this was approved by the previous administration. The next Flint will most likely receive a tank to protect itself from rioters, given the EPA cuts and further bloated defense budget
- d--b 10y ago
  Flint is the symbol of mid-West's de-industrialization. Since this administration has vowed to give these people's jobs back, you can be sure that they're going to make sure Flint is better off in 4 years than it is now. So giving them federal money to fix their water pipes is a great way to be the good guys. They're going to be able to hire a bunch of people to fix it, and solve a health problem at the same time. I'd be more worried about my water quality if I lived in a region with a lot of shale oil drilling...
  - polack 10y ago
    I think you have missed the fact that this money was given during the Obama administration. Since Trump have cut funding to the EPA it's hard to believe that all the "Flints" out there will have it better after 4 years...
    - adventured 10y ago
      EPA 2016 budget: $8.16 billion How many Flints were you planning to repair with the minuscule discretionary part of that? The EPA has never had the budget required to build and rebuild hundreds of billions in infrastructure. The "Flints" in the US will be better off when the US starts focusing on infrastructure as a critical spending necessity again.
nafizh 10y ago
As I suspected this was signed by President Obama.
perseusprime11 10y ago
This is great news from my vantage point. a +1 for Trump and his team for taking care of this mess. Throwing a lot of money may not be the right solution but it does fix a lot of pipes.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  From the article: > The funding was approved by Congress in December and signed into law by President Barack Obama, but the EPA had to review and approve a formal request from state officials detailing how the city intends to use the grant money.
rayiner 10y ago
This is a disaster happening all over the country. The EPA estimates we will need $385 billion by 2030 to modernize water infrastructure. Putting municipalities in charge of utilities is basically a failed model. Municipalities are too small a unit to be able to effectively take on the long term obligations that come along with infrastructure like this, or cross subsidize from richer residents to poorer ones. Even major cities like Chicago are poisoning their kids (to a lesser degree) due to inability to properly maintain infrastructure.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  All that I know is we were able to afford the infrastructure originally under a higher tax regime. That suggests to me that we can afford to solve this problem, even if it means that the wealthy are contributing back to the country that provided the business and social environment to do so.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    > That suggests to me that we can afford to solve this problem I don't think that follows. It's certainly not true in software.... it's cheap to add things in the beginning of the design process, but gets exponentially harder as you add more complexity. And in general in homebuilding remodels are at least a factor of two more expensive than new construction. Putting down a water main while you're building a street and before you've built any houses seems substantially easier than replacing a water main while dealing with traffic and a block full of customers who need continuous water supply. Not to mention more stringent building codes and such. I think it should be done regardless, because it's generally impossible for people to run their own water lines, so the State has a moral imperative to do it. But I can easily see it being much more expensive than the original build.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Most of the infrastructure was built on taking out debt based on optimistic projections of future growth. Flint and Detroit are poster children for this.
svsjc 10y ago
Looks like Trump administration is really doing something for the poor of flint.
- gloverkcn 10y ago
  Except it was Obama pressuring congress. The legislation was passed in December http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/epa-100-million-flint/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/epa-100-million-flint...
  - svsjc 10y ago
    If he had done this in last two years when the problem came out, the election result may have been different.
    - sumedh 10y ago
      How about first admitting that you were wrong in crediting Trump for this?
      - gloverkcn 10y ago
        I've now seen this devolution in argument a number of times. Here, Facebook, and Reddit Trump Supporter: Look what Trump Did! Answer: Obama Pressured Congress, the bill was passed in December -Obama waited till he was on his way out so what's the point. He was ineffective. Answer: Actually the legislation was drafted much earlier, but republicans didn't want to pass it. Obama used his office to raise the profile of the crisis to help convince Republicans to get on board.. Congress hands out Money, not the President -So Obama fixed his own mistake in poisoning Flints water. A lot of good the EPA does. Answer: Actually it was a Republican governor who assigned "emergency managers" to take over Flint. He superceded the democratically elected Mayor. The new managers shifted the water source from Detroit to the Flint Michigan. The EPA told them they needed corrosion controls, but the response was by the managers was there was no law requiring the controls. Flint was a financial disaster before, but the emergency managers came in and started doing whatever they wanted regardless of the outcome. - So the EPA just let it happen. Answer: The EPA escalated up the chain of command. The argument went on for six months, but they didn't hold press conferences with news organizations, which was probably their last option. -Because the EPA is ineffective, and that's why it's funding should be cut! Totally Useless! The final answer from Trump supporters is either a) you can't stop another Flint Water issue so just get rid of the EPA, or b)getting rid of all regulations will allow the free market to naturally fix the issues. It's no longer possible to have rational discussions. Anything positive is directly attributed to Trump, and anything negative is the fault of Obama.
dbg31415 10y ago
Relevant: * The Real Reason Your City Has No Money — Strong Towns || https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... * Why Many Cities Have No Money | Hacker News || https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370310
- CountSessine 10y ago
  Strong towns makes a compelling argument that the reason we've invested so poorly in infrastructure that we can't possibly hope to maintain is that we don't conduct government business using accrual accounting. I wonder - do local governments anywhere use accrual accounting? It would be so much harder for government to spend money we don't have with good accounting practices in place, which leads me to believe that this is uncommon.

183 points by dionmanu 10y ago

Is anyone using an under-sink water filtration system? If not, why?

"The state of Michigan is contributing matching funds of $20 million for a total award of $120 million." So, not really matching?

dragonwriter 10y ago
"matching funds" can (and very often do) have matching ratios other than 1:1; it's the general term for a required proportional cobtribution.
- ihaveajob 10y ago
  They can also be capped to a maximum amount. You can see this often on NPR listener donation rallies, when companies match funds up to something like $5k for the duration of a show. If more than $5k is reached, the company still donates only $5k.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    I think OP's intuition is understandable. Search Results match·ing ˈmaCHiNG/ adjective adjective: matching 1. corresponding in pattern, color, or design; complementary. "a blue jacket and matching skirt" **2. equal in number or amount; equivalent. "the college will provide matching funds to complete the project"**
    - Retric 10y ago
      It does not need to be 1:1 to be corresponding in pattern.
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        I'm aware, but the second definition I think is also valid, and perhaps one that many people are more colloquially familiar with. After all, a match (singular) is a 1:1.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- overcast 10y ago
  Then I would have clarified that sentence, by saying matching funds UP TO $20 million. If my employer says they are matching my 401k contribution, I'd expect that is 1:1, not a hidden, oh we really only meant 20%. I'm just being pedantic.
  - neuronexmachina 10y ago
    You'd be assuming poorly, then. The most common 401k(k) matching is actually 50%.
    - spydum 10y ago
      (Up to 6%)
    - overcast 10y ago
      So you would just go into a 401k plan assuming 50%? My company has ZERO matching for 401k. You'd be assuming poorly, then.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    "Matching funds" is an established term of art in government (and some other) finance for contribution with some proportionality factor required by the granting agency to be spent toward the same goal by some other agency (often the recipient themselves) as a condition of the granted funds. The term was used correctly in the sentence, and since the exact funding split was specified, there was nothing to be clarified.
shshhdhs 10y ago
Ya, more importantly this is strange. This is more of a city/state issue than a federal issue.
- arthur_pryor 10y ago
  is this statement implying that you don't believe in federal disaster relief for local emergencies?
- no_wizard 10y ago
  I think I'm gonna to go ahead and assume what you are saying is 'why isn't the state and:or city already handling this' just more poorly worded. I'm going with that because I want to take a moment to highlight this is one of the things that is very wrong with American infrastructure. You see most states aren't like the federal government in that they are often competing with other states for things like industry, job creation, and this in turn has a very high curbing away from infrastructure projects from say a town like Flint which isn't really a thriving economic center like to once was. The state itself is going to choose rightly or wrongly to dump money into places like Ann Arbor, which is much more of a thriving place in Michigan. Cities also are competing more wholly in this regard and it's unlikely Flint could even come close to paying for this being caught up with all the other services that city has to run. This is before we factor for political favors, corruption, ill fated projects and the like. For all but the biggest metros/cities and most populous and still thriving states like California, New York, or San Fran, LA, NYC, hell your thriving and well run Minneapolis-St.Paul and the like. You have a great inability for cities and even entire States that without influx of Federal funds would be unable to do even minimal investment in infrastructure. It's a huge problem. One of the reasons that calls for a Federal Infrastructure Investment Act is so broadly supported in both sides (though what infrastructure that would be built isn't and it is always about Roads it's seems before anything else)

pstuart 10y ago

And how much did the city originally "save"? This affair should be poster child for being pennywise and pound foolish with our infrastructure.

maxerickson 10y ago
Framing it that way misses an important part of the story. It was the institutional and regulatory failure during the switch away from Detroit city water that made the lead an emergency. Part of the reason that happened is that Flint had depopulated and was basically a failed city. It's not acceptable that it happened, but it didn't happen just because Flint was trying to skimp on infrastructure 40,50,60 years ago.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  They skimped (ie entirely did not use) on corrosion inhibitors when the water supply was switched. I believe those are the "savings" OP was referring to. "By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. " http://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-the-flint-water-crisis-corrosion-of-pipes-erosion-of-trust-53776 http://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-the-flint-wate... "Replacement of Flint’s lead service lines, which is the only permanent solution to address its lead vulnerability, is estimated to cost up to $1.5 billion, according to Flint’s mayor, Karen Weaver."
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Yeah, that it was a financial decision is an institutional and regulatory failure. It shouldn't have even been on the table to switch without properly treating the different source water.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Well, when your state is broke, you try to cut corners. You cut the wrong corners, people are maimed or are killed. So, I suppose I agree with you that its institutional and regulatory failures in the most general of ways, similar to how Enron would have been considered "a breakdown in internal controls". And those responsible should go to prison and have civil penalties inflicted on them. Has that happened? I don't know.

refurb 10y ago

where lead-contaminated water damaged service lines. This is wrong isn't it? My understanding is they changed water sources, which changed the pH, which resulted in lead being leeched out of pipes.

lisper 10y ago
Yes, you're right: the original piece got the causality backwards.
ocschwar 10y ago
Not just the pH. The salinity too. Plain old road salt in the water messed with the calcium plaques that were protecting the pipes.

joshmn 10y ago

Anyone feel like this is a political move to say "hey, we're good people, keep us around and make sure your congress(wo)man knows hears about it" Not a bad thing by any means, but heaven forbid it took them this long.

hawkice 10y ago
This was put into effect under Obama, it seems, by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, an act introduced and sponsored by a Texan Republican. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/612/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/612...
d--b 10y ago
I definitely agree with that. Even though this was initiated by the Obama administration, they probably could have scrapped it as part of the drastic budget cuts they are making. My guess is that they will remove everything that is to protect the environment (deregulation of anything oil-related), and spend what's left on creating federally-funded jobs in de-industrialized regions like this.

clumsysmurf 10y ago

Flint is one of thousands of places in the US with poisonous levels of lead. I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-testing/ http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-...

stouset 10y ago
> I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it. That's a pretty bold assumption you're making in that statement.
- huehehue 10y ago
  fwiw I don't really see anything inflammatory in the parent's statement, or any indication that they feel the current administration is any more/less equipped than previous ones to deal with the water crisis.
  - nothrabannosir 10y ago
    It was a joke
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    The parent comment’s implication is that the administration does not have any plan for dealing with the problem. It was phrased in a sarcastic/jokey way, which doesn’t always read clearly on the internet.
    - pharrlax 10y ago
      I wonder how you came to that conclusion. (I am not implying you did not come to that conclusion.)
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - 10y ago

dmode 10y ago

Good thing this was approved by the previous administration. The next Flint will most likely receive a tank to protect itself from rioters, given the EPA cuts and further bloated defense budget

d--b 10y ago
Flint is the symbol of mid-West's de-industrialization. Since this administration has vowed to give these people's jobs back, you can be sure that they're going to make sure Flint is better off in 4 years than it is now. So giving them federal money to fix their water pipes is a great way to be the good guys. They're going to be able to hire a bunch of people to fix it, and solve a health problem at the same time. I'd be more worried about my water quality if I lived in a region with a lot of shale oil drilling...
- polack 10y ago
  I think you have missed the fact that this money was given during the Obama administration. Since Trump have cut funding to the EPA it's hard to believe that all the "Flints" out there will have it better after 4 years...
  - adventured 10y ago
    EPA 2016 budget: $8.16 billion How many Flints were you planning to repair with the minuscule discretionary part of that? The EPA has never had the budget required to build and rebuild hundreds of billions in infrastructure. The "Flints" in the US will be better off when the US starts focusing on infrastructure as a critical spending necessity again.

nafizh 10y ago

As I suspected this was signed by President Obama.

perseusprime11 10y ago

This is great news from my vantage point. a +1 for Trump and his team for taking care of this mess. Throwing a lot of money may not be the right solution but it does fix a lot of pipes.

mattnewton 10y ago
From the article: > The funding was approved by Congress in December and signed into law by President Barack Obama, but the EPA had to review and approve a formal request from state officials detailing how the city intends to use the grant money.

rayiner 10y ago

This is a disaster happening all over the country. The EPA estimates we will need $385 billion by 2030 to modernize water infrastructure. Putting municipalities in charge of utilities is basically a failed model. Municipalities are too small a unit to be able to effectively take on the long term obligations that come along with infrastructure like this, or cross subsidize from richer residents to poorer ones. Even major cities like Chicago are poisoning their kids (to a lesser degree) due to inability to properly maintain infrastructure.

wavefunction 10y ago
All that I know is we were able to afford the infrastructure originally under a higher tax regime. That suggests to me that we can afford to solve this problem, even if it means that the wealthy are contributing back to the country that provided the business and social environment to do so.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  > That suggests to me that we can afford to solve this problem I don't think that follows. It's certainly not true in software.... it's cheap to add things in the beginning of the design process, but gets exponentially harder as you add more complexity. And in general in homebuilding remodels are at least a factor of two more expensive than new construction. Putting down a water main while you're building a street and before you've built any houses seems substantially easier than replacing a water main while dealing with traffic and a block full of customers who need continuous water supply. Not to mention more stringent building codes and such. I think it should be done regardless, because it's generally impossible for people to run their own water lines, so the State has a moral imperative to do it. But I can easily see it being much more expensive than the original build.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Most of the infrastructure was built on taking out debt based on optimistic projections of future growth. Flint and Detroit are poster children for this.

svsjc 10y ago

Looks like Trump administration is really doing something for the poor of flint.

gloverkcn 10y ago
Except it was Obama pressuring congress. The legislation was passed in December http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/epa-100-million-flint/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/epa-100-million-flint...
- svsjc 10y ago
  If he had done this in last two years when the problem came out, the election result may have been different.
  - sumedh 10y ago
    How about first admitting that you were wrong in crediting Trump for this?
    - gloverkcn 10y ago
      I've now seen this devolution in argument a number of times. Here, Facebook, and Reddit Trump Supporter: Look what Trump Did! Answer: Obama Pressured Congress, the bill was passed in December -Obama waited till he was on his way out so what's the point. He was ineffective. Answer: Actually the legislation was drafted much earlier, but republicans didn't want to pass it. Obama used his office to raise the profile of the crisis to help convince Republicans to get on board.. Congress hands out Money, not the President -So Obama fixed his own mistake in poisoning Flints water. A lot of good the EPA does. Answer: Actually it was a Republican governor who assigned "emergency managers" to take over Flint. He superceded the democratically elected Mayor. The new managers shifted the water source from Detroit to the Flint Michigan. The EPA told them they needed corrosion controls, but the response was by the managers was there was no law requiring the controls. Flint was a financial disaster before, but the emergency managers came in and started doing whatever they wanted regardless of the outcome. - So the EPA just let it happen. Answer: The EPA escalated up the chain of command. The argument went on for six months, but they didn't hold press conferences with news organizations, which was probably their last option. -Because the EPA is ineffective, and that's why it's funding should be cut! Totally Useless! The final answer from Trump supporters is either a) you can't stop another Flint Water issue so just get rid of the EPA, or b)getting rid of all regulations will allow the free market to naturally fix the issues. It's no longer possible to have rational discussions. Anything positive is directly attributed to Trump, and anything negative is the fault of Obama.

dbg31415 10y ago

Relevant: * The Real Reason Your City Has No Money — Strong Towns || https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... * Why Many Cities Have No Money | Hacker News || https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370310

CountSessine 10y ago
Strong towns makes a compelling argument that the reason we've invested so poorly in infrastructure that we can't possibly hope to maintain is that we don't conduct government business using accrual accounting. I wonder - do local governments anywhere use accrual accounting? It would be so much harder for government to spend money we don't have with good accounting practices in place, which leads me to believe that this is uncommon.