5 ms·
Well, we can all be proud that state governments are both handing out disproportionately large sums of money to rural areas and doing so in ways that crushes an
by tbihl 9y ago
Well, we can all be proud that state governments are both handing out disproportionately large sums of money to rural areas and doing so in ways that crushes any notion of cost optimal. This is done, of course, through infrastructure building, in which rural mucipalities beggar themselves to get state matching for road construction they cant afford to spur on unproductive growth that will turn around to bite them with maintenance costs. Matching makes it sound much better than is the case, since in some cases the state's share of the bill exceeds 90%.
- hermitdev 9y agoI think you need some citations before your claims can be taken seriously.
- tbihl 9y agoExamples that prove insightful to you are a personal matter. Unless you believe it important that spending be apportioned by lane-mile or road inventory (which I'd argue is rife with moral hazard), it is likely that your state effects net infrastructure transfers from urban to rural, as is the case in mine. If it's the 90% figure you doubt, I encourage you to look into some road projects. In Virginia, we have a particularly problematic system where the local contribution is pegged at 2% (see page 52)(though it can vary by project.) You are welcome to read the VA urban (misnomer) maintenance code, though I encourage you to find the one applicable to you, so you can be familiar with the perverse incentives provided in your own area. [http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/local_assistance/Urban_Construction_and_Maintenance_Program_Guidance.pdf http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/local_assistan...]