4 ms·

> City dwellers dramatically subsidize American suburbs and rural areas I am not convinced this is accurate, at least in some cases. In some cases, suburbs rai

> City dwellers dramatically subsidize American suburbs and rural areas I am not convinced this is accurate, at least in some cases. In some cases, suburbs raise much more capital in taxes per person, are often required by the state to give some back for redistribution (e.g. education), attract business much more these days than city centers, provide much needed infrastructure for city-based businesses to house their employees, and provide many services that are leveraged by urbanites unable to attain similar quality locally (e.g. hospitalization). The unfortunate realization is that many inner cities suffer due to government-based mismanagement and often lean on thriving surburban areas and state handouts to help. It goes both ways. > If people want to reduce the tax burden on folks with low incomes just scraping by, the way to accomplish that is by increasing taxes Others believe to reduce the tax burden, you need to reduce expenditures, especially waste. The classist redistribution argument is a great way to let budget makers off the hook for mismanagement while blaming your peers.

landryraccoon 8y ago
> . In some cases, suburbs raise much more capital in taxes per person, are often required by the state to give some back for redistribution (e.g. education), attract business much more these days than city centers, provide much needed infrastructure for city-based businesses to house their employees, and provide many services that are leveraged by urbanites unable to attain similar quality locally (e.g. hospitalization). Can you find a citation for this claim? Strong Towns did a blog about this and found that downtown areas produce far more tax revenue per acre than suburbs. Source : https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/7/growing-lasting-wealth-in-cobb-county?rq=value%20per%20acre https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/7/growing-lasting... Another effect given is that suburbs and rural areas require far more investment in infrastructure per capita. In short, rural areas and suburbs require way more roads than downtown, and fewer people live there per mile of road to boot. So fewer people are paying taxes to support even more roads. I would be very curious to see a study that showed the opposite effect, and how it could be possible.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Which claim? Why did we change from per capita to per acre? Seems like an underhanded way for StrongTowns to make a point (I disagree with most of the "StrongTowns" approach as ideologically driven and opposed to the practicalities people prefer). This is the way these goal-driven ideologues muster support. I don't think you can link a source about a specific area or two as refutation of a point about some suburbs, especially when you change from per person to amount of land. > In short, rural areas and suburbs require way more roads than downtown, and fewer people live there per mile of road to boot. So fewer people are paying taxes to support even more roads. I know it can read like common sense (I won't ask for a study from you or anything), but it also reads like common sense that a more traveled road requires significantly more maintenance costs. These are just not binary things that you can answer this way. > I would be very curious to see a study that showed the opposite effect, and how it could be possible. Opposite effect of which part? Do I really have to provide a study to show some suburbs incur a financially heavier burden due to their neighboring city than vice versa?
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    > Which claim? Why did we change from per capita to per acre? Strong towns at least has numbers. So while you may disagree with the methodology at least there is one. > This is the way these goal-driven ideologues muster support. It sounds like you're equally biased, at least until you provide some competing numbers. Fine, use per capita. What did you come up with?
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      Actually, those guys have collected both tax data and spending data. They show very well that the older, poorer parts of cities universally collect more in taxes than they spend on services, and the surplus subsidizes the richer suburban areas. If you have any data at all showing the opposite, I'm sure they would love to see it. Strongtowns is not some hotbed of liberalism. They guy who started it grew up on a farm in a small town in Minnesota. He is anything but a "liberal."
- 8y ago
ubernostrum 8y ago
In some cases, suburbs raise much more capital In some cases, you may be right. It is much more the norm that new development gets sweetheart deals waiving all sorts of taxes and fees (which would ordinarily fund the infrastructure costs the local government is about to be on the hook for because of the new development), on a mentality that it's the only way to attract development. Which then means somebody else has to pay more to cover those infrastructure costs, because the people using the infrastructure aren't paying for it. This same pattern repeats with both business and residential development, all over the country.
- kodablah 8y ago
  While I agree with you, I am not sure this is specific to suburb vs city. Infrastructure costs are borne by the citizens of the areas, regardless of the density of the area. Or are you saying somehow inner cities are providing more infrastructure for suburban companies w/ tax breaks as opposed to the inverse?
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    Cities tend to already be built up. There are streets, water/gas/electricity/etc. already there, and redeveloping doesn't require 100% of the infrastructure to be run out there and built from scratch. Expanding the suburban sprawl means going to places where that infrastructure isn't already there, which means adding all of it and adding the burden of maintaining it. And when you then waive the taxes that are meant to pay for the infrastructure, where does the money come from? Out of somebody else's pocket.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      On the other hand: try fixing anything that goes beneath the surface in certain cities. There's pipes, cables, subways, shelters everywhere it seems. People from New York might have some further input here.
      - spiralx 8y ago

landryraccoon 8y ago

> . In some cases, suburbs raise much more capital in taxes per person, are often required by the state to give some back for redistribution (e.g. education), attract business much more these days than city centers, provide much needed infrastructure for city-based businesses to house their employees, and provide many services that are leveraged by urbanites unable to attain similar quality locally (e.g. hospitalization). Can you find a citation for this claim? Strong Towns did a blog about this and found that downtown areas produce far more tax revenue per acre than suburbs. Source : https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/7/growing-lasting-wealth-in-cobb-county?rq=value%20per%20acre https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/7/growing-lasting... Another effect given is that suburbs and rural areas require far more investment in infrastructure per capita. In short, rural areas and suburbs require way more roads than downtown, and fewer people live there per mile of road to boot. So fewer people are paying taxes to support even more roads. I would be very curious to see a study that showed the opposite effect, and how it could be possible.

kodablah 8y ago
Which claim? Why did we change from per capita to per acre? Seems like an underhanded way for StrongTowns to make a point (I disagree with most of the "StrongTowns" approach as ideologically driven and opposed to the practicalities people prefer). This is the way these goal-driven ideologues muster support. I don't think you can link a source about a specific area or two as refutation of a point about some suburbs, especially when you change from per person to amount of land. > In short, rural areas and suburbs require way more roads than downtown, and fewer people live there per mile of road to boot. So fewer people are paying taxes to support even more roads. I know it can read like common sense (I won't ask for a study from you or anything), but it also reads like common sense that a more traveled road requires significantly more maintenance costs. These are just not binary things that you can answer this way. > I would be very curious to see a study that showed the opposite effect, and how it could be possible. Opposite effect of which part? Do I really have to provide a study to show some suburbs incur a financially heavier burden due to their neighboring city than vice versa?
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > Which claim? Why did we change from per capita to per acre? Strong towns at least has numbers. So while you may disagree with the methodology at least there is one. > This is the way these goal-driven ideologues muster support. It sounds like you're equally biased, at least until you provide some competing numbers. Fine, use per capita. What did you come up with?
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    Actually, those guys have collected both tax data and spending data. They show very well that the older, poorer parts of cities universally collect more in taxes than they spend on services, and the surplus subsidizes the richer suburban areas. If you have any data at all showing the opposite, I'm sure they would love to see it. Strongtowns is not some hotbed of liberalism. They guy who started it grew up on a farm in a small town in Minnesota. He is anything but a "liberal."
8y ago

ubernostrum 8y ago

In some cases, suburbs raise much more capital In some cases, you may be right. It is much more the norm that new development gets sweetheart deals waiving all sorts of taxes and fees (which would ordinarily fund the infrastructure costs the local government is about to be on the hook for because of the new development), on a mentality that it's the only way to attract development. Which then means somebody else has to pay more to cover those infrastructure costs, because the people using the infrastructure aren't paying for it. This same pattern repeats with both business and residential development, all over the country.

kodablah 8y ago
While I agree with you, I am not sure this is specific to suburb vs city. Infrastructure costs are borne by the citizens of the areas, regardless of the density of the area. Or are you saying somehow inner cities are providing more infrastructure for suburban companies w/ tax breaks as opposed to the inverse?
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  Cities tend to already be built up. There are streets, water/gas/electricity/etc. already there, and redeveloping doesn't require 100% of the infrastructure to be run out there and built from scratch. Expanding the suburban sprawl means going to places where that infrastructure isn't already there, which means adding all of it and adding the burden of maintaining it. And when you then waive the taxes that are meant to pay for the infrastructure, where does the money come from? Out of somebody else's pocket.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    On the other hand: try fixing anything that goes beneath the surface in certain cities. There's pipes, cables, subways, shelters everywhere it seems. People from New York might have some further input here.
    - spiralx 8y ago