5 ms·

> . 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), a

> . 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."
dragonwriter 8y ago
> 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. Yes, but maintaining roads isn't a fixed cost by road length (or even surface area), its determined by volume and size of vehicle traffic, with heavier vehicles doing more damage, far out of proportion to their weight; a single heavy truck doing damage equivalent to 5-10,000 cars in some estimates. Cities may have less road area per capita, but they have a lot higher utilization and a lot more heavier vehicles than on most suburban roads that have low density traffic composed almost entirely of passenger cars and light trucks.
- nieve 8y ago
  I'm not sure if you've lived in low-density rural areas that are dependent on many roads, but when you do you see traffic isn't always the dominant factor. In many rural & suburban parts of the US road maintenance is heavily driven by the freeze-thaw cycle's damage - back roads will simply crack, buckle, and come apart. Living in both rural, lower density parts of New England and the even sparser US Rockies you see this continuously. A road with literally no traffic will still start to fail over just a few years. Similarly in wet soils & heavy root areas I've lived in rural roads also accumulate a lot of non-traffic damage even when you don't get sinkholes. Bridges wash out, culverts get blocked, nothing lasts. Even desert areas can have issues with drifting sand and the occasional serious cracking. Basically dealing with infrastructure in rural areas you can't pretend that the earth is stable & inactive and no rural place can afford the most durable materials.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I'm not sure if you've lived in low-density rural areas that are dependent on many roads, but when you do you see traffic isn't always the dominant factor. I've worked in low density rural areas, though I've only lived in urban and low-density suburban areas, mostly the latter. And, yes, if you have very little traffic and very little of that is heavy vehicle traffic, weathering becomes the dominant factor. If you have signficant traffic, it becomes the dominant wear factor, even though you still have the full impact of weathering. High population density doesn't eliminate the freeze/thaw cycle. > Basically dealing with infrastructure in rural areas you can't pretend that the earth is stable & inactive and no rural place can afford the most durable materials. You can't pretend that in urban areas, either, which (among other factors) tend to be next to major waterways which have substantial impacts on stability. > and no rural place can afford the most durable materials. What you mean is “no rural place finds it cost effective to pay for the most expensive materials that are needed for heavily trafficked urban roads, because the maintenance cost with cheaper materials to keep roads in conditions suitable for the actual demands placed on them in those areas is lower than if the more expensive materials were used.” Which gets back to my point that, sure, low-density areas have more linear distance of road per person, but also lower build and maintenance costs per unit of linear distance of road.

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."

dragonwriter 8y ago

> 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. Yes, but maintaining roads isn't a fixed cost by road length (or even surface area), its determined by volume and size of vehicle traffic, with heavier vehicles doing more damage, far out of proportion to their weight; a single heavy truck doing damage equivalent to 5-10,000 cars in some estimates. Cities may have less road area per capita, but they have a lot higher utilization and a lot more heavier vehicles than on most suburban roads that have low density traffic composed almost entirely of passenger cars and light trucks.

nieve 8y ago
I'm not sure if you've lived in low-density rural areas that are dependent on many roads, but when you do you see traffic isn't always the dominant factor. In many rural & suburban parts of the US road maintenance is heavily driven by the freeze-thaw cycle's damage - back roads will simply crack, buckle, and come apart. Living in both rural, lower density parts of New England and the even sparser US Rockies you see this continuously. A road with literally no traffic will still start to fail over just a few years. Similarly in wet soils & heavy root areas I've lived in rural roads also accumulate a lot of non-traffic damage even when you don't get sinkholes. Bridges wash out, culverts get blocked, nothing lasts. Even desert areas can have issues with drifting sand and the occasional serious cracking. Basically dealing with infrastructure in rural areas you can't pretend that the earth is stable & inactive and no rural place can afford the most durable materials.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I'm not sure if you've lived in low-density rural areas that are dependent on many roads, but when you do you see traffic isn't always the dominant factor. I've worked in low density rural areas, though I've only lived in urban and low-density suburban areas, mostly the latter. And, yes, if you have very little traffic and very little of that is heavy vehicle traffic, weathering becomes the dominant factor. If you have signficant traffic, it becomes the dominant wear factor, even though you still have the full impact of weathering. High population density doesn't eliminate the freeze/thaw cycle. > Basically dealing with infrastructure in rural areas you can't pretend that the earth is stable & inactive and no rural place can afford the most durable materials. You can't pretend that in urban areas, either, which (among other factors) tend to be next to major waterways which have substantial impacts on stability. > and no rural place can afford the most durable materials. What you mean is “no rural place finds it cost effective to pay for the most expensive materials that are needed for heavily trafficked urban roads, because the maintenance cost with cheaper materials to keep roads in conditions suitable for the actual demands placed on them in those areas is lower than if the more expensive materials were used.” Which gets back to my point that, sure, low-density areas have more linear distance of road per person, but also lower build and maintenance costs per unit of linear distance of road.