3 ms·

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 "StrongTo

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."

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."