4 ms·
> but generally avoids the number one factor driving this development, which is middle class likes suburbs and continues to demand them. The middle class can h
by Analemma_ 6y ago
> but generally avoids the number one factor driving this development, which is middle class likes suburbs and continues to demand them.
The middle class can have suburbs, if they want, but they have to pay for them. Marohn's whole point is that cash accounting, federal grants, and other tricks are hiding the true costs of suburbs and keeping the price artificially (and unsustainably) low. And when prices are kept artificially low, of course there's lots of demand; that's a basic principle of economics.
But would the middle class still demand suburbs if they had to stomach the higher taxes to honestly pay for them? That is the open question.
- cjf4 6y ago>But would the middle class still demand suburbs if they had to stomach the higher taxes to honestly pay for them? That is the open question. A huge challenge here is that no one ever has to actually face that, because they can just move to the next growing town/city/state. Depending on the area, you can either create another ring surrounding the metro, or leave the state entirely and move to the sunbelt. In either case, the legacy cities or inner ring towns are left with the bill, and no one left to pay it. To Marohn's point, we've already seen this happen all over (particularly the rustbelt). But my point is there's nothing to stop that pattern from continuing, as long as there's another town in the rockies or south or wherever with low taxes and plenty of land. There's just not really an impediment short of people's preferences dramatically changing, and the evidence shows that suburbs are growing.