3 ms·

Not even close (case studies linked below). Their examples only look at individual projects from several cities, instead of whole cities. They convincingly show

Not even close (case studies linked below). Their examples only look at individual projects from several cities, instead of whole cities. They convincingly show a few houses paying $252/year in property taxes will only support X sq ft of road. But that's not really surprising-- more dense houses paying $1000/year property taxes in some other part of the city will subsidize the other parts and the city will avoid financial ruin. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/14/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-2.html https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/14/the-growth-pon...

treis 6y ago
> few houses paying $252/year That's 10-20% of a typical property tax bill. They're fudging the numbers somewhere.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> But that's not really surprising-- more dense houses paying $1000/year property taxes in some other part of the city will subsidize the other parts and the city will avoid financial ruin. 1. That itself is not great. There's no compelling reason for the government to subsidize things that way. Why deliberately push a form of development that's horrible for the city finances? Modern zoning rules usually force that kind of thing to exist, for no good reason. This is one of the things strongtowns talks about. 2. Some cities don't have a dense core with enough activity to subsidize the sprawly areas.
- lostmsu 6y ago
  There's a compelling reason: that encourages city growth into the subsidized areas.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    ...but without the zoning rules, the city would still grow. It would just grow in a more financially sustainable way. You wouldn't even be blocking sprawly development if that's really what the market wanted. You would only be allowing more dense development. Which would only happen if the market preferred it.

3 ms·

Not even close (case studies linked below). Their examples only look at individual projects from several cities, instead of whole cities. They convincingly show

by CapriciousCptl 6y ago

treis 6y ago
> few houses paying $252/year That's 10-20% of a typical property tax bill. They're fudging the numbers somewhere.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> But that's not really surprising-- more dense houses paying $1000/year property taxes in some other part of the city will subsidize the other parts and the city will avoid financial ruin. 1. That itself is not great. There's no compelling reason for the government to subsidize things that way. Why deliberately push a form of development that's horrible for the city finances? Modern zoning rules usually force that kind of thing to exist, for no good reason. This is one of the things strongtowns talks about. 2. Some cities don't have a dense core with enough activity to subsidize the sprawly areas.
- lostmsu 6y ago
  There's a compelling reason: that encourages city growth into the subsidized areas.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    ...but without the zoning rules, the city would still grow. It would just grow in a more financially sustainable way. You wouldn't even be blocking sprawly development if that's really what the market wanted. You would only be allowing more dense development. Which would only happen if the market preferred it.