3 ms·
In the US there are massive subsidies for suburbs with single family homes, to the point where cities are stymied as people in the cities are the ones that end
by reportingsjr 6y ago
In the US there are massive subsidies for suburbs with single family homes, to the point where cities are stymied as people in the cities are the ones that end up paying for a massive chunk of this subsidy.
As a result there is less of a drive for people who are in between, or even want to live in the city a bit, to live there and make it a more lively area since it ends up being artificially more expensive.
On top of this, a lot of zoning makes interesting, dense cities straight up illegal or incredibly expensive to build, again, in preference of low density single family homes.
This is what people are concerned with and want to change.
- briHass 6y agoThere's a lot of back-and-forth subsidies that often aren't considered. In Philadelphia, for example, the city public transportation network (SEPTA) also serves the suburbs. In fact, the bulk of its revenue comes from train service to those surrounding suburbs. The local subway/buses in the city will be hard pressed to operate at the loss they are now if ridership on the suburban trains stays low. The city also has the highest wage tax in the nation >4%, more than half of which is still due if you commute in. Unsurprisingly, these suburban commuters represent a huge line item in the city's revenue - that is gone if everyone is WFH. City schools also receive the bulk of their funding from the state, unlike suburban schools which are paid mostly out of local taxes. In the Philly area at least, the city would never survive without its rich suburbs.