5 ms·

Capital is so cheap these days, Lafayette should: (1) borrow to fund infrastructure spending; and focus that into new local jobs and economic activity (2) A b

Capital is so cheap these days, Lafayette should: (1) borrow to fund infrastructure spending; and focus that into new local jobs and economic activity (2) A boosted economy will allow higher taxes to be collected (3) Better infrastructure will attract investment But in this scenario, politicians will skip step 2 because it's unpopular; and the cycle will continue in a future generation.

Xylakant 6y ago
How will that help? The fundamental problem is sprawl - the density is too low to support the infrastructure to maintain it. Effectively, the city is making a loss on every square meter of land it builds infrastructure on. Using a loan to build more infrastructure will make the problem worse - unless you can raise the tax base around (ballpark estimate from the numbers given in the article) factor 10 or higher just to maintain that infrastructure. So the answer is to build less - make quarters denser, smaller footprint per person, less garden space per house, higher houses. This all goes counter the dream many people have - a suburb house with a garden, driveway, lawn and porch.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  High density infrastructure like subways and trains is way more expensive than roads and pipes. It is a 100k town in the example not LA.
  - ginko 6y ago
    You don't need subways and trains in a dense 100k town.
  - Xylakant 6y ago
    Exactly - and that low density town is loosing money per mile road, sewage pipes, ... So it needs to build less miles, not more and increase the income per mile. If your startup is loosing money per sale, increasing sales is not a viable long term strategy.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    I lived a few years in a 180k town that was dense enough that you didn't need a car at all. It was maybe 15km from one end of town to the other. Public transport was mostly busses and a Tram line.
    - crote 6y ago
      Yup. Lafayette has a population of 120k. Leeuwarden, The Netherlands has 124k and it's only 5km from edge to edge, and that's a very normal figure here. The higher the density, the cheaper the infrastructure per person. It's not that difficult once you stop forcing everyone to drive.
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        * once you force everyone to stop driving
        Xylakant 6y ago
        You don’t even need to force everyone to stop driving. Once density increases, distances get easier to cover by bike or by walking, adding policies that make people liable for the cost of space to put a car (ban or realistic fees for on-street parking) people will reconsider owning a car. Basically you can still drive - there’s still roads, but you need to stash your vehicle on your property. And then people will start considering whether they still want that garage or maybe a bigger flat would be cool, too.
        undersuit 6y ago
        > there’s still roads, but you need to stash your vehicle on your property. Yep, just took a little Google Maps trip around Layfette, just another US town where people park on the street because we have more cars than we can handle or our garage is full of Chrsitmas decorations.
        adrianN 6y ago
        That's ridiculous. There are plenty of people driving even in dense towns.
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  LOL. Most cities aren't New York and Los Angeles. Lafayette is a town that grew into a city. You will NEEEEEVER EVER get that particular populace into the idea that they should all huddle in miserable, adjacent caves around the city center.
erdos4d 6y ago
I've often heard arguments like this for infrastructure spending, but I've also often heard that point 2 doesn't ever happen. You get a short term boost in jobs while the project is underway, but you don't get enough economic boost out of new roads and such to actually raise the tax base appreciably. It's basically just city maintenance work and businesses don't reward it as much as people think. Mind you, businesses will move out if you don't do it, but you won't see 2X tax revenue or whatever from that new waste plant, regardless of how it got sold to the locals.

Xylakant 6y ago

How will that help? The fundamental problem is sprawl - the density is too low to support the infrastructure to maintain it. Effectively, the city is making a loss on every square meter of land it builds infrastructure on. Using a loan to build more infrastructure will make the problem worse - unless you can raise the tax base around (ballpark estimate from the numbers given in the article) factor 10 or higher just to maintain that infrastructure. So the answer is to build less - make quarters denser, smaller footprint per person, less garden space per house, higher houses. This all goes counter the dream many people have - a suburb house with a garden, driveway, lawn and porch.

rightbyte 6y ago
High density infrastructure like subways and trains is way more expensive than roads and pipes. It is a 100k town in the example not LA.
- ginko 6y ago
  You don't need subways and trains in a dense 100k town.
- Xylakant 6y ago
  Exactly - and that low density town is loosing money per mile road, sewage pipes, ... So it needs to build less miles, not more and increase the income per mile. If your startup is loosing money per sale, increasing sales is not a viable long term strategy.
- adrianN 6y ago
  I lived a few years in a 180k town that was dense enough that you didn't need a car at all. It was maybe 15km from one end of town to the other. Public transport was mostly busses and a Tram line.
  - crote 6y ago
    Yup. Lafayette has a population of 120k. Leeuwarden, The Netherlands has 124k and it's only 5km from edge to edge, and that's a very normal figure here. The higher the density, the cheaper the infrastructure per person. It's not that difficult once you stop forcing everyone to drive.
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      * once you force everyone to stop driving
      - Xylakant 6y ago
        You don’t even need to force everyone to stop driving. Once density increases, distances get easier to cover by bike or by walking, adding policies that make people liable for the cost of space to put a car (ban or realistic fees for on-street parking) people will reconsider owning a car. Basically you can still drive - there’s still roads, but you need to stash your vehicle on your property. And then people will start considering whether they still want that garage or maybe a bigger flat would be cool, too.
        undersuit 6y ago
        > there’s still roads, but you need to stash your vehicle on your property. Yep, just took a little Google Maps trip around Layfette, just another US town where people park on the street because we have more cars than we can handle or our garage is full of Chrsitmas decorations.
      - adrianN 6y ago
        That's ridiculous. There are plenty of people driving even in dense towns.
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
LOL. Most cities aren't New York and Los Angeles. Lafayette is a town that grew into a city. You will NEEEEEVER EVER get that particular populace into the idea that they should all huddle in miserable, adjacent caves around the city center.

erdos4d 6y ago

I've often heard arguments like this for infrastructure spending, but I've also often heard that point 2 doesn't ever happen. You get a short term boost in jobs while the project is underway, but you don't get enough economic boost out of new roads and such to actually raise the tax base appreciably. It's basically just city maintenance work and businesses don't reward it as much as people think. Mind you, businesses will move out if you don't do it, but you won't see 2X tax revenue or whatever from that new waste plant, regardless of how it got sold to the locals.