They're a necessary thing if the city has grown dependent on their tax income to provide basic services. The reason Rust Belt cities like Detroit are doing so p

They're a necessary thing if the city has grown dependent on their tax income to provide basic services. The reason Rust Belt cities like Detroit are doing so poorly isn't because of the people who live there or the politicians they elect, it's because their tax base disappeared. And now the city is stuck paying for infrastructure that they can't afford to maintain because the people who paid the majority of city taxes left. I live in a small town in the Midwest and my town is doing great... as long as the factory stays here. The next town over? The last factory in town left 15 years ago and they've had to close some schools (they're still paying the bonds for those buildings and the land though) and maintain water lines to residential neighborhoods that don't exist anymore and pave roads that only handle 1/4 the traffic they were built for. The big city nearby discontinued bus service to that town a few years ago because it was such an unprofitable line without the factory. The town recently stopped city trash service and now residents have to pay for their own waste disposal, raising the cost of living in a town where economic prospects are decreasing. An artist may prefer a more down-scale San Fransisco, but if the city has been taking the tax revenue from high-paid engineers and using it to build infrastructure for people who don't live there anymore and don't pay taxes there anymore... well no one likes crumbling roads and collapsing bridges and failing dams and abandoned bus stations. It's really hard for a city to go down a level once it's used to higher tax revenue. They don't turn into SoHo Beyond Broadway, they turn into Detroit and Flint.