4 ms·

The math is right there in the article, so please download the spreadsheet and poke holes into if it's broken. The thing with Texas is that it's growing fast,

The math is right there in the article, so please download the spreadsheet and poke holes into if it's broken. The thing with Texas is that it's growing fast, and cities get an initial windfall when brand new property is built out, which is why they want to see more of it. The Strong Towns hypothesis (which is pretty darn close to proven from what I can see) is that low-density sprawl is not sustainable, because it can't pay for its own maintenance. (And a lot of that sprawl is or will be inhabited by people who don't have $60k pickup trucks.)

SamBam 6y ago
No, the question is whether or not people will agree to increasing their taxes for it.
prepend 6y ago
Pretty simply, it’s broken as there is a simple solution to just slightly raise prices now or sightly more 20 years from now. It seems like a non-issue that isn’t particular to culs de sac but to any new community where they don’t charge enough in taxes to cover long term expenses. In my region culs de sac are more prevalent in affluent areas that wouldn’t mind slightly raised prices. And the assumption that property values will stagnate is pretty easy to disprove and just count on increased property taxes.
theamk 6y ago
The math in article is correct when it says that those communities need to raise taxes by few hundred dollars per year. However, the article talks a lot about increased density, and even says outright: > Ultimately, though, I think no amount of bandaging with higher tax rates or user fees is going to be a long-term solution The author presents no no evidence of this fact. The only way this can be correct is if raising taxes by a few hundred dollars would make those houses so expensive, that people would move out and houses would stay empty. I doubt this is the case, and I see no data to support this for this in the article.

SamBam 6y ago

No, the question is whether or not people will agree to increasing their taxes for it.

prepend 6y ago

Pretty simply, it’s broken as there is a simple solution to just slightly raise prices now or sightly more 20 years from now. It seems like a non-issue that isn’t particular to culs de sac but to any new community where they don’t charge enough in taxes to cover long term expenses. In my region culs de sac are more prevalent in affluent areas that wouldn’t mind slightly raised prices. And the assumption that property values will stagnate is pretty easy to disprove and just count on increased property taxes.

theamk 6y ago

The math in article is correct when it says that those communities need to raise taxes by few hundred dollars per year. However, the article talks a lot about increased density, and even says outright: > Ultimately, though, I think no amount of bandaging with higher tax rates or user fees is going to be a long-term solution The author presents no no evidence of this fact. The only way this can be correct is if raising taxes by a few hundred dollars would make those houses so expensive, that people would move out and houses would stay empty. I doubt this is the case, and I see no data to support this for this in the article.