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

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.