10 ms·
How America Bankrupted its Cities [video]
- sillyquiet 6y agoThe tense is wrong in the title. The process is still going on, and many currently financially thriving cities are still buying into the false promise of unchecked growth without consideration for infrastructure, services, and overall quality of life. I also take exception to the use of the gestalt 'America' as if there were some central force orchestrating this phenomena - there isn't, just the same incentives that push developer's voices in city governments louder and louder.
- anonu 6y ago> I also take exception to the use of the gestalt 'America' These things start at the top - based on what the US govt decides or does not decide to regulate. With a lack of regulation, we all know the "free markets" reign to a point where they are no longer free and instead enhance divisions in society and further monopolies. Amazon, Facebook, Google are too big. They've provided great benefits to society to date - but govt needs to step in and control them now.
- sillyquiet 6y agoNo, it doesn't. Not in a country where constitutionally such power by default is devolved to the states to regulate or not. One could make the argument it starts at the state level, but most states have left such matters to the municipalities in turn. So, these municipalities, acting independently and without coordination, and have arrived at the same state. Because they are all currently incentivized to.
- zip1234 6y agoThere are state and federal dollars that are used by these municipalities to widen their roads and such. It is not something that happened without coordination. A federal policy in which 10x more money is available for roads vs transit is an incentive for more of the same.
- jkingsbery 6y agoReading the actual book that this video is based on, those pushing the "Strong Towns" theme are pretty agnostic to free markets, so it's kind of besides the point. The point is - we spend $X/year on infrastructure, but people only seem to think that infrastructure is worth <$X/year, so there will forever be a deficit. The Strong Town books also discusses what happened with a lack of regulation throughout almost all of human history: everyone lived in rural areas to work a farm, or else lived and worked in dense urban areas. American suburbia happened in large part not due to a lack of regulation at the top, but federal money being spent on roads, highways and infrastructure at the top.
- anm89 6y ago> I also take exception to the use of the gestalt 'America' as if there were some central force orchestrating this phenomena Agreed. This reductionist mindset bugs me to no end
- throw0101a 6y ago> The tense is wrong in the title. The process is still going on […] Channeling the late comedian Mitch Hedberg: I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to too. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Hedberg#Quotations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Hedberg#Quotations
- JDDunn9 6y agoRoughly 6% of local budgets are spend on roads. [1] [1] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
- admiralspoo 6y agoThat seems to go against the core thesis of the video.
- ProofByAccident 6y agoNot really, I think roads are a convenient example but the same dynamic described (cities getting out over their skis through cheap-in-the-short term development and debt) can be seen playing out for other types of expenses. The next highest costs up that list, hospitals and education, are often also financed through debt, expensive to maintain over a long time horizon, and essential to growing the tax base. This seems totally cromulent with the basic "growth addiction" framework to me.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoMore roads means more sewage, power, water, gas, waste removal, snow removal, and fiber internet lines. Living spaced out also probably adds other costs like more administrative staff.
- zip1234 6y agoIt mentions in the video that most money for road initial construction comes from State/Federal. Thus the true ongoing costs are masked and so it continues.
- zip1234 6y agoYes, a lot of road money comes from state/federal budgets, not local. It actually causes many problems. Residents don't want a freeway through their town but guess who makes those decision?
- patentatt 6y agoThis video is unwatchably annoying, is there an article with the same arguments/information?
- toomuchtodo 6y agohttps://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
- mycall 6y agoIs it true the $5T that ASCE estimated is being held by the 1% (or whatever you want to call them)? This would imply the funds exist but are locked up for thousands of different reasons.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 6y agoOne might argue infrastructure funds are being held by the wealthiest in their investment assets that otherwise would've been taxed at a higher rate in other developed nations. This doesn't mean we should grow for growth's sake using that wealth, but based on on the nation's infrastructure report card [1], we are very much not investing in infrastructure upkeep. How do we pay for infrastructure? Taxes (or perhaps by printing fiat based on modern monetary theory). Do we need infrastructure to support a civilization? Of course. [1] https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
- lotsofpulp 6y agoSimple version is today’s voters will always vote for low taxes and elect to have future generations pay for today’s services/labor. This works as long as you have economic growth (usually as a result of population growth). Doesn’t work so well when automation and cheaper labor from other places in the world are taking away the economic growth, and simultaneously people are having 0, 1, or at most 2 kids.
- stetrain 6y ago- We need more growth! - What if we waive impact fees so new construction doesn't pay for its impact on transportation and other services? Wow look at all that construction! - Oh no, we don't have enough money to pay for increases to transportation and police and fire and libraries and schools! - Try to pass increased property taxes on existing residents, who vote "No" because they always vote no on any tax increases.
- tnel77 6y agoThis isn’t entirely true. In Colorado, we vote on all tax increases. In the short time I have been here Coloradoans have voted to increase taxes on themselves quite a few times for roads and schools. If you make a good argument, even conservatives will commonly vote to increase taxes since many see the value that comes from it. The issue is that many people, like myself, want a say. I don’t mind paying more in taxes if the money is used well and I feel like I actually had a say in the process.
- robohoe 6y agoUnlike in Illinois, where majority of tax increases get squandered.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoThe issue is the taxes voted on aren’t enough to pay for the item being voted on. The pensions aren’t getting properly funded, and the amortized cost of the road and accompanying infrastructure isn’t being saved for with taxes collected today. Also, Colorado is expecting one of the biggest economic and population booms in America, so people’s incomes are going up and thinks are looking pretty good. Try the same in states with stagnant economies and job markets, and even schools won’t get the votes for tax increases. And the nuance of the statement, of course, is people won’t vote for tax increases for things that won’t benefit them. Roads benefit all car owners, so car owners don’t mind voting for roads. But taxes for public transportation won’t be voted in. And people will vote to increase taxes for their own school district. But not to help subsidize other cities’ schools.
- dfilppi 6y ago
- m1117 6y agoIt was always hard to understand to me, the more buildings they build, the more expensive they get. Like in SF or NYC, they build more condos, but each new condo is more expensive. I think America[real estate] as a whole is an ongoing Ponzi scheme :shrug:
- Redoubts 6y agoWe’ve made cheap buildings illegal, and most community input meetings are held in bad faith with continually moving goalposts. It’s amazing things get built at all.
- beisner 6y agoI can’t find the exact link right now that breaks this down, but basically the ONLY profitable new construction to build is luxury buildings, which by definition are at the top end of the market (and even with a premium, because they’re new!). There was a case study about this in LA. Over time, older buildings become cheaper until they’re either renovated or razed and replaced with new construction. But it’s a cyclic process: new construction is expensive, and gets less expensive relative to other newer units over time until it is renewed. Now, there’s still a ton of unmet demand from people moving into cities: this pushes all prices in the market up. And unfortunately, (covid era excluded) there’s just so, so, so much demand from people moving to SF/NYC/LA/Seattle/etc that even if we removed all zoning restrictions and started building at a furious pace, cities probably wouldn’t be able to meet demand across the economic spectrum for another few decades. Covid may affect this in some way in the short term, and other trends may affect this in the mid-long term (we did have suburban exodus once before in US history). One way to address this problem is to massively fund public transit infrastructure projects inside the city and in surrounding metro areas. Tokyo has ~30 million residents is relatively expensive for Japan, but living even a 20-30min subway/train ride from the city center is actually surprisingly affordable compared to other international cities. Seoul is similar. Chinese cities have similar infrastructure systems, but I can’t speak to how that affects affordability because there are other economic/political factors at play. But that seems tragically unlikely to happen in the US.
- downrightmike 6y ago
- yokem55 6y agoThe basic social problem is that the absence of economic growth turns economies into zero-sum operations. In order for anyone to get ahead, someone, somewhere else must lose. Historically, zero-sum economies make for some pretty shitty living standards for most folks. Growth, at least in the short term (the 50-100 year timescale), makes it possible to have an economy where gains can be had without necessarily making other folks lose. The downside here is that growth can only go for so long before resource constraints of one form or another bite everyone in the butt.
- zip1234 6y agoA country can still improve wealth and health of the citizens without an increasing GDP. If work is spent on impactful areas that make people's lives better. Motion is not necessarily progress. "Growth" where we spend loads of money building out unused infrastructure is empty growth.
- anm89 6y agoThis is utter nonsense. It treats peoples lives as the sum of GDPesque production data. GDP, or counting how many buildings and streets and strip malls were built is a totally seperate axis from quality of life. A town could shrink while every single person's life in that town increases because it changes the structure and quality of their of lives.
- imtringued 6y agoThe problem is that you need a certain population density to pay for maintenance of infrastructure. It's like running a business. If you can break even, you can expand your business endlessly. If you are even just a single dollar short it just doesn't work out. Suburbia is not just a dollar short. It's making substantial losses while providing very little to show for it.
- ralusek 6y agoPensions and opaque bureaucracies.
- dfilppi 6y agoThis is the fundamental purpose of government. Providing services is a mere concession to keep the gravy train rolling.
- BallinBige 6y agoWait till this guy figures out civilization is the ponzi scheme and there is no rationalization left for his ego to defend itself.
- imtringued 6y agoHow is it a ponzi scheme? Previous generations suffered for our (future) wellbeing. With a ponzi scheme things get worse over time, not better.
- dukeofdoom 6y agoYou can bring back cities by making apartments more affordable. Perhaps making more micro apartments. There's probably a large marker for people that would still keep their suburban home, but if they could afford it would get an apartment to stay in for fun over some weekends, or overnight during the workweek. Living in the Suburbs has many benefits. Larger homes, backyards and is safer for kids to run around. All valid reasons to chose them. Lets not try and change people, but work with their preferences.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago> Living in the Suburbs has many benefits. Larger homes, backyards and is safer for kids to run around. All valid reasons to chose them. Lets not try and change people, but work with their preferences. No one will need to try and change people, they will be forced to change once the budget deficits force their hand. The ones that can may move to a new jurisdiction and start the game over. I also would not say kids are safer in suburbs. Lots of car traffic, lots of big roads to cross, lots of big cars since why not buy an SUV/pickup.
- ohples 6y ago> safer for kids to run around. https://youtu.be/ul_xzyCDT98 https://youtu.be/ul_xzyCDT98
- com2kid 6y agoIt isn't just the size of apartments, it is everything about modern building codes. How far the setback from the sidewalk is, how much green space is required, parking requirements, all contribute to a lack of density. And certain types of housing, e.g. boarding houses, aren't even legal anymore (moral crusaders shut them down long ago!)
- defertoreptar 6y agoThis was confusing. The narrator leads by saying that cities are ponzi schemes and supports this by showing a cash flow graph, but that graph doesn't seem to be grounded with any examples. I find it surprising that long term maintenance costs more than the long term tax revenue growth. I would've liked to see more evidence that these cities really are unsustainable.
- kiliantics 6y agoThe source for the video provides examples and case studies: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/14/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-2.html https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/14/the-growth-pon...
- ffggvv 6y agoits not just cities. this is the issue with academia and many other aspects of life. everything has an embedded growth expectation, and when that growth stops, its no longer sustainable. (IE each professor cant train 10 grad students in their field to be professors because academia is simply not growing that fast anymore) And not every lawyer can become a partner anymore etc. (not every google engineer can become senior)
- finikytou 6y agounfortunately its not only about growth. everything in our life is based on short term benefits. officials are elected for a few year and just want to push for new development to show growth. No one wants to be the one saying lets hold onto growth and fix what we have first. that is valid for cities, companies, governments.
- vondur 6y agoIt won't bankrupt a city, they simply won't do the required infrastructure maintenance. Check out the city of Los Angeles and its water piping system. Under the current pipe replacement schedule, it would take 100 years to replace pipes that are 100 years old. They instead just fix the pipes as they break. Usually the pipe breaks are small enough where no damage is done, but a few years back a large pipe ruptured and flooded an expensive part of UCLA.