4 ms·

Yes. Trivial. “ It has been estimated that between 1975 and 2000 a total of more than US$100bn has been invested in water supply and sanitation, and that a fur

Yes. Trivial. “ It has been estimated that between 1975 and 2000 a total of more than US$100bn has been invested in water supply and sanitation, and that a further US$130bn will be needed between 2002 and 2022, corresponding to US$6.5 billion per year or more than US$200 per capita and year.[2] This level of investment in water per capita is among the highest in the world, higher than in the US, the UK or Germany, due to the high cost of desalination and the need to transport water over long distances. It corresponds to about 1.5% of GDP.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...

creddit 6y ago
I mean, yeah clearly? Your own source for what is nearly the worst case in the world is ongoing investment of “US$200 per capita and year”. Look at how much the home values have increased! Do you really think that’s not trivially extractable from property taxes?? That’s IF it’s as bad as building megacities in the middle of literal deserts which obviously a place like Bozeman is NOT. You’re throwing your hands up exasperated at the costs of building water infra when the peak is somewhere around 1.5% of GDP but then you have housing costs that are rising dramatically faster than wages and everyone’s like “whelp, nothing to done here.”
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  Over the course of 10 or 20 years, you can build out the infrastructure to support the previous boom (well, it’s harder in Montana since they are more anti-tax). But in the course of 1 or 2 years? And if that boom turns into a bust before you can get the infrastructure projects going? Urban planning is useful for a reason. Building housing is far from effective on its own, and not all areas can support the same densities (in the Middle East, they have to be really careful about where they grow). And even if you “win”, the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people, leading to price increases nonetheless.
  - dublinben 6y ago
    >the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people That doesn't sound so bad. What's the alternative?
    - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
      Yes, unless you are looking for low cost housing.
      - dublinben 6y ago
        How do you lower the cost of housing in desirable places? Make them less desirable? Prevent people from moving there? Build more housing?
        seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        You don’t, you can’t build your way out of these kinds of problems, not without some sort of government intervention (like Singapore as mentioned before).
        creddit 6y ago
        Yes, you can. Tokyo and Houston are perfect counterexamples. Obviously government is required for the planning and zoning reform aspects but the idea that any solution to housing price issues isn't building more is non-sensical. Singapore's solution is just building HBDs!
        seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        Houston is definitely a great example of how you can’t just build blindly and not expect your traffic and quality of life to suck. But to its credit, Houston creates an equilibrium of being just pleasant and unpleasant enough to not be great but not horrible place to live. Tokyo housing is expensive for its size. You can just get small apartments there that are affordable. Also, Japanese housing depreciates, which takes away a lot of speculative pressure.

creddit 6y ago

I mean, yeah clearly? Your own source for what is nearly the worst case in the world is ongoing investment of “US$200 per capita and year”. Look at how much the home values have increased! Do you really think that’s not trivially extractable from property taxes?? That’s IF it’s as bad as building megacities in the middle of literal deserts which obviously a place like Bozeman is NOT. You’re throwing your hands up exasperated at the costs of building water infra when the peak is somewhere around 1.5% of GDP but then you have housing costs that are rising dramatically faster than wages and everyone’s like “whelp, nothing to done here.”

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
Over the course of 10 or 20 years, you can build out the infrastructure to support the previous boom (well, it’s harder in Montana since they are more anti-tax). But in the course of 1 or 2 years? And if that boom turns into a bust before you can get the infrastructure projects going? Urban planning is useful for a reason. Building housing is far from effective on its own, and not all areas can support the same densities (in the Middle East, they have to be really careful about where they grow). And even if you “win”, the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people, leading to price increases nonetheless.
- dublinben 6y ago
  >the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people That doesn't sound so bad. What's the alternative?
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    Yes, unless you are looking for low cost housing.
    - dublinben 6y ago
      How do you lower the cost of housing in desirable places? Make them less desirable? Prevent people from moving there? Build more housing?
      - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        You don’t, you can’t build your way out of these kinds of problems, not without some sort of government intervention (like Singapore as mentioned before).
        creddit 6y ago
        Yes, you can. Tokyo and Houston are perfect counterexamples. Obviously government is required for the planning and zoning reform aspects but the idea that any solution to housing price issues isn't building more is non-sensical. Singapore's solution is just building HBDs!
        seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        Houston is definitely a great example of how you can’t just build blindly and not expect your traffic and quality of life to suck. But to its credit, Houston creates an equilibrium of being just pleasant and unpleasant enough to not be great but not horrible place to live. Tokyo housing is expensive for its size. You can just get small apartments there that are affordable. Also, Japanese housing depreciates, which takes away a lot of speculative pressure.