15 ms·

For those unfamiliar with Strong Towns, here’s a best-effort summary of what they do: Strong Towns is a non-partisan non-profit that advocates for cities and t

by flaque 5y ago

For those unfamiliar with Strong Towns, here’s a best-effort summary of what they do: Strong Towns is a non-partisan non-profit that advocates for cities and towns to build financially solvent places. Many cities are perpetually broke because they owe more money in maintenance burden (fixing roads, pipes, etc) than they bring in in tax revenue. This happens primarily because towns in North America tend to build out large neighborhoods all at once (think: suburbia). At the start, the developers pay for all the infrastructure, and then “give” it to the city to maintain. At first, everything seems fine. The city gets plenty of new tax revenue! But come 20 or 30 years later, it turns out that the tax revenue is not enough to replace the roads, fix the pipes, and so on. And so to pay for the repairs, the city then builds yet another neighborhood in the same strategy to collect the initial tax revenue. It’s effectively a Ponzi scheme. When it crashes, you get Detroit. The gist is that many low-density spread-out suburban neighborhood with large, expensive infrastructure are a huge cost center for a city. And since most North American cities build this way, we have a lot of cities that are “functionally bankrupt” or will be soon. If you're a systems thinker who lives in a town that can't seem to fix it's potholes, you may want to check out the book they've published: "Strong Towns" by Charles L. Marohn Jr.

burlesona 5y ago
This is a good summary. To add a bit: since most suburban development doesn't generate enough in tax income to pay for its own maintenance, most places that have a steady trickle of suburban development end up in a cycle of decline as the older stuff starts to run down and the city has to use the development fees etc. from new developments to pay for maintenance on old ones, and eventually even that isn't enough, and everything starts to decline. This can turn into a much worse vicious cycle when added to other issues like pension obligations, declining schools, natural disasters, etc. You see the most of this today in inner suburban areas across the midwest, where they boomed all at one time, then ran out of land (as the wave of new suburban development moved into the next suburb's jurisdiction). Because the suburban pattern is very hard to redevelop, if an established community loses its appeal for any reason (houses have gone out of style, taxes are cheaper further out, whatever), then they tend to get into financial trouble as the maintenance obligations pile up and there's just not enough tax base to support it.
JBlue42 5y ago
NotJustBikes did a video collaboration with Strong Towns and discussed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY Great channel for those interested in urbanism.
freeopinion 5y ago
I have no idea how such an organization gets funded, but I'm glad somebody has the time to think deeply about such matters. This summary tickled a part of my brain that has had thoughts about how we pay for this stuff. Those thoughts run down a different avenue, but I'll share them here just because. In the U.S. it seems common that infrastructure is funded in significant ways by the federal government. Witness the current Biden plan. But also, federal money funds local schools, health initiatives, law enforcement, on and on. Some years ago I remember an important bridge falling down in Minnesota or some such place and there was immediately work in the U.S. Congress to pass funding for replacement construction. When the Flint water scandal broke, local and state officials immediately turned their attention (and outstretched hands) to D.C. for help. New York or Florida or well, everybody, immediately lobby D.C. after any natural disaster. At some level it makes sense that an entire nation can chip in to bail out unfortunate victims easier than the local residents could do so. But I actually think this is false because it isn't everybody helping out on one isolated incident, it is everybody helping out on every single incident. At that point, we might as well have all just paid for our own local incident. The money comes out the same. Of course, 350 million people can raise $350 million in a day every day of the year for just $1/person/day. So it does improve liquidity. And there are probably other benefits. But here's the huge downside. All that money flows from little dinky Anywhere, U.S. to Washington. Then it comes back to Anywhere in their time of need. Except that it doesn't all come back. A large chunk is consumed in the federal bureaucracy. And some is eaten by graft. And maybe those two losses would occur at a local or state level, too. But the big gotcha for me is that the money comes back with strings attached. We'll give federal highway funding to Montana, but they have to comply with speed limits set by somebody from Chicago. Arizona can get funding for a hospital but they have to bow to some immigration policy set by people from Vermont. The redistribution of the wealth is a source of enormous power and attracts the power-hungry. It is a design for corruption and manipulation. And because it centralizes such enormous money/power, it must be said that it is designed to attract corruption and manipulation on an enormous scale. So while the little hospital in Arizona might have attracted some small fish to take advantage of the opportunity if it were locally funded, federal funding subjects it to the biggest fish in the world. To bring this back to the subject, imagine if city and state taxes went way up to pay for water distribution, pot hole repair, etc. and federal taxes went way down. Then, property taxes might actually cover regular city maintenance. And at no added cost to taxpayers. The city could reduce its federal lobby budget because they aren't going to get any federal aid so quit paying somebody to keep asking. If they need more money, they can raise local taxes. I know that this is terribly naive in many ways, and just ignorant in other ways. I'd love to hear any criticism.
tablespoon 5y ago
> And so to pay for the repairs, the city then builds yet another neighborhood in the same strategy to collect the initial tax revenue. It’s effectively a Ponzi scheme. > When it crashes, you get Detroit. > The gist is that many low-density spread-out suburban neighborhood with large, expensive infrastructure are a huge cost center for a city. And since most North American cities build this way, we have a lot of cities that are “functionally bankrupt” or will be soon. Huh? Wasn't Detroit's problem that it was too dependent a small set of labor-intensive businesses in one industry that have been in a long term secular decline (as foreign competition as increased) while simultaneously becoming more automated? Also, when city infrastructure needs to be repaired, don't they just assess specials on the affected properties? Metro areas can expand as you describe, but many/most cities can't (because they're boxed in by adjacent cities (i.e. suburbs)). For instance, the only buildable land left in my very suburban city are a couple of defunct golf courses. New construction activity mainly happening two cities away to the south.
- GLGirty 5y ago
  > Wasn't Detroit's problem that it Also yes. Also white flight.
- flaque 5y ago
  (Huge disclaimer that I may be wrong in my understanding here) > Wasn't Detroit's problem that it was too dependent a small set of labor-intensive businesses in one industry that have been in a long term secular decline (as foreign competition as increased) while simultaneously becoming more automated? From my understanding, the Strong Towns folks would say that because Detroit spent years going into maintenance debt, and replacing it's financially productive areas with unproductive areas, it was unable to survive a downturn. In contrast, New York, suffered several different financial downturns, but was able to constantly reinvent itself as some other industry town. Though I think Strong Towns would also say that single reliance on any one industry is not considered "strong" either.

by flaque 5y ago

burlesona 5y ago

This is a good summary. To add a bit: since most suburban development doesn't generate enough in tax income to pay for its own maintenance, most places that have a steady trickle of suburban development end up in a cycle of decline as the older stuff starts to run down and the city has to use the development fees etc. from new developments to pay for maintenance on old ones, and eventually even that isn't enough, and everything starts to decline. This can turn into a much worse vicious cycle when added to other issues like pension obligations, declining schools, natural disasters, etc. You see the most of this today in inner suburban areas across the midwest, where they boomed all at one time, then ran out of land (as the wave of new suburban development moved into the next suburb's jurisdiction). Because the suburban pattern is very hard to redevelop, if an established community loses its appeal for any reason (houses have gone out of style, taxes are cheaper further out, whatever), then they tend to get into financial trouble as the maintenance obligations pile up and there's just not enough tax base to support it.

JBlue42 5y ago

NotJustBikes did a video collaboration with Strong Towns and discussed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY Great channel for those interested in urbanism.

freeopinion 5y ago

I have no idea how such an organization gets funded, but I'm glad somebody has the time to think deeply about such matters. This summary tickled a part of my brain that has had thoughts about how we pay for this stuff. Those thoughts run down a different avenue, but I'll share them here just because. In the U.S. it seems common that infrastructure is funded in significant ways by the federal government. Witness the current Biden plan. But also, federal money funds local schools, health initiatives, law enforcement, on and on. Some years ago I remember an important bridge falling down in Minnesota or some such place and there was immediately work in the U.S. Congress to pass funding for replacement construction. When the Flint water scandal broke, local and state officials immediately turned their attention (and outstretched hands) to D.C. for help. New York or Florida or well, everybody, immediately lobby D.C. after any natural disaster. At some level it makes sense that an entire nation can chip in to bail out unfortunate victims easier than the local residents could do so. But I actually think this is false because it isn't everybody helping out on one isolated incident, it is everybody helping out on every single incident. At that point, we might as well have all just paid for our own local incident. The money comes out the same. Of course, 350 million people can raise $350 million in a day every day of the year for just $1/person/day. So it does improve liquidity. And there are probably other benefits. But here's the huge downside. All that money flows from little dinky Anywhere, U.S. to Washington. Then it comes back to Anywhere in their time of need. Except that it doesn't all come back. A large chunk is consumed in the federal bureaucracy. And some is eaten by graft. And maybe those two losses would occur at a local or state level, too. But the big gotcha for me is that the money comes back with strings attached. We'll give federal highway funding to Montana, but they have to comply with speed limits set by somebody from Chicago. Arizona can get funding for a hospital but they have to bow to some immigration policy set by people from Vermont. The redistribution of the wealth is a source of enormous power and attracts the power-hungry. It is a design for corruption and manipulation. And because it centralizes such enormous money/power, it must be said that it is designed to attract corruption and manipulation on an enormous scale. So while the little hospital in Arizona might have attracted some small fish to take advantage of the opportunity if it were locally funded, federal funding subjects it to the biggest fish in the world. To bring this back to the subject, imagine if city and state taxes went way up to pay for water distribution, pot hole repair, etc. and federal taxes went way down. Then, property taxes might actually cover regular city maintenance. And at no added cost to taxpayers. The city could reduce its federal lobby budget because they aren't going to get any federal aid so quit paying somebody to keep asking. If they need more money, they can raise local taxes. I know that this is terribly naive in many ways, and just ignorant in other ways. I'd love to hear any criticism.

tablespoon 5y ago

> And so to pay for the repairs, the city then builds yet another neighborhood in the same strategy to collect the initial tax revenue. It’s effectively a Ponzi scheme. > When it crashes, you get Detroit. > The gist is that many low-density spread-out suburban neighborhood with large, expensive infrastructure are a huge cost center for a city. And since most North American cities build this way, we have a lot of cities that are “functionally bankrupt” or will be soon. Huh? Wasn't Detroit's problem that it was too dependent a small set of labor-intensive businesses in one industry that have been in a long term secular decline (as foreign competition as increased) while simultaneously becoming more automated? Also, when city infrastructure needs to be repaired, don't they just assess specials on the affected properties? Metro areas can expand as you describe, but many/most cities can't (because they're boxed in by adjacent cities (i.e. suburbs)). For instance, the only buildable land left in my very suburban city are a couple of defunct golf courses. New construction activity mainly happening two cities away to the south.

GLGirty 5y ago
> Wasn't Detroit's problem that it Also yes. Also white flight.
flaque 5y ago
(Huge disclaimer that I may be wrong in my understanding here) > Wasn't Detroit's problem that it was too dependent a small set of labor-intensive businesses in one industry that have been in a long term secular decline (as foreign competition as increased) while simultaneously becoming more automated? From my understanding, the Strong Towns folks would say that because Detroit spent years going into maintenance debt, and replacing it's financially productive areas with unproductive areas, it was unable to survive a downturn. In contrast, New York, suffered several different financial downturns, but was able to constantly reinvent itself as some other industry town. Though I think Strong Towns would also say that single reliance on any one industry is not considered "strong" either.