12 ms·

Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a rural line and maintain it? Even at 80k, the govt is still losing money.

sbarre 5y ago
That should be the cost of doing business when you're a government-sponsored monopoly that provides an essential service to your tax-paying citizens (not customers). It's literally what the government is for.
- giantg2 5y ago
  And where else should the government get that money then?
  - rexreed 5y ago
    Isn't that why the government has the power of taxation or the ability to levy fees? Not that I'm a fan of government reach, but if the single, monopoly, private corporation can't provide necessary services at a rate that their customers can afford, and there isn't any competition to "naturally" reduce rates, then this is a place where governments usually step in. They step in the form of subsidies and grants, the sources of income of which are usually taxation or fees levied to other constituents. And electricity, running water, and sewage are considered to be essential necessities, not luxuries. This is an area where monopolistic practices should have limits, even if such costs are "necessary". This is where governments have the positive ability to help.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      My comment was based on the understanding was that the government was already involved with the company and proving subsidies already. "Isn't that why the government has the power of taxation or the ability to levy fees?" My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense. This would mean still charging the people connected. Otherwise, who would the government tax to subsidize these other citizens?
      - rexreed 5y ago
        In this case, government grants to individual homeowners looking to connect to the public utility makes the most sense. It's also easy to quantify since you can see how many people are interested in connecting to the grid who aren't currently. Governments can find multiple ways to source funds for those grants. Homeowners would apply for those grants and get funds for the connection. If funds aren't provided directly they are often provided as credits against property tax. The gov pays the utility directly. I've seen it done this way for many different projects.
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        "My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense" Thats literally the opposite of how taxes work. What you are describing is called charging the customer. Taxes are paid independant of usage, my taxes pay for schools wven if I dont have kids. Someone with 10 kids but less income pays less taxes for schools.
        giantg2 5y ago
        "Taxes are paid independant of usage" False. That's only one example of a tax. How about gas taxes to pay for the roads they use?
    - ghaff 5y ago
      >And electricity, running water, and sewage are considered to be essential necessities, not luxuries. In the US, the latter two are not broadly considered necessities in rural areas. The situation varies but wells, where possible, and septic systems are extremely common away from urban metros and towns of a certain size.
      - rexreed 5y ago
        I have both a well and septic, so I totally get it. But if you are connected to public water or public sewer, which often a municipal monopoly for good reasons, and you have limited other choices, the local government places restrictions on the cost of getting hooked up to public water and sewer if there are no alternatives. In any case, water and sewer are indeed considered necessities and you are unable to sell or convey a house in the state that I live without a functional water or sewage system, whether on public water/sewer or on well / septic. If you have a non-functioning well or non-functioning septic (outhouses are no longer allowed), then you can't sell your house, and also you are in risk of having your own house condemned. So these are indeed necessities.
        ghaff 5y ago
        They're not considered necessities in the sense that the government has to, in general, provide you with a hookup at a reasonable cost. But, as you say, running water and proper sewage may be a zoning requirement to build a house and live on a property just as a variety of other things may be requirements.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        I think you can still call them neccessary, but they just aren't public utilities in rural areas. If you have a well, you still have running water. If you have a septic system, the sewage has somewhere to go.
        ghaff 5y ago
        Right. But the context was a comment to the effect of the government providing them at a reasonable price. Which, as you say, it commonly doesn't in many rural or semi-rural areas.
  - sbarre 5y ago
    The government gets most of its money through taxes in Canada. Then they plan and redistribute that money to the agencies, corporations and departments that provide essential services for the population, and it gets spent on offering and managing those services. (Yes this is a simplified explanation) Not sure how it works where you live but I suspect it's probably similar.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      My comment was based on the understanding was that the government was already involved with the company and proving subsidies already. My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense. This would mean still charging the people connected. Otherwise, who would the government tax to subsidize these other citizens?
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    As an urban ratepayer in Ontario, I would very much not like my electrical fees to subsidize the recreationally remote, thanks. Rural/wilderness homes in Ontario already have heavily subsidized road infrastructure and get a larger cut of the carbon tax rebate per person. It's one thing to subsidize agricultural communities, but this is different. If you have some deep burning need to be a woodsman, more power to you, but that's your decision and your money. And looking at the article, if off-grid is more economic for the resident for that kind of life, then it's also more economical for the government. Everybody wins. Subsidizing that would eliminate that win/win. That said, as carbon pricing rises, the calculus on propane power may shift over time... which, I assume, will result in such residents loudly opposing carbon pricing.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Why do you expect the rural taxpayers to pay for urban/city only improvements like transit/subways or money to fight guns/gangs but balk at the thought of paying for electrical hookups in rural areas.
      - Dma54rhs 5y ago
        Pretty sure they don't pay anything since people living outside cities is net minus everywhere, maintaining all the infrastructure id expensive as fuck. I'm five with it but the reality is that they are being subsidised everywhere per capita. Economies of scale, capitalism 101.
        giantg2 5y ago
        Any data to back that up? Anecdotally, Philadelphia is the poorest county in our state, while Chester county is the richest. Seems like suburban areas bring in the most money and can afford excellent infrastructure, while infrastructure in the city is in constant disrepair.
    - sbarre 5y ago
      > If you have some deep burning need to be a woodsman, more power to you, but that's your decision and your money. One could say the same if you choose to be a car-less urban dweller who relies on transit and high-density infrastructure. You can stereotype and caricature people both ways, neither helps the discussion.
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    Government gets its money from spending the money. They don't use Loonies anywhere else. As my Canadian aunt says: money is made round to go around. The cost of hook up is the time of the people to do that job, which means they can't do anything else. Is Canada that short of electrical engineers that it can't maintain its current grid and add new connections?
    - shoemakersteve 5y ago
      It's more a problem of population density vs the cost of setting up and maintaining the infrastructure.
- refurb 5y ago
  So if Elon Musk decides to carve out a 1,000 acre compound 50km from the closest power source the government, no tax payers, should pay for the hundreds of thousands to connect him to the grid?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Sure. There aren’t enough crazy-rich people to be significant, just like at the other end there aren’t enough people having 12 kids to cause significant expense to government child benefits schemes.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > There aren’t enough crazy-rich people to be significant In part because of these costs. If it were on the taxpayer to foot the hook-up bill, a home in the middle of the Grand Tetons would suddenly look much more attractive.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        The Google maps pictures if they place certainly look pretty, but you need to be pretty rich just to be able to live so far from where most of the work is. The land in a town or city is more expensive because of all the positive things such places bring outweighing all the negatives, even in the relatively cheap suburbs. Electricity (etc.) supply is part of that, sure, but far from the only thing.
    - refurb 5y ago
      It’s an extreme example but there are actually thousands of people who would want utilities connected to remote locations. The land is cheap.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, is essentially insignificant for the government of a nation of a third of a billion (as you said Musk, I’m thinking of the USA rather than Canada).
pridkett 5y ago
This is why governments have passed incentive acts to help. In the United States, that came from the Rural Electrification Act[0]. It was a recognition that rural areas are critical to our urban areas because they provide food and resources, in addition to an occasional oddball university location or something to stare at on a transcon flight. Although the law is nearly 90 years old, it continues to be foundational for supporting rural communities. In 2014 it was updated to provide support for rural electric and telephone cooperatives to supply gigabit internet. And that’s why the north woods of Minnesota often has better internet than large swaths of Minneapolis and St Paul. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act
- kaesar14 5y ago
  Seems like providing the north woods of Minnesota better internet than the Twin Cities is a rather poor investment of resources
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    What is poor is not providing the Twin Cities with fiber to the home internet. No need for it to be one or the other.
- analog31 5y ago
  It's interesting that 90 years ago, supplying your own electrical power was unthinkable. Also, there were communities that existed in advance of electrification, so there was at least some population density to justify wired power. For people moving into a relatively unpopulated area, in a different country, it might make more sense today, to let people bring in their own power generation, maybe subsidize it a bit if needed.
SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
> Even at 80k, the govt is still losing money. Government shouldn't be run for profit, frankly it should pay for the entire connection. If the government is going to insist on making money, then it should operate nationalised utilities, which provide a baseline service and cost, and if private enterprise can compete with that by offering a better product and/or cheaper service, then all the more power to them. Having a situation where a single commercial entity has a monopoly position seems to be the second-worst option, just above "no service at all".
- newsclues 5y ago
  Electric utilities in Ontario were public until the mid 90s when they started privatization.
- zz865 5y ago
  Its not about being run for profit. Its why should anyone build a house in the middle of nowhere and expect the govt to spend whatever it takes to get connected.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    This is how you destroy small farms.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      Small farms presumably already have an electrical connection.
      - Ensorceled 5y ago
        True. This is a really a story of the "Fuck you, I got mine" generation. Power and phone was run for free pretty much everywhere. Now they want 80K for a line and a pole. This is the same story for internet access.
        5y ago
AlwaysRock 5y ago
That is what taxes are for. The government shouldnt be running a profit while providing basic services.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
Governments provide services - in general - in no small part because services are almost all cost. Do you want your citizens to have electricity, as is expected in a modern 21st century country - or would you rather folks go without because of cost? If yes, then getting electricity to houses should be a priority, even if they never profit. It should also be very noted that electric companies tend to balance the rural costs out with charging urban customers a bit more to make up for the difference, much like healthcare (whether it be premiums or taxes)
- Gigachad 5y ago
  The option is never going to be power or no power. It's going to be paying the connection fee, setting up your own power, or living somewhere already connected. Any proposal for governments to spend more on something should also come with a description of what they should spend less on to compensate for it. Why should urban citizens subsidize a lifestyle choice for others? If you want to live out in the middle of nowhere you shouldn't expect everyone else to pay you for it.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    Why should urban citizens subsidize a lifestyle choice for others? Because people that live in cities need to eat. Because we are a society. Because not everyone that lives in the country (or a small enough town) chose to live here - people get born there and turn into adults there. I shouldn't have to mention this, but farmers need infrastructure to keep making your food. Gas and groceries and utilities and grain silos and schools and doctors and a bunch more - oh, and people that operate all of this. Those people that make all that stuff run need a lot of that stuff too.
    - Gigachad 5y ago
      This sounds like something the market can deal with. If it costs a lot for farmers to set up, they can charge more for products until they are profitable again.
motohagiography 5y ago
I'm all for cost recovery and fiscal restraint, and the exception I'd propose in this case is that rural residential electrification is the cost of government. If you want to expand your habitable footprint as a state, it means some reciprocity for the people living there. The govt needs rural people settling remote areas more than those people need govt. Satellite internet changes a lot, as if you can do off grid renewable power with satellite internet, economic viability and mobility of populations changes radically. We've seen it post-covid with rural real estate prices matching those of cities as the result of remote work (I think). Hydro was used as a giant opaque debt slush fund by previous governments, where they levered up debt secured against revenues and then blew it on favoured groups to secure re-election. "Infrastructure," surely, but now you have a debt retirement fee on every hydro bill that is essentially a tax.
- satyrnein 5y ago
  The govt needs rural people settling remote areas Can you expand on this? Is there a general social benefit to people settling remote areas?
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    Economic growth in diversified regions. They are the roots for growth, where in cities, the marginal value they contribute is a fraction of what they can contribute outside of one. There is a prevailing political worldview predicated on warehousing people in cities and making them dependent on public services, which values human life as managed livestock in service of an owner, and not as an engine of growth and development, but that is one I do not share.
    - stinkytaco 5y ago
      > They are the roots for growth, where in cities, the marginal value they contribute is a fraction of what they can contribute outside of one. It sounds like you are ascribing some special virtue to rural living that I just don't see. When I think about work that adds social value, very little of it requires rural living (farming, mostly) and most of it can be done anywhere (computer programming, skilled trades, manufacturing, etc.). Why is a person's contribution bigger if they are rural? What special value is there in doing these things in a place no one lives? Why do we need to increase growth in some arbitrary rural location. > There is a prevailing political worldview predicated on warehousing people in cities and making them dependent on public services And ironically, you are arguing that we should be providing these people a public service, presumably because they are dependent on it. I fail to see where the cut off should be.
zamadatix 5y ago
Why would maintenance be covered in the connection fee? Not only is it backwards from the usual financial game of lowering up front costs by hiding them in recurring costs but there is no way to know up front if you'll need to maintain that line for 2 years or 200.
kumarsw 5y ago
Overhead distribution is somewhere on the order of $100k/mile to install. Maintenance varies depending on how much tree trimming is needed.

sbarre 5y ago

That should be the cost of doing business when you're a government-sponsored monopoly that provides an essential service to your tax-paying citizens (not customers). It's literally what the government is for.

giantg2 5y ago
And where else should the government get that money then?
- rexreed 5y ago
  Isn't that why the government has the power of taxation or the ability to levy fees? Not that I'm a fan of government reach, but if the single, monopoly, private corporation can't provide necessary services at a rate that their customers can afford, and there isn't any competition to "naturally" reduce rates, then this is a place where governments usually step in. They step in the form of subsidies and grants, the sources of income of which are usually taxation or fees levied to other constituents. And electricity, running water, and sewage are considered to be essential necessities, not luxuries. This is an area where monopolistic practices should have limits, even if such costs are "necessary". This is where governments have the positive ability to help.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    My comment was based on the understanding was that the government was already involved with the company and proving subsidies already. "Isn't that why the government has the power of taxation or the ability to levy fees?" My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense. This would mean still charging the people connected. Otherwise, who would the government tax to subsidize these other citizens?
    - rexreed 5y ago
      In this case, government grants to individual homeowners looking to connect to the public utility makes the most sense. It's also easy to quantify since you can see how many people are interested in connecting to the grid who aren't currently. Governments can find multiple ways to source funds for those grants. Homeowners would apply for those grants and get funds for the connection. If funds aren't provided directly they are often provided as credits against property tax. The gov pays the utility directly. I've seen it done this way for many different projects.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense" Thats literally the opposite of how taxes work. What you are describing is called charging the customer. Taxes are paid independant of usage, my taxes pay for schools wven if I dont have kids. Someone with 10 kids but less income pays less taxes for schools.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "Taxes are paid independant of usage" False. That's only one example of a tax. How about gas taxes to pay for the roads they use?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    >And electricity, running water, and sewage are considered to be essential necessities, not luxuries. In the US, the latter two are not broadly considered necessities in rural areas. The situation varies but wells, where possible, and septic systems are extremely common away from urban metros and towns of a certain size.
    - rexreed 5y ago
      I have both a well and septic, so I totally get it. But if you are connected to public water or public sewer, which often a municipal monopoly for good reasons, and you have limited other choices, the local government places restrictions on the cost of getting hooked up to public water and sewer if there are no alternatives. In any case, water and sewer are indeed considered necessities and you are unable to sell or convey a house in the state that I live without a functional water or sewage system, whether on public water/sewer or on well / septic. If you have a non-functioning well or non-functioning septic (outhouses are no longer allowed), then you can't sell your house, and also you are in risk of having your own house condemned. So these are indeed necessities.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        They're not considered necessities in the sense that the government has to, in general, provide you with a hookup at a reasonable cost. But, as you say, running water and proper sewage may be a zoning requirement to build a house and live on a property just as a variety of other things may be requirements.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I think you can still call them neccessary, but they just aren't public utilities in rural areas. If you have a well, you still have running water. If you have a septic system, the sewage has somewhere to go.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Right. But the context was a comment to the effect of the government providing them at a reasonable price. Which, as you say, it commonly doesn't in many rural or semi-rural areas.
- sbarre 5y ago
  The government gets most of its money through taxes in Canada. Then they plan and redistribute that money to the agencies, corporations and departments that provide essential services for the population, and it gets spent on offering and managing those services. (Yes this is a simplified explanation) Not sure how it works where you live but I suspect it's probably similar.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    My comment was based on the understanding was that the government was already involved with the company and proving subsidies already. My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense. This would mean still charging the people connected. Otherwise, who would the government tax to subsidize these other citizens?
- Pxtl 5y ago
  As an urban ratepayer in Ontario, I would very much not like my electrical fees to subsidize the recreationally remote, thanks. Rural/wilderness homes in Ontario already have heavily subsidized road infrastructure and get a larger cut of the carbon tax rebate per person. It's one thing to subsidize agricultural communities, but this is different. If you have some deep burning need to be a woodsman, more power to you, but that's your decision and your money. And looking at the article, if off-grid is more economic for the resident for that kind of life, then it's also more economical for the government. Everybody wins. Subsidizing that would eliminate that win/win. That said, as carbon pricing rises, the calculus on propane power may shift over time... which, I assume, will result in such residents loudly opposing carbon pricing.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Why do you expect the rural taxpayers to pay for urban/city only improvements like transit/subways or money to fight guns/gangs but balk at the thought of paying for electrical hookups in rural areas.
    - Dma54rhs 5y ago
      Pretty sure they don't pay anything since people living outside cities is net minus everywhere, maintaining all the infrastructure id expensive as fuck. I'm five with it but the reality is that they are being subsidised everywhere per capita. Economies of scale, capitalism 101.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Any data to back that up? Anecdotally, Philadelphia is the poorest county in our state, while Chester county is the richest. Seems like suburban areas bring in the most money and can afford excellent infrastructure, while infrastructure in the city is in constant disrepair.
  - sbarre 5y ago
    > If you have some deep burning need to be a woodsman, more power to you, but that's your decision and your money. One could say the same if you choose to be a car-less urban dweller who relies on transit and high-density infrastructure. You can stereotype and caricature people both ways, neither helps the discussion.
- neilwilson 5y ago
  Government gets its money from spending the money. They don't use Loonies anywhere else. As my Canadian aunt says: money is made round to go around. The cost of hook up is the time of the people to do that job, which means they can't do anything else. Is Canada that short of electrical engineers that it can't maintain its current grid and add new connections?
  - shoemakersteve 5y ago
    It's more a problem of population density vs the cost of setting up and maintaining the infrastructure.
refurb 5y ago
So if Elon Musk decides to carve out a 1,000 acre compound 50km from the closest power source the government, no tax payers, should pay for the hundreds of thousands to connect him to the grid?
- ben_w 5y ago
  Sure. There aren’t enough crazy-rich people to be significant, just like at the other end there aren’t enough people having 12 kids to cause significant expense to government child benefits schemes.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > There aren’t enough crazy-rich people to be significant In part because of these costs. If it were on the taxpayer to foot the hook-up bill, a home in the middle of the Grand Tetons would suddenly look much more attractive.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      The Google maps pictures if they place certainly look pretty, but you need to be pretty rich just to be able to live so far from where most of the work is. The land in a town or city is more expensive because of all the positive things such places bring outweighing all the negatives, even in the relatively cheap suburbs. Electricity (etc.) supply is part of that, sure, but far from the only thing.
  - refurb 5y ago
    It’s an extreme example but there are actually thousands of people who would want utilities connected to remote locations. The land is cheap.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, is essentially insignificant for the government of a nation of a third of a billion (as you said Musk, I’m thinking of the USA rather than Canada).

pridkett 5y ago

This is why governments have passed incentive acts to help. In the United States, that came from the Rural Electrification Act[0]. It was a recognition that rural areas are critical to our urban areas because they provide food and resources, in addition to an occasional oddball university location or something to stare at on a transcon flight. Although the law is nearly 90 years old, it continues to be foundational for supporting rural communities. In 2014 it was updated to provide support for rural electric and telephone cooperatives to supply gigabit internet. And that’s why the north woods of Minnesota often has better internet than large swaths of Minneapolis and St Paul. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act

kaesar14 5y ago
Seems like providing the north woods of Minnesota better internet than the Twin Cities is a rather poor investment of resources
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  What is poor is not providing the Twin Cities with fiber to the home internet. No need for it to be one or the other.
analog31 5y ago
It's interesting that 90 years ago, supplying your own electrical power was unthinkable. Also, there were communities that existed in advance of electrification, so there was at least some population density to justify wired power. For people moving into a relatively unpopulated area, in a different country, it might make more sense today, to let people bring in their own power generation, maybe subsidize it a bit if needed.

SturgeonsLaw 5y ago

> Even at 80k, the govt is still losing money. Government shouldn't be run for profit, frankly it should pay for the entire connection. If the government is going to insist on making money, then it should operate nationalised utilities, which provide a baseline service and cost, and if private enterprise can compete with that by offering a better product and/or cheaper service, then all the more power to them. Having a situation where a single commercial entity has a monopoly position seems to be the second-worst option, just above "no service at all".

newsclues 5y ago
Electric utilities in Ontario were public until the mid 90s when they started privatization.
zz865 5y ago
Its not about being run for profit. Its why should anyone build a house in the middle of nowhere and expect the govt to spend whatever it takes to get connected.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  This is how you destroy small farms.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    Small farms presumably already have an electrical connection.
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      True. This is a really a story of the "Fuck you, I got mine" generation. Power and phone was run for free pretty much everywhere. Now they want 80K for a line and a pole. This is the same story for internet access.
      - 5y ago

AlwaysRock 5y ago

That is what taxes are for. The government shouldnt be running a profit while providing basic services.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

Governments provide services - in general - in no small part because services are almost all cost. Do you want your citizens to have electricity, as is expected in a modern 21st century country - or would you rather folks go without because of cost? If yes, then getting electricity to houses should be a priority, even if they never profit. It should also be very noted that electric companies tend to balance the rural costs out with charging urban customers a bit more to make up for the difference, much like healthcare (whether it be premiums or taxes)

Gigachad 5y ago
The option is never going to be power or no power. It's going to be paying the connection fee, setting up your own power, or living somewhere already connected. Any proposal for governments to spend more on something should also come with a description of what they should spend less on to compensate for it. Why should urban citizens subsidize a lifestyle choice for others? If you want to live out in the middle of nowhere you shouldn't expect everyone else to pay you for it.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  Why should urban citizens subsidize a lifestyle choice for others? Because people that live in cities need to eat. Because we are a society. Because not everyone that lives in the country (or a small enough town) chose to live here - people get born there and turn into adults there. I shouldn't have to mention this, but farmers need infrastructure to keep making your food. Gas and groceries and utilities and grain silos and schools and doctors and a bunch more - oh, and people that operate all of this. Those people that make all that stuff run need a lot of that stuff too.
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    This sounds like something the market can deal with. If it costs a lot for farmers to set up, they can charge more for products until they are profitable again.

motohagiography 5y ago

I'm all for cost recovery and fiscal restraint, and the exception I'd propose in this case is that rural residential electrification is the cost of government. If you want to expand your habitable footprint as a state, it means some reciprocity for the people living there. The govt needs rural people settling remote areas more than those people need govt. Satellite internet changes a lot, as if you can do off grid renewable power with satellite internet, economic viability and mobility of populations changes radically. We've seen it post-covid with rural real estate prices matching those of cities as the result of remote work (I think). Hydro was used as a giant opaque debt slush fund by previous governments, where they levered up debt secured against revenues and then blew it on favoured groups to secure re-election. "Infrastructure," surely, but now you have a debt retirement fee on every hydro bill that is essentially a tax.

satyrnein 5y ago
The govt needs rural people settling remote areas Can you expand on this? Is there a general social benefit to people settling remote areas?
- motohagiography 5y ago
  Economic growth in diversified regions. They are the roots for growth, where in cities, the marginal value they contribute is a fraction of what they can contribute outside of one. There is a prevailing political worldview predicated on warehousing people in cities and making them dependent on public services, which values human life as managed livestock in service of an owner, and not as an engine of growth and development, but that is one I do not share.
  - stinkytaco 5y ago
    > They are the roots for growth, where in cities, the marginal value they contribute is a fraction of what they can contribute outside of one. It sounds like you are ascribing some special virtue to rural living that I just don't see. When I think about work that adds social value, very little of it requires rural living (farming, mostly) and most of it can be done anywhere (computer programming, skilled trades, manufacturing, etc.). Why is a person's contribution bigger if they are rural? What special value is there in doing these things in a place no one lives? Why do we need to increase growth in some arbitrary rural location. > There is a prevailing political worldview predicated on warehousing people in cities and making them dependent on public services And ironically, you are arguing that we should be providing these people a public service, presumably because they are dependent on it. I fail to see where the cut off should be.

zamadatix 5y ago

Why would maintenance be covered in the connection fee? Not only is it backwards from the usual financial game of lowering up front costs by hiding them in recurring costs but there is no way to know up front if you'll need to maintain that line for 2 years or 200.

kumarsw 5y ago

Overhead distribution is somewhere on the order of $100k/mile to install. Maintenance varies depending on how much tree trimming is needed.