3 ms·

"Not Just Bikes" did a video not too long ago talking about how unsustainably expensive suburban infrastructure is maintain long term that I found fascinating,

"Not Just Bikes" did a video not too long ago talking about how unsustainably expensive suburban infrastructure is maintain long term that I found fascinating, especially as we start to property taxes rise throughout the country. One of the biggest problems our society currently faces is a lack of knowledge and interest in understanding why things like infrastructure cost so much, and that channel makes an interesting case as to why suburban infrastructure is prohibitively expensive to deal with long-term, and we're already starting to see that. Cities like Austin, with major suburban populations, are struggling to deal with public transportation expansion because everyone is so spread out, so meaningfully increasing access to transit becomes much more expensive. Suburbs are a perfect example of "make the next generation pay for it, I'm gonna enjoy this now."

AuthorizedCust 5y ago
That’s a silly trope of new urbanists. It mainly relies on a false narrative of current revenues paying for infrastructure. New suburban infrastructure is typically paid for by debt instruments, either directly (municipal bond) or indirectly (costs passed by developers to a new home’s first owners, usually paid via mortgage). Same goes for future major repairs or replacements: financed by new debt. No big deal.
- orwin 5y ago
  Money is basically energy. Having an infrastructure that cost ten time as much money to maintain cost ten time as much energy to maintain. I agree with you, people should understand that their taxes do not pay for debt (usually), that public debt is `good` for their pensions and the economy at large, so the debt isn't an issue. But this is not a trope specific to new urbanists, it is a general trope of people not understanding modern economy. And a lot of old "economist" (Tv economists, not real researchers usually) still believe in this (or use it as a talking point for their own political agenda)
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >Money is basically energy. Having an infrastructure that cost ten time as much money to maintain cost ten time as much energy to maintain. So at what point is society rich enough to afford it?

AuthorizedCust 5y ago

That’s a silly trope of new urbanists. It mainly relies on a false narrative of current revenues paying for infrastructure. New suburban infrastructure is typically paid for by debt instruments, either directly (municipal bond) or indirectly (costs passed by developers to a new home’s first owners, usually paid via mortgage). Same goes for future major repairs or replacements: financed by new debt. No big deal.

orwin 5y ago
Money is basically energy. Having an infrastructure that cost ten time as much money to maintain cost ten time as much energy to maintain. I agree with you, people should understand that their taxes do not pay for debt (usually), that public debt is `good` for their pensions and the economy at large, so the debt isn't an issue. But this is not a trope specific to new urbanists, it is a general trope of people not understanding modern economy. And a lot of old "economist" (Tv economists, not real researchers usually) still believe in this (or use it as a talking point for their own political agenda)
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Money is basically energy. Having an infrastructure that cost ten time as much money to maintain cost ten time as much energy to maintain. So at what point is society rich enough to afford it?