3 ms·

This comment gets to the crux of the issue which the author isn't touching on either. The author points out that we need more downtown area and density because

This comment gets to the crux of the issue which the author isn't touching on either. The author points out that we need more downtown area and density because that pays for more than the cost of maintaining infrastructure it consumes. From a city budget perspective it makes sense to then want more density. However, why do we have one lifestyle finance another one? Why should people who live in a downtown apartment pay for maintaining infrastructure for people who base their choices on getting away from others? This is even more crazy given that the environmental impact per capita is also much lower in denser areas. I'm not even saying that we should have a taxation system encourages density, but let's at least have one that doesn't exploit density to subsidize the suburbs!

sokoloff 5y ago
As far as I can tell, the city I live in isn’t substantially subsidizing the towns and suburbs nearby, isn’t paying for their roads, bridges, and snow removal, and surely isn’t doing that for the ones 30 miles away in another state entirely.
- ajmurmann 5y ago
  Within the limits of the same city or town we do see this transfer though, as very clearly laid out in the article.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    You also have people (like GP) advocating for a 100km from the city taxation zone, which is far more than “within the same city/town”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29955707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29955707 I trust city voters can address intra-city financing needs, particularly if the more numerous would benefit.
    - maccolgan 5y ago
      If people outside the city are forced to pay for city things, surely they'll also get to elect and control the actions of the city too?
    - ajmurmann 5y ago
      "I trust city voters can address intra-city financing needs, particularly if the more numerous would benefit." Well, I read the article and Strong Towns to say that most cities can't.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        According to the preferences and opinions of the StrongTowns group. If the preferences of the actual voters/taxpayers in the city differ from that group, I’m inclined to go with the city residents over the StrongTowns not-residents.

sokoloff 5y ago

As far as I can tell, the city I live in isn’t substantially subsidizing the towns and suburbs nearby, isn’t paying for their roads, bridges, and snow removal, and surely isn’t doing that for the ones 30 miles away in another state entirely.

ajmurmann 5y ago
Within the limits of the same city or town we do see this transfer though, as very clearly laid out in the article.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  You also have people (like GP) advocating for a 100km from the city taxation zone, which is far more than “within the same city/town”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29955707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29955707 I trust city voters can address intra-city financing needs, particularly if the more numerous would benefit.
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    If people outside the city are forced to pay for city things, surely they'll also get to elect and control the actions of the city too?
  - ajmurmann 5y ago
    "I trust city voters can address intra-city financing needs, particularly if the more numerous would benefit." Well, I read the article and Strong Towns to say that most cities can't.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      According to the preferences and opinions of the StrongTowns group. If the preferences of the actual voters/taxpayers in the city differ from that group, I’m inclined to go with the city residents over the StrongTowns not-residents.