4 ms·

> It would significantly expand taxes How exactly? Do you have any examples? Also, have you ever seen the price of car infrastructure? I would be willing to be

> It would significantly expand taxes How exactly? Do you have any examples? Also, have you ever seen the price of car infrastructure? I would be willing to bet that denser walkable urban infrastructure projects are waaaaay cheaper than building and maintaining sprawling road, sewage, and power transmission networks. Sprawl is seriously draining the finances of many small cities and towns in the US. There's a whole book about it: https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns You could also just watch this smug video https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0

adamc 5y ago
Yeah, but it's not terribly likely that you could stop maintaining the sprawl, because it's already there. Certainly not quickly.
- thethethethe 5y ago
  Yeah they are going to raise taxes to pay for it because that's all they can do. Which is the opposite of what OP said
rootusrootus 5y ago
The only way you could sell it as an overall less expensive option would be with really elaborate studies that could convincingly tie the transportation effects to the design of the school system. But, when it comes to schools, fewer buildings means lower costs. We've been suffering this for years, there aren't anywhere near as many schools in my district as there were 30 or 40 years ago, even as the number of students go up. It's less expensive to consolidate the schools into a fewer number of locations and increase the capacity of the remaining locations. Ergo, going the other direction and creating more, smaller schools (each with their own infrastructure, custodians, some level of administration, etc) is going to require taxpayers to foot the bill. And not like a levy that only lasts for X years, but on an ongoing basis. Where I live (Oregon) there is massive resistance to new taxes. I do not think we are unique in that regard.

adamc 5y ago

Yeah, but it's not terribly likely that you could stop maintaining the sprawl, because it's already there. Certainly not quickly.

thethethethe 5y ago
Yeah they are going to raise taxes to pay for it because that's all they can do. Which is the opposite of what OP said

rootusrootus 5y ago

The only way you could sell it as an overall less expensive option would be with really elaborate studies that could convincingly tie the transportation effects to the design of the school system. But, when it comes to schools, fewer buildings means lower costs. We've been suffering this for years, there aren't anywhere near as many schools in my district as there were 30 or 40 years ago, even as the number of students go up. It's less expensive to consolidate the schools into a fewer number of locations and increase the capacity of the remaining locations. Ergo, going the other direction and creating more, smaller schools (each with their own infrastructure, custodians, some level of administration, etc) is going to require taxpayers to foot the bill. And not like a levy that only lasts for X years, but on an ongoing basis. Where I live (Oregon) there is massive resistance to new taxes. I do not think we are unique in that regard.