> I expect in michigan like anywhere else in the rust belt that there are plenty of municipalities that are hurting for funding. Only because we stole their fu

> I expect in michigan like anywhere else in the rust belt that there are plenty of municipalities that are hurting for funding. Only because we stole their funding, not because they are under-funded. > You can't lose the population like you've lost within the actual city limits of detroit or flint (never mind the metro area population might be unchanged due to people flocking to suburban municipalities), and continue to sufficiently maintain infrastructure fit to handle twice the population You absolutely can. Infrastructure spending in Michigan is less than ~10% of tax revenue in all townships and all counties across the state. You could double all road spending, and it would barely even be noticed. (Using real numbers, in Kent County Michigan, for example, the entire county road commission yearly budget spend is just ~$9.69 per person per month. It's literally cheaper than the cheapest Netflix plan to maintain all of that infrastructure). Yes, county roads aren't every road (there's city and state and federal stuff mixed in there) -- but those numbers are just tiny portions of the budget their respective budgets too. And yes, there are hyper-rural counties that have no cities and therefore have to spend more, to service those roads across such a small population. But even those counties only average $20 to $35 a month. (Using Cheboygan County Michigan as an example, comes in around $32/month per person). It's really not a funding issue. There's zero problems with the tax base, or population, or aging. It's truly-and-only a priority issue. We keep taking money away from roads and other infrastructure, we spend it elsewhere (usually on junk) and then complain that "municipalities are hurting for funding" as if it's some great mystery.