3 ms·

Austin is the 11th largest city in the US by population, of course it doesn't fit a model of over-expansion. In what world is that representative of the type of

Austin is the 11th largest city in the US by population, of course it doesn't fit a model of over-expansion. In what world is that representative of the type of city or town that Strong Towns is talking about? You should engage with the arguments they are actually making e.g. Lafayette, Louisiana: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... TL;DR > The median household income in Lafayette is $41,000. With the wealth that has been created by all this infrastructure investment, a median family living in the median house would need to have their city taxes go from $1,500 per year to $9,200 per year. To just take care of what they now have, one out of every five dollars this family makes would need to go to fixing roads, ditches and pipes. That will never happen.

forum_ghost 4y ago
Austin has 3x higher prop tax rates than Lafayette. El Paso 4x higher. If only talk about their cherry-picked examples, so bankrupt cities go bankrupt? News at 11. Austin is a good counter example. It’s large and spread out, not much density. It’s just got 3-4x higher property taxes and highly productive economically.
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  > It’s just got 3-4x higher property taxes and highly productive economically My point is that Austin is cherry-picked. If we need a huge city with a dense urban center, high property taxes, and high economic productivity to prove low density suburban development is viable then maybe we still have a problem. If we broke out Austin into smaller sections we would likely find large portions of the city would be completely unable to sustain themselves. Just because the urban portion can out-fund the problem (for now?) doesn't mean there isn't a fundamental issue. For every Austin there are dozens of Lafayettes. I can think of a dozen towns near me that have similar size, density, and tax bases and who are almost certainly running a budget that doesn't account for long term liabilities (which is how publicly traded companies in America are mandated to do their accounting, for example). You can look at their case studies[1] for different types of developments and you can look at municipal budgets and see that it doesn't line up, we just haven't been around long enough to see what happens when the party stops. [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/14/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-2.html https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/14/the-growth-pon...
- mattcwilson 4y ago
  3-4x higher sounds like a good bit of the distance between $1500 and $9200. Maybe you implicitly agree with the premise, and are mistakenly thinking TFA is talking about Austin when it’s not?
- thedufer 4y ago
  You're so hung up on Austin, which isn't at all relevant to this conversation. Austin has nearly an order of magnitude more people than even the largest towns under discussion here. Austin has a median income 40% higher and median home price 160% (!) higher. If anyone is cherry-picking it's the person who, when talking about typical cities in the US, picks an internationally-known large city instead of something actually representative.

forum_ghost 4y ago

Austin has 3x higher prop tax rates than Lafayette. El Paso 4x higher. If only talk about their cherry-picked examples, so bankrupt cities go bankrupt? News at 11. Austin is a good counter example. It’s large and spread out, not much density. It’s just got 3-4x higher property taxes and highly productive economically.

enragedcacti 4y ago
> It’s just got 3-4x higher property taxes and highly productive economically My point is that Austin is cherry-picked. If we need a huge city with a dense urban center, high property taxes, and high economic productivity to prove low density suburban development is viable then maybe we still have a problem. If we broke out Austin into smaller sections we would likely find large portions of the city would be completely unable to sustain themselves. Just because the urban portion can out-fund the problem (for now?) doesn't mean there isn't a fundamental issue. For every Austin there are dozens of Lafayettes. I can think of a dozen towns near me that have similar size, density, and tax bases and who are almost certainly running a budget that doesn't account for long term liabilities (which is how publicly traded companies in America are mandated to do their accounting, for example). You can look at their case studies[1] for different types of developments and you can look at municipal budgets and see that it doesn't line up, we just haven't been around long enough to see what happens when the party stops. [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/14/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-2.html https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/14/the-growth-pon...
mattcwilson 4y ago
3-4x higher sounds like a good bit of the distance between $1500 and $9200. Maybe you implicitly agree with the premise, and are mistakenly thinking TFA is talking about Austin when it’s not?
thedufer 4y ago
You're so hung up on Austin, which isn't at all relevant to this conversation. Austin has nearly an order of magnitude more people than even the largest towns under discussion here. Austin has a median income 40% higher and median home price 160% (!) higher. If anyone is cherry-picking it's the person who, when talking about typical cities in the US, picks an internationally-known large city instead of something actually representative.