> 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 urb

> 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...