16 ms·

Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

83 points by spotlesstofu 4y ago

m0llusk 4y ago
Found the text version more compelling myself: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
- koheripbal 4y ago
  They make the argument that growth, in an of itself, is a "ponzi scheme". Whereas boom-bust economic cycles are nothing new, and are clearly not the same as a literal ponzi scheme. I don't think there's any novel thinking here. They're just rebranding cyclic economics for dramatic effect.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    The problem isn't growth the problem is that growth is required to pay for maintenance of the currently existing infrastructure. This is ponzi-scheme adjacent because if growth ever stops (and it has to), then everything collapses.
    - koheripbal 4y ago
      What you are describing is not a Ponzi scheme at all. It's just regular unsustainable growth.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  Thanks; the "Why", or the interesting part of "Why", seems only alluded to, rather than explicitly discussed. Is it that the low density of suburban development means that tax collected per area unit, is less than infrastructure maintenance per area unit? And is the even more implied solution to increase urban density at least to the point where revenue per area matches expenses per area?
  - TuringNYC 4y ago
    Here are some reasons I think "why": - Long term liabilities are not tracked (e.g., muni worker pensions, pension guaranteed CoL adjustments) as hard liabilities. That makes it easy to budget things now and borrow invisibly from the future - Heads I Win, Tails You Lose mentality given that federal government or others could possibly bail you out. - Leadership worries about elections NOW and approval rating NOW, not about issues 20yrs into the future - Some muni worker groups have a stranglehold over towns and can demand far more than economically feasible, or else - Insufficient critical mass of citizenry to look at long term issues
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Basically, yes. The typical American suburb, even "dense" inner suburbs, often don't generate enough tax revenue to maintain infrastructure. The areas get built out with various subsidies from different levels of government; it's only 30 years down the road, when major infrastructure needs updated that the costs become apparent.
    - Ajedi32 4y ago
      Why then do towns (which have similar population density to suburbs) not suffer from the same problem?
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        I'm not convinced your assertion is true in general. Picking some local towns, cities, and counties... Shepherdstown WV, population of ~2000, population density 4,700/sq mi (bedroom community on outskirts of DC metro) Fairfax County, VA, population of 1.1 million, density 2,800/sq mi (big, mixed suburban county) Arlington County, VA, population 238,000, density 9,200/sq mi (much of it is very urban) Charlottesville, VA (city) population 46,000, density 4,500/sq mi (small college city) Anyways, the problem is sprawl, which can happen regardless of municipal label. Houston and LA sprawl and run into similar problems of upkeep as large counties like Fairfax Co VA.
  - dionidium 4y ago
- boole1854 4y ago
  It seems to me that the article would benefit from more data supporting the author's arguments. It's not clear what percentage of cities are affected by the problem or the average scale of the problem in those cities.
- treis 4y ago
  This pops up every couple of months or so. The numbers don't make sense and don't reflect reality. Infrastructure is ~10% of local government budget. Nobody is going bankrupt over that. And AFAIK there's no city in existence where taxes & government expenditures are lower in the city compared to the suburbs. The expensive parts about government are mostly Schools & Criminal Justice. Both are significantly more expensive in cities on a per capita basis.
evolve2k 4y ago
NotJustBikes are doing some incredible work. It’s really time to reframe how we plan our cities and make the spaces we occupy designed for human scale engagement. I encourage anyone interested in this video to definitely check out more of their videos, so much valuable insight as to practically how our urban spaces could be incredible to live in.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  - technovader 4y ago
    Hard disagree. You and must have watched different videos. He provides concrete examples and solutions.
    - koheripbal 4y ago
      I think we have different definitions of the term "concrete solution". His solutions are vague, wildly over-simplified, and unrealistic.
- technovader 4y ago
  Is it just me or do Americans just hate hearing that their city design is terrible?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    Everybody hates hearing criticism of the things that they accept as normal. The portions of US cities that were built before mass automobiles -- say, 1930 - are comparable to European cities built between 1650 and 1930. Europe got hit by WWII and the necessity of rebuilding in basically the same footprint. The US got hit by automobiles and the lack of necessity.
quantumwannabe 4y ago
Can someone name an example of a city that has gone bankrupt due to infrastructure costs that didn't also lose a large amount of its population or lose key local industries?
- shiftpgdn 4y ago
  Detroit? The industry is still there but they've lost 50% of their population. But the whole point of the video is when you build these big suburbs and suburban development patterns you're on the hook for their cost no matter if anyone is living there or not.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    This is an odd example. Detroit literally lost hundreds of thousands of auto manufacturing jobs. The companies only remain there in a token fashion.
    - slothtrop 4y ago
      Detroit's population has been declining for 60 years, and the population of the Metro area is still in the millions. The city itself is at 624,177 in '20. The downfall is years and the making and has to do with more than auto manufacturing. It's not like the nearby cities stuck with a single point of failure for a century, manufacturing is big but varied and the economy diversified over time. Across the U.S. manufacturing has been sensitive to the rise of competing economies. strongtowns actually names Detroit as a very early adopter of suburban city planning and sprawl. The argument is they are in part reeling from the impact of these policies faster than other cities.
- tunap 4y ago
  Not a city, per se, but counties, yes. Orange County, CA circa 1994. Bonds & securities shenanigans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Citron#County_bankruptcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Citron#County_bankruptc...
- dwater 4y ago
LatteLazy 4y ago
The US system means you can live outside cities (and so avoid paying city taxes) and travel in to enjoy the amenities they provide. The result is a classic "failure of the commons" where contributors move out and people in need move in. The growth fallacy relies on cities already being short of cash, it is a symptom, not a disease.
- kiba 4y ago
  Driving feels dangerous. It feels like whenever I commute into the city, there's a motor accident of some kind. It's not surprising since you're basically forcing million of people to control 2 tons vehicles. Inevitably, for one reason or another, someone's going to make a mistake.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  Suburbs pay city taxes but are basically subsidized owing to the infrastructure cost relative to tax rate. You can hardly chalk the problem to too few people living within the city boundaries, but ultimately for super-long commuters what it would mean is the bulk of shouldering the cost of those people falls on the communities outside the city. People go in to work, that means the amenities used are a) the roads which have to be maintained anyway, and b) power in the city center which the corporate office pays for (and they pay property tax). The infrastructure cost for inefficient sprawled out areas is enormous. A money pit.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Suburbs are not the only place that can’t fund their street maintenance. My city of Berkeley, California, only spends a fraction of what would be required and we have the worst pavement quality in the state. What’s needed is a frontage tax: $10/foot/year on each parcel ($400/year for typical parcel size and shape). That would fix the streets in perpetuity. It’s politically impossible though since people who live in single-family detached homes, who are massively subsidized by apartment dwellers, don’t want to lose that subsidy.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  As an European Suburbs feel just wrong to me. I've lived in small towns and big cities in Europe. Every time there has been a grocery store within walking or biking distance (5-10 minutes). Suburbs don't have that. If you need more milk, it's a good 30 minute car ride away. Walking or going by bike are completely impossible.
deweller 4y ago
Ponzi Scheme: a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
- kiba 4y ago
  We need a word that is not intentionally a fraud but is pretty much an example of an unsustainable pyramid.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Fractional reserve banking
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      Not a ponzi scheme. It doesn't rely on growth to survive.
      - orangepurple 4y ago
        You are right. However, over time systemic risks grow with it. Your point still stands.
      - Ekaros 4y ago
        It kinda does. Fractional reserve system means there is more debt that there is money. And if interest rates are not below zero. There will be always more debt until someone defaults. Actually even full reserve with debts would mean there is more debt than there is money...
  - outsidetheparty 4y ago
    "Capitalism" (in its modern, dependent-on-continuous-growth interpretation)
  - peteradio 4y ago
    House of cards.
foobarian 4y ago
I am biased because I quite like living in the suburbs, and get quite suspicious when some manifesto comes up that dictates I should feel bad for it. Why is the solution to live in better designed cities instead of better designed suburbs? Are cities still necessary given the modern conditions?
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  The argument is that suburbs are incapable of affording the infrastructure required for their own existence. These costs are either subsidized or require persistent (perhaps unrealistic) growth to cover without dramatically increasing suburban taxes. "Are cities necessary given the modern conditions?" How many suburbs would exist without the corresponding city center? And, don't we just call suburbs without a city center, you know, towns?
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    > And, don't we just call suburbs without a city center, you know, towns? Towns still typically need to manage their own utilities while suburbs don't.
    - danaris 4y ago
      But towns that manage their own utilities do exist. That suggests that suburbs are not fundamentally unsustainable, they just need to adjust their calculations and expectations.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Exactly. I'm in a smallish town that owns its own power and water utility and maintains its own roads, and isn't "wealthy" or "exceptionally taxed" compared to other areas. I suspect there are bad suburbs somewhere, but here ain't it.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
fezfight 4y ago
Does the tone put anyone else off? I feel like I should be his perfect target audience (I cycle everywhere and prefer living in cities with good bike infrastructure) but I find the way he makes his arguments leaves me wanting to disagree with him.
- ucosty 4y ago
  You're not alone, though personally I quite like his tone and delivery. It's entirely probable that you're not in his target audience and that's okay.
- Moldoteck 4y ago
  you can leave a comment on his video on points you disagree with him
- Youden 4y ago
  Yes. I overall have similar views to him but I often find that his videos sound like they're preaching to the choir. Aside from tone, he uses terms like "stroad" without explanation. Such terms will be known to people who watch a lot of similar content and likely already agree with him but not so much to people who don't, which are the people he that he needs to convince. I also find things a bit one-sided. He might bring up problems with the way things are today and propose a solution to them but the solution always sounds like a silver bullet that magically solves all the problems. In reality there are always obstacles and downsides.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Does the tone put anyone else off? Jason Slaughter, the author/creator, has said in numerous interviews that it is on purpose. He's tired of the BS from the pro-car, low-density folks, and leans into the snark.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
refurb 4y ago
This seems like an odd complaint considering SF appears to have out of control spending and poor infrastructure. Methinks author is conflating two separate issues.
- baby 4y ago
  Does SF really have poor infrastructure btw? Compared to any city in Europe sure, but compared to cities in the US?
  - technovader 4y ago
    That's exactly the point though. Americans have no idea how terrible their cities are because they only compare to themselves. It's ALL terrible. Please DO compare to Europe. Let's strive for better cities period, not just OK in the context of North America.
    - baby 4y ago
      I was thinking, for a city of 800k inhabitants, it's not that bad. But then I lived in Bordeaux which has 250k inhabitants and public transport was so amazing. I basically don't take public transport in SF anymore because I find it too dangerous, whereas I never once took a taxi or drove in Bordeaux (in 2 years there).
incomingpain 4y ago
Why are Chicago, San Fran, NYC, Philly, etc so in debt? Bad government policies. Not because of some ponzi scheme. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/wasted-tax-dollars/ https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/wasted-tax-dollars/ $365K In Taxpayer Dollars To Teach People How To Fish? You can look at every one of these cities and see them making bad government policies that placed them in this situation.
- technovader 4y ago
  Sure, but his points apply to almost every suburb in US and Canada. This isn't a one off problem
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  This sounds like a free activity or daycamp for kids[1]. I don't see what the big deal is. Gives kids a hobby and keeps them from getting into trouble. Probably a net savings long term when you consider the cost of dealing with youth crime. By this name logic, public libraries and museums are also a waste of money. [1] https://kids-fishing.com/fishing-chicago/ https://kids-fishing.com/fishing-chicago/ Edit: It's also worth considering the scale of the problem vs the cost of a program like this. The article says that the state is billions in debt, meanwhile this costs .35 million - probably less than the average house in Illinois. A debt of billions seems more structural in nature than small, possibly unwise spends like this. This is the political equivalent of boomers telling young people that they could afford a house if only they cut back on avocado toast.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It's because the cities are unbelievably corrupt. Bloomberg was the only non-corrupt mayor because he could buy his way to victory and didn't have to rely on the established political machinery to get there. But he was just 1 person and with the kinds of revenues NYC was bringing in, there was just so many opportunities to scratch backs. Other pols are so indebted to so many people/organizations/etc that corruption is going to happen. They can't rise to power without getting all these favors which are to be repaid once they acquire power. How do you get power? You get the support of the political machine in your area. How do you get that support? You get the organizations that fund that machine on your side. How do you get those organizations on your side? You promise to make their investment in you pay dividends when you come into power.
cwoolfe 4y ago
I grew up in the suburbs. By the time I was a teenager I couldn't help but ask: "Why is everything here new? And why are all the people white?" I took a look at "White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism" for some answers.
pneumatic1 4y ago
https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligations https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligations
57FkMytWjyFu 4y ago
Tearing out cement and putting down differently arranged cement is just wasteful. The Channel likes to dwell on how the Netherlands do all these things, but the creator fails to ever mention what pays for them there. Hint - It's oil and gas revenue.
- winternett 4y ago
  The truth of it all is that almost everything now is designed to subsidize something else, and it's a convoluted mess that enables people to steal and hide money, and to divert it to serve their interests. If we properly addressed infrastructure spending on bike lanes and all of the things done to ensure bike safety through creating a bike registration tax and an insurance system, then a lot more could likely be done... Currently all of the new bike infrastructure going in to cities is subsidized by car taxes and things like speed cameras. If extremely wealthy individuals paid their fair share in taxes, and if cities stopped subsidizing their huge sports stadiums and warehouses, then it possibly would be a lot easier to maintain and update infrastructure. We tolerate a revolving door of corruption and mis-use of funds in local and federal government, yet the middle class and poor are taxed at around half of their annual income every year once all the various taxes that can be levied are paid. It's not about subsidizing poor low tax neighborhoods to me... The biggest offense is in the deceptive welfare system that is constantly subsidizing private companies and greedy individuals that really don't build growth and opportunity in communities for anyone but themselves... Also we do have to admit that road and infrastructure work regularly is excessively overbilled to local governments... The employees that do it are underpaid perhaps, but there is a long history in this country of infrastructure repair contracts being well overpriced in cost and time...
  - 57FkMytWjyFu 4y ago
    You're not wrong, and that's a lot of ifs. No better example than blowing up a perfectly good stadium to then overcharge for personal seat licenses while getting that tax base to pay for more of the new stadium than the total cost of the one blown up. Search for Jerryworld.
asciimov 4y ago
It is easy to complain about the issues surrounding suburbia. What I don't see much of is how to fix it. How do we fix the issues of suburbia without tearing it all down and starting over?
danielrpa 4y ago
I live in a Suburban county that has seen pretty slow growth for decades and then exploded around 30 years ago. This county is very financially responsible and has done a fantastic job at keeping up with its expenses - before and after the explosion. There is no big city in the county (most of it is not even incorporated in a city), so the bills are paid by the county property taxes and some by the state government. However, this county makes disproportionally high per capita state income tax contributions, to the tune of 2x/3x per capita compared to the nearby big city. As a matter of fact, myself and my county fellows heavily subsidize big city programs in the state: not only the big city's high traffic/maintenance crumbling roads, but schools, money losing public transportation, rent assistance, health programs, elderly assistance etc. What we spend in our arguably inefficient road network is a pittance compared to these.

83 points by spotlesstofu 4y ago

Found the text version more compelling myself: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

koheripbal 4y ago
They make the argument that growth, in an of itself, is a "ponzi scheme". Whereas boom-bust economic cycles are nothing new, and are clearly not the same as a literal ponzi scheme. I don't think there's any novel thinking here. They're just rebranding cyclic economics for dramatic effect.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  The problem isn't growth the problem is that growth is required to pay for maintenance of the currently existing infrastructure. This is ponzi-scheme adjacent because if growth ever stops (and it has to), then everything collapses.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    What you are describing is not a Ponzi scheme at all. It's just regular unsustainable growth.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
Thanks; the "Why", or the interesting part of "Why", seems only alluded to, rather than explicitly discussed. Is it that the low density of suburban development means that tax collected per area unit, is less than infrastructure maintenance per area unit? And is the even more implied solution to increase urban density at least to the point where revenue per area matches expenses per area?
- TuringNYC 4y ago
  Here are some reasons I think "why": - Long term liabilities are not tracked (e.g., muni worker pensions, pension guaranteed CoL adjustments) as hard liabilities. That makes it easy to budget things now and borrow invisibly from the future - Heads I Win, Tails You Lose mentality given that federal government or others could possibly bail you out. - Leadership worries about elections NOW and approval rating NOW, not about issues 20yrs into the future - Some muni worker groups have a stranglehold over towns and can demand far more than economically feasible, or else - Insufficient critical mass of citizenry to look at long term issues
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Basically, yes. The typical American suburb, even "dense" inner suburbs, often don't generate enough tax revenue to maintain infrastructure. The areas get built out with various subsidies from different levels of government; it's only 30 years down the road, when major infrastructure needs updated that the costs become apparent.
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    Why then do towns (which have similar population density to suburbs) not suffer from the same problem?
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      I'm not convinced your assertion is true in general. Picking some local towns, cities, and counties... Shepherdstown WV, population of ~2000, population density 4,700/sq mi (bedroom community on outskirts of DC metro) Fairfax County, VA, population of 1.1 million, density 2,800/sq mi (big, mixed suburban county) Arlington County, VA, population 238,000, density 9,200/sq mi (much of it is very urban) Charlottesville, VA (city) population 46,000, density 4,500/sq mi (small college city) Anyways, the problem is sprawl, which can happen regardless of municipal label. Houston and LA sprawl and run into similar problems of upkeep as large counties like Fairfax Co VA.
- dionidium 4y ago
boole1854 4y ago
It seems to me that the article would benefit from more data supporting the author's arguments. It's not clear what percentage of cities are affected by the problem or the average scale of the problem in those cities.
treis 4y ago
This pops up every couple of months or so. The numbers don't make sense and don't reflect reality. Infrastructure is ~10% of local government budget. Nobody is going bankrupt over that. And AFAIK there's no city in existence where taxes & government expenditures are lower in the city compared to the suburbs. The expensive parts about government are mostly Schools & Criminal Justice. Both are significantly more expensive in cities on a per capita basis.

evolve2k 4y ago

NotJustBikes are doing some incredible work. It’s really time to reframe how we plan our cities and make the spaces we occupy designed for human scale engagement. I encourage anyone interested in this video to definitely check out more of their videos, so much valuable insight as to practically how our urban spaces could be incredible to live in.

koheripbal 4y ago
- technovader 4y ago
  Hard disagree. You and must have watched different videos. He provides concrete examples and solutions.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    I think we have different definitions of the term "concrete solution". His solutions are vague, wildly over-simplified, and unrealistic.
technovader 4y ago
Is it just me or do Americans just hate hearing that their city design is terrible?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dsr_ 4y ago
  Everybody hates hearing criticism of the things that they accept as normal. The portions of US cities that were built before mass automobiles -- say, 1930 - are comparable to European cities built between 1650 and 1930. Europe got hit by WWII and the necessity of rebuilding in basically the same footprint. The US got hit by automobiles and the lack of necessity.

quantumwannabe 4y ago

Can someone name an example of a city that has gone bankrupt due to infrastructure costs that didn't also lose a large amount of its population or lose key local industries?

shiftpgdn 4y ago
Detroit? The industry is still there but they've lost 50% of their population. But the whole point of the video is when you build these big suburbs and suburban development patterns you're on the hook for their cost no matter if anyone is living there or not.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  This is an odd example. Detroit literally lost hundreds of thousands of auto manufacturing jobs. The companies only remain there in a token fashion.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    Detroit's population has been declining for 60 years, and the population of the Metro area is still in the millions. The city itself is at 624,177 in '20. The downfall is years and the making and has to do with more than auto manufacturing. It's not like the nearby cities stuck with a single point of failure for a century, manufacturing is big but varied and the economy diversified over time. Across the U.S. manufacturing has been sensitive to the rise of competing economies. strongtowns actually names Detroit as a very early adopter of suburban city planning and sprawl. The argument is they are in part reeling from the impact of these policies faster than other cities.
tunap 4y ago
Not a city, per se, but counties, yes. Orange County, CA circa 1994. Bonds & securities shenanigans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Citron#County_bankruptcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Citron#County_bankruptc...
dwater 4y ago

LatteLazy 4y ago

The US system means you can live outside cities (and so avoid paying city taxes) and travel in to enjoy the amenities they provide. The result is a classic "failure of the commons" where contributors move out and people in need move in. The growth fallacy relies on cities already being short of cash, it is a symptom, not a disease.

kiba 4y ago
Driving feels dangerous. It feels like whenever I commute into the city, there's a motor accident of some kind. It's not surprising since you're basically forcing million of people to control 2 tons vehicles. Inevitably, for one reason or another, someone's going to make a mistake.
slothtrop 4y ago
Suburbs pay city taxes but are basically subsidized owing to the infrastructure cost relative to tax rate. You can hardly chalk the problem to too few people living within the city boundaries, but ultimately for super-long commuters what it would mean is the bulk of shouldering the cost of those people falls on the communities outside the city. People go in to work, that means the amenities used are a) the roads which have to be maintained anyway, and b) power in the city center which the corporate office pays for (and they pay property tax). The infrastructure cost for inefficient sprawled out areas is enormous. A money pit.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Suburbs are not the only place that can’t fund their street maintenance. My city of Berkeley, California, only spends a fraction of what would be required and we have the worst pavement quality in the state. What’s needed is a frontage tax: $10/foot/year on each parcel ($400/year for typical parcel size and shape). That would fix the streets in perpetuity. It’s politically impossible though since people who live in single-family detached homes, who are massively subsidized by apartment dwellers, don’t want to lose that subsidy.
theshrike79 4y ago
As an European Suburbs feel just wrong to me. I've lived in small towns and big cities in Europe. Every time there has been a grocery store within walking or biking distance (5-10 minutes). Suburbs don't have that. If you need more milk, it's a good 30 minute car ride away. Walking or going by bike are completely impossible.

deweller 4y ago

Ponzi Scheme: a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

kiba 4y ago
We need a word that is not intentionally a fraud but is pretty much an example of an unsustainable pyramid.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Fractional reserve banking
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    Not a ponzi scheme. It doesn't rely on growth to survive.
    - orangepurple 4y ago
      You are right. However, over time systemic risks grow with it. Your point still stands.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      It kinda does. Fractional reserve system means there is more debt that there is money. And if interest rates are not below zero. There will be always more debt until someone defaults. Actually even full reserve with debts would mean there is more debt than there is money...
- outsidetheparty 4y ago
  "Capitalism" (in its modern, dependent-on-continuous-growth interpretation)
- peteradio 4y ago
  House of cards.

foobarian 4y ago

I am biased because I quite like living in the suburbs, and get quite suspicious when some manifesto comes up that dictates I should feel bad for it. Why is the solution to live in better designed cities instead of better designed suburbs? Are cities still necessary given the modern conditions?

germinalphrase 4y ago
The argument is that suburbs are incapable of affording the infrastructure required for their own existence. These costs are either subsidized or require persistent (perhaps unrealistic) growth to cover without dramatically increasing suburban taxes. "Are cities necessary given the modern conditions?" How many suburbs would exist without the corresponding city center? And, don't we just call suburbs without a city center, you know, towns?
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  > And, don't we just call suburbs without a city center, you know, towns? Towns still typically need to manage their own utilities while suburbs don't.
  - danaris 4y ago
    But towns that manage their own utilities do exist. That suggests that suburbs are not fundamentally unsustainable, they just need to adjust their calculations and expectations.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Exactly. I'm in a smallish town that owns its own power and water utility and maintains its own roads, and isn't "wealthy" or "exceptionally taxed" compared to other areas. I suspect there are bad suburbs somewhere, but here ain't it.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago

fezfight 4y ago

Does the tone put anyone else off? I feel like I should be his perfect target audience (I cycle everywhere and prefer living in cities with good bike infrastructure) but I find the way he makes his arguments leaves me wanting to disagree with him.

ucosty 4y ago
You're not alone, though personally I quite like his tone and delivery. It's entirely probable that you're not in his target audience and that's okay.
Moldoteck 4y ago
you can leave a comment on his video on points you disagree with him
Youden 4y ago
Yes. I overall have similar views to him but I often find that his videos sound like they're preaching to the choir. Aside from tone, he uses terms like "stroad" without explanation. Such terms will be known to people who watch a lot of similar content and likely already agree with him but not so much to people who don't, which are the people he that he needs to convince. I also find things a bit one-sided. He might bring up problems with the way things are today and propose a solution to them but the solution always sounds like a silver bullet that magically solves all the problems. In reality there are always obstacles and downsides.
throw0101a 4y ago
> Does the tone put anyone else off? Jason Slaughter, the author/creator, has said in numerous interviews that it is on purpose. He's tired of the BS from the pro-car, low-density folks, and leans into the snark.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

refurb 4y ago

This seems like an odd complaint considering SF appears to have out of control spending and poor infrastructure. Methinks author is conflating two separate issues.

baby 4y ago
Does SF really have poor infrastructure btw? Compared to any city in Europe sure, but compared to cities in the US?
- technovader 4y ago
  That's exactly the point though. Americans have no idea how terrible their cities are because they only compare to themselves. It's ALL terrible. Please DO compare to Europe. Let's strive for better cities period, not just OK in the context of North America.
  - baby 4y ago
    I was thinking, for a city of 800k inhabitants, it's not that bad. But then I lived in Bordeaux which has 250k inhabitants and public transport was so amazing. I basically don't take public transport in SF anymore because I find it too dangerous, whereas I never once took a taxi or drove in Bordeaux (in 2 years there).

incomingpain 4y ago

Why are Chicago, San Fran, NYC, Philly, etc so in debt? Bad government policies. Not because of some ponzi scheme. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/wasted-tax-dollars/ https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/wasted-tax-dollars/ $365K In Taxpayer Dollars To Teach People How To Fish? You can look at every one of these cities and see them making bad government policies that placed them in this situation.

technovader 4y ago
Sure, but his points apply to almost every suburb in US and Canada. This isn't a one off problem
AlexandrB 4y ago
This sounds like a free activity or daycamp for kids[1]. I don't see what the big deal is. Gives kids a hobby and keeps them from getting into trouble. Probably a net savings long term when you consider the cost of dealing with youth crime. By this name logic, public libraries and museums are also a waste of money. [1] https://kids-fishing.com/fishing-chicago/ https://kids-fishing.com/fishing-chicago/ Edit: It's also worth considering the scale of the problem vs the cost of a program like this. The article says that the state is billions in debt, meanwhile this costs .35 million - probably less than the average house in Illinois. A debt of billions seems more structural in nature than small, possibly unwise spends like this. This is the political equivalent of boomers telling young people that they could afford a house if only they cut back on avocado toast.
nemo44x 4y ago
It's because the cities are unbelievably corrupt. Bloomberg was the only non-corrupt mayor because he could buy his way to victory and didn't have to rely on the established political machinery to get there. But he was just 1 person and with the kinds of revenues NYC was bringing in, there was just so many opportunities to scratch backs. Other pols are so indebted to so many people/organizations/etc that corruption is going to happen. They can't rise to power without getting all these favors which are to be repaid once they acquire power. How do you get power? You get the support of the political machine in your area. How do you get that support? You get the organizations that fund that machine on your side. How do you get those organizations on your side? You promise to make their investment in you pay dividends when you come into power.

cwoolfe 4y ago

I grew up in the suburbs. By the time I was a teenager I couldn't help but ask: "Why is everything here new? And why are all the people white?" I took a look at "White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism" for some answers.

pneumatic1 4y ago

https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligations https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligations

57FkMytWjyFu 4y ago

Tearing out cement and putting down differently arranged cement is just wasteful. The Channel likes to dwell on how the Netherlands do all these things, but the creator fails to ever mention what pays for them there. Hint - It's oil and gas revenue.

winternett 4y ago
The truth of it all is that almost everything now is designed to subsidize something else, and it's a convoluted mess that enables people to steal and hide money, and to divert it to serve their interests. If we properly addressed infrastructure spending on bike lanes and all of the things done to ensure bike safety through creating a bike registration tax and an insurance system, then a lot more could likely be done... Currently all of the new bike infrastructure going in to cities is subsidized by car taxes and things like speed cameras. If extremely wealthy individuals paid their fair share in taxes, and if cities stopped subsidizing their huge sports stadiums and warehouses, then it possibly would be a lot easier to maintain and update infrastructure. We tolerate a revolving door of corruption and mis-use of funds in local and federal government, yet the middle class and poor are taxed at around half of their annual income every year once all the various taxes that can be levied are paid. It's not about subsidizing poor low tax neighborhoods to me... The biggest offense is in the deceptive welfare system that is constantly subsidizing private companies and greedy individuals that really don't build growth and opportunity in communities for anyone but themselves... Also we do have to admit that road and infrastructure work regularly is excessively overbilled to local governments... The employees that do it are underpaid perhaps, but there is a long history in this country of infrastructure repair contracts being well overpriced in cost and time...
- 57FkMytWjyFu 4y ago
  You're not wrong, and that's a lot of ifs. No better example than blowing up a perfectly good stadium to then overcharge for personal seat licenses while getting that tax base to pay for more of the new stadium than the total cost of the one blown up. Search for Jerryworld.

asciimov 4y ago

It is easy to complain about the issues surrounding suburbia. What I don't see much of is how to fix it. How do we fix the issues of suburbia without tearing it all down and starting over?

danielrpa 4y ago

I live in a Suburban county that has seen pretty slow growth for decades and then exploded around 30 years ago. This county is very financially responsible and has done a fantastic job at keeping up with its expenses - before and after the explosion. There is no big city in the county (most of it is not even incorporated in a city), so the bills are paid by the county property taxes and some by the state government. However, this county makes disproportionally high per capita state income tax contributions, to the tune of 2x/3x per capita compared to the nearby big city. As a matter of fact, myself and my county fellows heavily subsidize big city programs in the state: not only the big city's high traffic/maintenance crumbling roads, but schools, money losing public transportation, rent assistance, health programs, elderly assistance etc. What we spend in our arguably inefficient road network is a pittance compared to these.