3 ms·

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 "fa

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.
- Jensson 4y ago
  To me most important is independent children. In Europe every kid I know walked to school, walked to go and buy groceries or other errands, walked to friends etc. But apparently that isn't really a thing in American suburbs, must be horrible for those kids to be so dependent on their parents until they can get a car themselves.
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    Yep, my kid walked to school from the first day of the first grade. Now as a fourth grader they just call me when school's out and tell me which friend's house they're going after school and walk there (or notify me if they're coming to our place). Sometimes they stop by the store on the way to get some snacks. And when dinner is ready, we call them home and they walk back. During the summer holidays they scoot or bike to the park close by to play with their friends. An American Suburbia kid could never do any of this without someone calling the police or CPS for child endangerment even if there was a school, shop or a playground within walking distance.
    - jjav 4y ago
      > An American Suburbia kid could never do any of this without someone calling the police or CPS for child endangerment even if there was a school, shop or a playground within walking distance. There's a lot of generalizations about suburbs in these discussions. From my office window here in suburbia, about a block away from a middle school, every day I see hundreds of kids leave on foot. I imagine most go home in the nearby suburbs, although there are plenty of shops within easy walking distance so perhaps some of them stop at those. There's also a large park/playground not far from the school they might go to. This idea of a suburb being a place that has nothing and you can't walk anywhere is weird to me. I'm sure such suburbs exist somehwere, but I've never seen one. (I'm in California.)

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.

Jensson 4y ago
To me most important is independent children. In Europe every kid I know walked to school, walked to go and buy groceries or other errands, walked to friends etc. But apparently that isn't really a thing in American suburbs, must be horrible for those kids to be so dependent on their parents until they can get a car themselves.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  Yep, my kid walked to school from the first day of the first grade. Now as a fourth grader they just call me when school's out and tell me which friend's house they're going after school and walk there (or notify me if they're coming to our place). Sometimes they stop by the store on the way to get some snacks. And when dinner is ready, we call them home and they walk back. During the summer holidays they scoot or bike to the park close by to play with their friends. An American Suburbia kid could never do any of this without someone calling the police or CPS for child endangerment even if there was a school, shop or a playground within walking distance.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > An American Suburbia kid could never do any of this without someone calling the police or CPS for child endangerment even if there was a school, shop or a playground within walking distance. There's a lot of generalizations about suburbs in these discussions. From my office window here in suburbia, about a block away from a middle school, every day I see hundreds of kids leave on foot. I imagine most go home in the nearby suburbs, although there are plenty of shops within easy walking distance so perhaps some of them stop at those. There's also a large park/playground not far from the school they might go to. This idea of a suburb being a place that has nothing and you can't walk anywhere is weird to me. I'm sure such suburbs exist somehwere, but I've never seen one. (I'm in California.)