4 ms·

Isn't this an infinite regress? How could cities survive without farm land? How could cities survive without outsourced materials? We live in an interdepende

• ghaff 4y ago
  There seems to be a naive belief that if everyone just lived in dense urban cores there would be no need to pay for infrastructure beyond the city limits.
  • germinalphrase 4y ago
    The argument is that suburban residents should carry the true cost of their infrastructure, not that they shouldn't exist.
  • Ensorceled 4y ago
    The average farm needs a single, nearby access road and power; water and septic is local (that's changing). A suburb needs that nearby road, lots of streets, water lines, sewage, significant power, often street lights, etc. etc.
    • TrispusAttucks 4y ago
      And the city needs transport networks and power grids that reach far beyond the city limits. The only logical difference is a matter of scale and limits. The same rules apply to any region that has dependencies outside of its own borders. The only way to not be subsidized in some fashion is to live directly off of the land in the form of some nomadic tribe.
      • Ensorceled 4y ago
        We’re talking suburbs. My city block contains literally thousands of homes and commercial properties in a zone that would contain, at most a few hundred McMansions. The cost to deliver services needed are within an order of magnitude of a suburb but the tax base is significantly higher.
        • TrispusAttucks 4y ago
          It cost more to maintain infrastructure that experiences an order of magnitude more usage than an infrequently used set of infrastructure. The hinges of a door used once a day will last longer than the hinges of a door used one thousand. A road that sees one delivery truck a month will last longer than one that sees thousands.
          • Ensorceled 4y ago
            I'm trying to figure out if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me. Rural: Low usage, low maintenance low services (road,power,internet), low tax base Urban: High usage, high maintenance, high services (water, sewer, road, power, internet, transit), high tax base Suburban: High usage, high maintenance, high services (water, sewer, road, power, internet, transit), low tax base Only one of these, by necessity needs subsidizing ...
            • TrispusAttucks 4y ago
              I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that property tax on suburban property is quite high.
              • Ensorceled 4y ago
                Yes, but it's still not close to the total aggregated costs of delivery of services. Suburbs are REALLY inefficient and expensive.
  • thegginthesky 4y ago
    Infrastructure outside the city is normally paid by a combination of County Taxes and State Taxes, and roads are also financed by the Federal Gas Tax, tolls and other forms of government income. Of course we should pay for infrastructure outside the city, but if you expect to live outside city centers and have costly infrastructure such as a sewage system, high speed fiber internet and so on, you should pay accordingly. What happens now is that this infrastructure is either financed by those living in city centers or by debt. So I don't buy your Straw Man argument that people believe that dense urban cores are better. What was explicitly discussed is that people who live in the suburbs don't pay what they should.
    • ghaff 4y ago
      My town pays for sewer (which I don't have) and water (which I do) out of property taxes, assessments, and a quarterly water bill. I pay Comcast for my own Internet and I pay for private trash. Property taxes also pay for education (a big chunk), snow plowing, police/fire/library, etc. There's some money to roads but, yes, that's mostly from the state and gas taxes which residents also pay of course. So it's not like cities are picking up the whole bill; while they have more people paying taxes, a lot of costs are much higher as well.
  • Ekaros 4y ago
    Question really is the mechanism of pay. Maybe those costs on outside should be included in price of products and materials they buy. So for food the cost that goes to farmers and via them to local taxes should increase. As that would reflect what it really costs to produce for example food.
• germinalphrase 4y ago
  The residents of city centers need farms, so it is logical that they would subsidize some amount of rural infrastructure. Residents of cities require materials from elsewhere, so it is logical they would pay the cost of acquiring those resources. What is the benefit to the city resident in subsiding the infrastructure of a suburb? Why shouldn't suburban residents pay the cost of their own infrastructure?
  • TigeriusKirk 4y ago
    The city resident needs the labor of the residents of the suburbs in order for the city to function.
    • germinalphrase 4y ago
      Which doesn't necessitate the presence of the suburban environment. If suburban residents want a lifestyle distinct from living in the city, that is absolutely fine - but they should pay the costs of that lifestyle as it is a choice (just as living in a single family home versus an apartment is a choice urban residents make and should pay the corresponding costs to support).
      • TigeriusKirk 4y ago
        Why shouldn't the city pay the costs necessary to attract the labor they need?
        • jrkatz 4y ago
          Asserting that the cost is necessary is a _big_ assumption. It's subsidized, sure, but that doesn't imply that it needs to be. If the subsidy ends, maybe wages will rise to close the gap, or maybe they won't, and suburban residents will move into denser accommodations nearer the city.
          • TigeriusKirk 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]