3 ms·

The argument presented by strongtowns is that suburban sprawl and associated infrastructure is a ticking time bomb financially, because federal dollars fund the

The argument presented by strongtowns is that suburban sprawl and associated infrastructure is a ticking time bomb financially, because federal dollars fund the construction, but localities are responsible for upkeep and eventual replacement. ... which they can't keep up on. So in 20-40 years, the water supply and roads and other infrastructure decline without any means for replacement. Sure, perhaps with intelligent setting aside of funds, localities could handle it, but that kind of long term thinking is really hard to expect to happen across all local governments without some sort of federal mandate. Plus, there is always a hidden assumption that you let things get bad and wait for a federal bailout. In some ways, some dramatic crisis like this is exactly as planned. Finally, we are talking about Mississippi. The South is unquestionably more corrupt at the local and state levels, going back to the reconstruction and post reconstruction eras after the civil war and the intense entrenched racism. All you really need to do is look at how the South collects more federal aid than blue states, yet Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi routinely rank in the bottom ten for public education by states. Their universities are noteworthy for SEC football and little else. Things are compounded by the fact that these are frankly really really poor states. It is a bit unfair to cast them as horribly corrupt when Illinois and New York also aren't exactly poster children. BUT, Louisiana/Alabama/Mississippi don't have floods of northerners enriching them like Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. People do go to New Orleans for tourism, but that's about it, and I'd posit that New Orleans likely still has not recovered from Hurricane Katrina. Finally, politically these states are owned by vehemently far right anti-government Republicans, and have been for decades. They are all horrendously gerrymandered, so reform is basically impossible. As California shows, when any party has long term control of a government, corruption and incompetence results, and it's only worse when one of the pillars of your party is to hate the government you run. Which gives full license to corruption.

wyager 4y ago
> All you really need to do is look at how the South collects more federal aid than blue states, It's extremely misleading to portray the dichotomy as between "the south" and "blue states". Note that red states outside of the south generally score very highly on metrics like income, educational outcomes, quality of life, quality of infrastructure, net tax receipts, etc. The thing that makes southern states shitty is not the fact that they're red. You can tease out the Simpson's paradox here - go ahead and check average federal aid receipts in southern states after splitting the population by political affiliation. There's a very blue subpopulation in southern states that accounts for a vastly disproportionate fraction of federal spending. > yet Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi routinely rank in the bottom ten for public education by states Why do you qualify this with "yet"? This is perfectly expected if you understand the causal factors here.
- jcksmabx 4y ago
  > This is perfectly expected if you understand the causal factors here. What are the causal factors?
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Um, the causal factors being decades of republican control that is hostile to public education? You are generally correct on why and to whom the money goes to in these states, but the fact remains that money goes to these states and not a lot of progress happens. You can say it's the usual intractability of poverty, but at some point you take "Republican State/Local Government" + "Federal Funds" and see they get squandered. And thus, black water from faucets. There are lots of federal funds (thanks to congress) that isn't directly dispensed to citizens. Instead it gets granted to the states for their oversight and control, I believe Medicaid works like this, or it did at some point. I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what happens to state-allocated federal funds in a deeply racist state with gerrymandering specifically designed to maintain white control of government.
landemva 4y ago
> without some sort of federal mandate. It's a State problem to fix with incentives or mandates.
- paulmd 4y ago
  Should it be, though? Forget the US constitution entirely, in the abstract why should a country not mandate that if a municipality provide water service, that it be safe to drink? Is that inherently different from setting minimum standards for pollution etc? The water's still unsafe to drink regardless of the cause. It seems like often there's an "is/ought" thing going on with Americans, people look at the design of the american system and say that X feature is great, without considering the actual impact that feature has had.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    > why should a country not mandate that if a municipality provide water service, that it be safe to drink? The US does mandate this. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/drinking-water-regulations https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/drinking-water-regulations And the EPA started taking action in Jackson more than a year ago: https://www.epa.gov/ms/jackson-ms-drinking-water https://www.epa.gov/ms/jackson-ms-drinking-water The problem is that local leaders have the ability to just suck at their job and not make smart long term decisions. And often, this is caused by local opinions about spending priorities and opinions on the role of government.

wyager 4y ago

> All you really need to do is look at how the South collects more federal aid than blue states, It's extremely misleading to portray the dichotomy as between "the south" and "blue states". Note that red states outside of the south generally score very highly on metrics like income, educational outcomes, quality of life, quality of infrastructure, net tax receipts, etc. The thing that makes southern states shitty is not the fact that they're red. You can tease out the Simpson's paradox here - go ahead and check average federal aid receipts in southern states after splitting the population by political affiliation. There's a very blue subpopulation in southern states that accounts for a vastly disproportionate fraction of federal spending. > yet Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi routinely rank in the bottom ten for public education by states Why do you qualify this with "yet"? This is perfectly expected if you understand the causal factors here.

jcksmabx 4y ago
> This is perfectly expected if you understand the causal factors here. What are the causal factors?
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Um, the causal factors being decades of republican control that is hostile to public education? You are generally correct on why and to whom the money goes to in these states, but the fact remains that money goes to these states and not a lot of progress happens. You can say it's the usual intractability of poverty, but at some point you take "Republican State/Local Government" + "Federal Funds" and see they get squandered. And thus, black water from faucets. There are lots of federal funds (thanks to congress) that isn't directly dispensed to citizens. Instead it gets granted to the states for their oversight and control, I believe Medicaid works like this, or it did at some point. I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what happens to state-allocated federal funds in a deeply racist state with gerrymandering specifically designed to maintain white control of government.

landemva 4y ago

> without some sort of federal mandate. It's a State problem to fix with incentives or mandates.

paulmd 4y ago
Should it be, though? Forget the US constitution entirely, in the abstract why should a country not mandate that if a municipality provide water service, that it be safe to drink? Is that inherently different from setting minimum standards for pollution etc? The water's still unsafe to drink regardless of the cause. It seems like often there's an "is/ought" thing going on with Americans, people look at the design of the american system and say that X feature is great, without considering the actual impact that feature has had.
- kube-system 4y ago
  > why should a country not mandate that if a municipality provide water service, that it be safe to drink? The US does mandate this. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/drinking-water-regulations https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/drinking-water-regulations And the EPA started taking action in Jackson more than a year ago: https://www.epa.gov/ms/jackson-ms-drinking-water https://www.epa.gov/ms/jackson-ms-drinking-water The problem is that local leaders have the ability to just suck at their job and not make smart long term decisions. And often, this is caused by local opinions about spending priorities and opinions on the role of government.