3 ms·
At least in theory infrastructure should be covered by taxes so more people shouldn't be a problem in the long term. That assumes competent management and sensi
by fc417fc802 2y ago
At least in theory infrastructure should be covered by taxes so more people shouldn't be a problem in the long term. That assumes competent management and sensible voters though.
Primarily I think politicians fear the possibility of real estate prices falling too rapidly. I think residents also fear change since if they don't like the result the cost to move is fairly high.
- kazinator 2y agoTaxes don't solve the problem that water has to come from somewhere and garbage has to go somewhere and so on. The very increases themselves are undesirable; who pays for that is not the problem.
- fc417fc802 2y agoIsn't garbage output the same, just in different locations? If anything further centralization of collection should be expected to reduce costs. Water is similar. I'll acknowledge that in a few specific geographic locations there are genuine concerns about the total available supply but that is not the norm. It also isn't some insurmountable problem unless you're in the middle of a vast inland desert (which departs even farther from the norm). If the local government is failing to oversee the necessary improvements to infrastructure then from my perspective that's a failure of the political process.
- littlexsparkee 2y agoAlso water use is lower in dense urban areas so you have to consider that there's a net gain from the move even if there's additional strain locally