4 ms·

Most true suburbs aren't within the big city limits, so I'm not sure your point is well-founded. For example, in the DC area, the suburbs aren't even in the sam

Most true suburbs aren't within the big city limits, so I'm not sure your point is well-founded. For example, in the DC area, the suburbs aren't even in the same state as the city and yet the suburbs seem to be thriving.

School-Cotton 7mo ago
DC is an exception, most American cities have large swaths of suburbia within the city limits and even larger ones within the same state.
socalgal2 7mo ago
Those suburbs outside the city limits still need money. They get it from state and federal funds which were mostly collected from people in the city limits. For example the Highway Trust Fund as one of many examples. If you check the per capita spending, it's higher for suburbanites than urbanites but the urbanites are putting in more money.
- bpt3 7mo ago
  Absolutely not in the case of the DC metro area, on both the MD and VA sides. Those counties subsidize DC proper in various ways, along with the less populated portions of their own states, and because the median household income is so high, they also pay a disproportionate amount of federal income taxes when compared to DC residents. I also have no idea why you think city dwellers are the primary contributors per capita to the Highway Trust Fund which is funded via a tax on fuel (i.e. miles driven).
  - VintageCool 7mo ago
    The tax on fuel has not been able to keep up with expenditures for the Highway Trust Fund for two decades; now a third of the money comes from the General Fund. https://t4america.org/2025/05/22/the-highway-trust-fund-isnt-on-life-support-its-been-dead-since-2008/ https://t4america.org/2025/05/22/the-highway-trust-fund-isnt... That said, suburbs with high median household income are probably still putting a lot of money into the General Fund by income taxes.
    - socalgal2 7mo ago
      they aren't putting as much in as the city by call kinds of measures. It generally cost up to 4-5x to maintain suburban areas vs urban. High income suburbanites don't make up that difference. They're subsubdized by the urban citizens.
      - bpt3 7mo ago
        The suburbanites pay for that maintenance, and there are many other costs to city living that urbanites like to ignore (significantly higher expenses on emergency and social services for example). It's not nearly as straightforward as urbanites like to claim. One thing that is absolutely clear is that commercial districts subsidize residents in every jurisdiction, and urban commercial districts rely on commuters (from surrounding suburbs) to thrive.
michael1999 7mo ago
The road network expansions and maintenance required to support the suburbs does. Ottawa has this exact problem. They are widening inner-suburb roads to satisfy demand created by outer-suburb development. A double-whammy.
dangus 7mo ago
“Seem to be” being the key words. There’s been somewhat of a continuous cycle of movement with the upper class of America that goes something like this: 1. Move in to the latest newly constructed suburb with low taxes and fresh housing stock 2. Infrastructure ages, tax rates increase, housing standards evolve, the upper class moves to the next new suburb built on former farm land 3. The inner suburb declines, becomes low-income, companies leave, and infrastructure crumbles. Municipal debt piles up, sometimes the city goes bankrupt. This is especially obvious in cities where regional growth didn’t continue upward forever. I recommend reading up on Strong Towns’ growth ponzi scheme content.

School-Cotton 7mo ago

DC is an exception, most American cities have large swaths of suburbia within the city limits and even larger ones within the same state.

socalgal2 7mo ago

Those suburbs outside the city limits still need money. They get it from state and federal funds which were mostly collected from people in the city limits. For example the Highway Trust Fund as one of many examples. If you check the per capita spending, it's higher for suburbanites than urbanites but the urbanites are putting in more money.

bpt3 7mo ago
Absolutely not in the case of the DC metro area, on both the MD and VA sides. Those counties subsidize DC proper in various ways, along with the less populated portions of their own states, and because the median household income is so high, they also pay a disproportionate amount of federal income taxes when compared to DC residents. I also have no idea why you think city dwellers are the primary contributors per capita to the Highway Trust Fund which is funded via a tax on fuel (i.e. miles driven).
- VintageCool 7mo ago
  The tax on fuel has not been able to keep up with expenditures for the Highway Trust Fund for two decades; now a third of the money comes from the General Fund. https://t4america.org/2025/05/22/the-highway-trust-fund-isnt-on-life-support-its-been-dead-since-2008/ https://t4america.org/2025/05/22/the-highway-trust-fund-isnt... That said, suburbs with high median household income are probably still putting a lot of money into the General Fund by income taxes.
  - socalgal2 7mo ago
    they aren't putting as much in as the city by call kinds of measures. It generally cost up to 4-5x to maintain suburban areas vs urban. High income suburbanites don't make up that difference. They're subsubdized by the urban citizens.
    - bpt3 7mo ago
      The suburbanites pay for that maintenance, and there are many other costs to city living that urbanites like to ignore (significantly higher expenses on emergency and social services for example). It's not nearly as straightforward as urbanites like to claim. One thing that is absolutely clear is that commercial districts subsidize residents in every jurisdiction, and urban commercial districts rely on commuters (from surrounding suburbs) to thrive.

michael1999 7mo ago

The road network expansions and maintenance required to support the suburbs does. Ottawa has this exact problem. They are widening inner-suburb roads to satisfy demand created by outer-suburb development. A double-whammy.

dangus 7mo ago

“Seem to be” being the key words. There’s been somewhat of a continuous cycle of movement with the upper class of America that goes something like this: 1. Move in to the latest newly constructed suburb with low taxes and fresh housing stock 2. Infrastructure ages, tax rates increase, housing standards evolve, the upper class moves to the next new suburb built on former farm land 3. The inner suburb declines, becomes low-income, companies leave, and infrastructure crumbles. Municipal debt piles up, sometimes the city goes bankrupt. This is especially obvious in cities where regional growth didn’t continue upward forever. I recommend reading up on Strong Towns’ growth ponzi scheme content.