4 ms·

Its perfectly fine to like that, just as it is perfectly fine to like private jets and caviar. The discussion, at least in this article, is how sustainable it i

Its perfectly fine to like that, just as it is perfectly fine to like private jets and caviar. The discussion, at least in this article, is how sustainable it is from a cost perspective. You are talking about liking something that has tax revenues that cover mere fractions of the costs incurred. How much would you like it if your property taxes were 50% higher? 2000% higher?

anthony_d 12y ago
I live in a suburb and my property taxes are about 3 times higher than the nearby city. I wouldn't consider moving. I like the fact that my suburb actually is financially stable, unlike many large cities. Really it sounds like the whole article could be sumarised by saying many suburbs have taxes that are too low. The article's author worked in a town with poor planning; there are plenty of large cities with poor planning. This is really a non-story playing up to many of the prejudices common to HN.
- lliwta 12y ago
  > could be sumarised by saying many suburbs have taxes that are too low In some areas of Minnesota this could most certainly be the case.
- DinkMeeker 12y ago
  I remember a number of years back the debate when Houston was trying to annex a nearby area. One of the arguments was that the city needed to add area to its tax base. So this is a big city thing as well. Many major cities have finances that are in the crapper.
zheshishei 12y ago
The article isn't pointing out that all suburbs are unsustainable. It's talking about how treating the suburbs as something they are not (a higher population density area, like a city) leads to infrastructure that is inappropriate for the community, which then leads to the tax revenue to infrastructure cost disparity. In the jargon of HN, it's a premature optimization. Charles Marohn is still championing suburbs. What he's against is irresponsible spending by local townships.
- DinkMeeker 12y ago
  Exactly. This is about incorrect management rather than inherent unsustainability of being spread out. Years ago people were spread out way more than now.
  - saosebastiao 12y ago
    They also had minimalist infrastructure. I'm pretty sure if we went back to the days of outhouses and running to the local creek for water, that it would be more cost sustainable to be as spread out as we are. It would also be a regression.
    - DinkMeeker 12y ago
      I pretty sure there is a happy medium somewhere before you hit outhouses. Just like living in cities doesn't necessarily mean you have to be stacked in like cordwood with 120 square feet allocated per person.
- saosebastiao 12y ago
  "in Marohn’s estimation, property taxes at suburban densities bring in anywhere from 4 cents to 65 cents for every dollar of liability. Most suburban municipalities, he says, are therefore unable to pay the maintenance costs of their infrastructure, let alone replace things when they inevitably wear out after twenty to twenty-ﬁve years."
  - zheshishei 12y ago
    You're taking the sentence out of context. Here's the entire paragraph you quoted: "Here’s what he means. The way suburban development usually works is that a town lays the pipes, plumbing, and infrastructure for housing development—often getting big loans from the government to do so—and soon after a developer appears and offers to build homes on it. Developers usually fund most of the cost of the infrastructure because they make their money back from the sale of the homes. The short-term cost to the city or town, therefore, is very low: it gets a cash infusion from whichever entity fronted the costs, and the city gets to keep all the revenue from property taxes. The thinking is that either taxes will cover the maintenance costs, or the city will keep growing and generate enough future cash ﬂow to cover the obligations. But the tax revenue at low suburban densities isn’t nearly enough to pay the bills; in Marohn’s estimation, property taxes at suburban densities bring in anywhere from 4 cents to 65 cents for every dollar of liability. Most suburban municipalities, he says, are therefore unable to pay the maintenance costs of their infrastructure, let alone replace things when they inevitably wear out after twenty to twenty-ﬁve years. The only way to survive is to keep growing or take on more debt, or both. “It is a ridiculously unproductive system,” he says." Taken in context, the quoted sentence is specifically talking about the development/expansion of a town beyond its current financial means. In other words, the town builds out its infrastructure and is banking on an influx of new homeowners (taxpayers) to help with the maintenance of the infrastructure. When that doesn't happen, that's when the tax revenue/liabilities ratio dips below 1. Also, if you go to the Strong Towns[1] website that Charles Marohn helped start and read the Mission Statement and their Quantification of a Strong Town, nowhere does it talk about population density or converting suburbs/towns into cities. [1] http://www.strongtowns.org/ http://www.strongtowns.org/
ctdonath 12y ago
The post I responded to wasn't addressing sustainability. But to run with yours... The article covers sweeping statements & accusations, ignoring local realities. If a particular town made a bad deal with a developer, that's not the same category as those that made a good deal; a big screwup can skew the average when lumped in among several successes. Ranting about sewer maintenance doesn't apply to a neighborhood that doesn't have sewers (mine has backyard septic systems/fields; your offal is your problem), and likewise for public water vs private wells. It's a solvable problem: should taxes be higher? if so, raise them accordingly and look for alternate solutions like encouraging domestic self-sufficiency. It's a paperwork problem. Much of what the article describes involves carefully negotiated & balanced deals, followed later with absurd & overbearing demands for "improvements" - no surprise the latter are "unsustainable". Build a community with suitable roads and lawns designed to balance them ... then demand a >50% increase in road width, destroying lawns and vastly altering traffic dynamics? Build a suitable sewer system, then vastly raise & over-engineer requirements, then have to accommodate normal repairs to the absurd new requirements? Yeah, that's not going to work. The problem isn't suburbs, it's overbearing overpowered know-it-alls who don't have to deal with consequences of their unilateral declarations.

anthony_d 12y ago

I live in a suburb and my property taxes are about 3 times higher than the nearby city. I wouldn't consider moving. I like the fact that my suburb actually is financially stable, unlike many large cities. Really it sounds like the whole article could be sumarised by saying many suburbs have taxes that are too low. The article's author worked in a town with poor planning; there are plenty of large cities with poor planning. This is really a non-story playing up to many of the prejudices common to HN.

lliwta 12y ago
> could be sumarised by saying many suburbs have taxes that are too low In some areas of Minnesota this could most certainly be the case.
DinkMeeker 12y ago
I remember a number of years back the debate when Houston was trying to annex a nearby area. One of the arguments was that the city needed to add area to its tax base. So this is a big city thing as well. Many major cities have finances that are in the crapper.

zheshishei 12y ago

The article isn't pointing out that all suburbs are unsustainable. It's talking about how treating the suburbs as something they are not (a higher population density area, like a city) leads to infrastructure that is inappropriate for the community, which then leads to the tax revenue to infrastructure cost disparity. In the jargon of HN, it's a premature optimization. Charles Marohn is still championing suburbs. What he's against is irresponsible spending by local townships.

DinkMeeker 12y ago
Exactly. This is about incorrect management rather than inherent unsustainability of being spread out. Years ago people were spread out way more than now.
- saosebastiao 12y ago
  They also had minimalist infrastructure. I'm pretty sure if we went back to the days of outhouses and running to the local creek for water, that it would be more cost sustainable to be as spread out as we are. It would also be a regression.
  - DinkMeeker 12y ago
    I pretty sure there is a happy medium somewhere before you hit outhouses. Just like living in cities doesn't necessarily mean you have to be stacked in like cordwood with 120 square feet allocated per person.
saosebastiao 12y ago
"in Marohn’s estimation, property taxes at suburban densities bring in anywhere from 4 cents to 65 cents for every dollar of liability. Most suburban municipalities, he says, are therefore unable to pay the maintenance costs of their infrastructure, let alone replace things when they inevitably wear out after twenty to twenty-ﬁve years."
- zheshishei 12y ago
  You're taking the sentence out of context. Here's the entire paragraph you quoted: "Here’s what he means. The way suburban development usually works is that a town lays the pipes, plumbing, and infrastructure for housing development—often getting big loans from the government to do so—and soon after a developer appears and offers to build homes on it. Developers usually fund most of the cost of the infrastructure because they make their money back from the sale of the homes. The short-term cost to the city or town, therefore, is very low: it gets a cash infusion from whichever entity fronted the costs, and the city gets to keep all the revenue from property taxes. The thinking is that either taxes will cover the maintenance costs, or the city will keep growing and generate enough future cash ﬂow to cover the obligations. But the tax revenue at low suburban densities isn’t nearly enough to pay the bills; in Marohn’s estimation, property taxes at suburban densities bring in anywhere from 4 cents to 65 cents for every dollar of liability. Most suburban municipalities, he says, are therefore unable to pay the maintenance costs of their infrastructure, let alone replace things when they inevitably wear out after twenty to twenty-ﬁve years. The only way to survive is to keep growing or take on more debt, or both. “It is a ridiculously unproductive system,” he says." Taken in context, the quoted sentence is specifically talking about the development/expansion of a town beyond its current financial means. In other words, the town builds out its infrastructure and is banking on an influx of new homeowners (taxpayers) to help with the maintenance of the infrastructure. When that doesn't happen, that's when the tax revenue/liabilities ratio dips below 1. Also, if you go to the Strong Towns[1] website that Charles Marohn helped start and read the Mission Statement and their Quantification of a Strong Town, nowhere does it talk about population density or converting suburbs/towns into cities. [1] http://www.strongtowns.org/ http://www.strongtowns.org/

ctdonath 12y ago

The post I responded to wasn't addressing sustainability. But to run with yours... The article covers sweeping statements & accusations, ignoring local realities. If a particular town made a bad deal with a developer, that's not the same category as those that made a good deal; a big screwup can skew the average when lumped in among several successes. Ranting about sewer maintenance doesn't apply to a neighborhood that doesn't have sewers (mine has backyard septic systems/fields; your offal is your problem), and likewise for public water vs private wells. It's a solvable problem: should taxes be higher? if so, raise them accordingly and look for alternate solutions like encouraging domestic self-sufficiency. It's a paperwork problem. Much of what the article describes involves carefully negotiated & balanced deals, followed later with absurd & overbearing demands for "improvements" - no surprise the latter are "unsustainable". Build a community with suitable roads and lawns designed to balance them ... then demand a >50% increase in road width, destroying lawns and vastly altering traffic dynamics? Build a suitable sewer system, then vastly raise & over-engineer requirements, then have to accommodate normal repairs to the absurd new requirements? Yeah, that's not going to work. The problem isn't suburbs, it's overbearing overpowered know-it-alls who don't have to deal with consequences of their unilateral declarations.