5 ms·

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 de

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/
  - saosebastiao 12y ago
    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. You mean like these? http://www.strongtowns.org/the-cost-of-auto-orientation/ http://www.strongtowns.org/the-cost-of-auto-orientation/ http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/4/the-lost-opportunity-of-auto-orientation.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/4/the-lost-opportu... http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/11/adding-insult-to-injury.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/11/adding-insult-t... http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/18/residential-maturing.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/18/residential-mat... He absolutely is talking about density. The tax bases of low density suburbs, compared to the maintenance costs that they require, are inherently disparate. The costs of building greenfield infrastructure is low...low enough that developers willingly pay the infrastructure development fees in exchange for the right to build. But the taxes used to maintain the infrastructure do not cover the costs, and by that time the developer is off the hook. So they bring in new developers, which bring with them new taxes and more deferred maintenance, which brings solvency in the short term and bigger problems in the long term. Suburban-density development is a ponzi scheme, inherently unsustainable, and it is a theme that he refers to extensively in his writing.

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/
- saosebastiao 12y ago
  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. You mean like these? http://www.strongtowns.org/the-cost-of-auto-orientation/ http://www.strongtowns.org/the-cost-of-auto-orientation/ http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/4/the-lost-opportunity-of-auto-orientation.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/4/the-lost-opportu... http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/11/adding-insult-to-injury.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/11/adding-insult-t... http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/18/residential-maturing.html http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/18/residential-mat... He absolutely is talking about density. The tax bases of low density suburbs, compared to the maintenance costs that they require, are inherently disparate. The costs of building greenfield infrastructure is low...low enough that developers willingly pay the infrastructure development fees in exchange for the right to build. But the taxes used to maintain the infrastructure do not cover the costs, and by that time the developer is off the hook. So they bring in new developers, which bring with them new taxes and more deferred maintenance, which brings solvency in the short term and bigger problems in the long term. Suburban-density development is a ponzi scheme, inherently unsustainable, and it is a theme that he refers to extensively in his writing.