3 ms·

The other thing that this article ignores is that not everybody wants to live in an urban setting. Indeed, I suspect that to the people who live in the suburban

by danjayh 12y ago

The other thing that this article ignores is that not everybody wants to live in an urban setting. Indeed, I suspect that to the people who live in the suburban sprawl, the money doesn't appear "lost" at all - in fact, they probably see it as money well spent for what they consider to be an improved standard of living. Personally, I live on 11 acres about 15 miles and a 17 minute drive from work. Although I could have a 5 minute, 3 mile drive if I felt like living in the 'burbs (my employer is located in the suburban part of town), to me the additional cost and time that I spend on transportation is well worth it (I don't particularly enjoy having neighbors any closer than a few hundred meters/yards, and my wife enjoys keeping a couple of horses). I suspect that those people who live in the suburbs enjoy their 3/4 acre lots with enough space to put in a swimming pool and a McMansion (say what you want about them, but McMansions are nice places to live ... although I live in a relatively modest 1500sqft/140 m^2 house). "Different strokes for different folks" really seems to apply here.

twelvechairs 12y ago
The point you miss is that governments spend far more on roads/services/infrastructure to benefit each mcmansion dweller than they do on roads/services/infrastrucutre to benefit each apartment dweller. So its not a 'free market' of choice - apartment dwellers effectively subsidise house dwellers. A real economic zero-sum choice would be the house dweller paying more tax or with worse services and the apartment dweller enjoying better public transport or similar. I agree some people will still prefer their mcmansion, but far fewer than now when the decision making is skewed.
- danjayh 12y ago
  I suspect that most families living in a half million dollar McMansions actually do pay far more in tax than the typical apartment dweller. In my area, the flow of capital is definitely the opposite of what you describe: without question, the individuals living in the suburbs heavily subsidize the lives of those living in the more urban areas and apartments, at least those who live in a tax district that has a combination of the two. More typically, the tax districts for the areas with McMansions are entirely separate from those with a high concentration of apartments and urban housing. In this situation, the residents in a particular area bear the tax burden for the services that they consume. My particular metropolitan area is divided into several "cities" (I put it in quotes because they really all run together) that serve to ensure that each area's residents bear the cost of their services. Even in this situation, due to taxes levied by the state government, the flow of capital still tends to go from the suburbs to the urban areas. In fact, I suspect that most house dwellers would be hugely in favor of further segregating the tax system so that funds paid by a group of individuals are used for services desired by that same group. In my area this would, however, result in the defunding of most public transportation (which is largely financed by people who do not use it), urban schools, the community college (which is funded by the whole county, but mostly used by lower income residents), etc. As an example, the public bus system recently appropriated lanes on many busy streets that were paid for by gas taxes. Since those with longer commutes pay more in gas tax, it stands to reason that these lanes were originally paid for by suburban commuters, and are now being used by the apartment dwellers and urban residents who are the primary clientele of the bus system (use fees make up only a small part of the funding for public transit in my area). I am not stating that the existence of any of these things is bad, but simply that your belief that apartment dwellers are subsidizing the lives of McMansion residents is entirely incorrect.
  - prostoalex 12y ago
    This dilemma is solved (at least in some states) with townships and neighborhoods seceding from the major city and incorporating their own. This way "most families living in a half million dollar McMansions" get their own road-heavy city budget, and a "typical apartment dweller" gets his parks/libraries/schools/transportation fix.
    - danjayh 12y ago
      This is exactly what has been done in my area. It has unquestionably benefited those living in the 'burbs moreso than those that live closer to the urban center. The major motivation for it was schools, though. That's actually why everybody in this area moved out of the official city limits in the first place, and it's what keeps those who can't afford private schools from moving back now.
      - prostoalex 12y ago
        With a developed and dense downtown, the revenue collected per square mile should be higher than revenue per square mile out of suburbs. True, suburban single-family houses are typically more expensive than condos, but as you keep stacking those condos on top of one another, you gain property tax revenue at no loss to square footage. That's a grand theory, of course. In reality, outside of a few cities, most American urban downtowns are proverbial dumps.
  - twelvechairs 12y ago
    There are plenty of studies which agree with me and diagree with you. For example https://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://newclimateeconomy.report/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/public-policies-encourage-sprawl-nce-report.pdf&sa=U&ei=FyQZVcCqEMf68QXbuYHgAQ&ved=0CBEQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNF5sIHndP-lKDZlVdlD_NNM4XKGSA https://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://newclimateeconomy.rep...

by danjayh 12y ago

twelvechairs 12y ago

The point you miss is that governments spend far more on roads/services/infrastructure to benefit each mcmansion dweller than they do on roads/services/infrastrucutre to benefit each apartment dweller. So its not a 'free market' of choice - apartment dwellers effectively subsidise house dwellers. A real economic zero-sum choice would be the house dweller paying more tax or with worse services and the apartment dweller enjoying better public transport or similar. I agree some people will still prefer their mcmansion, but far fewer than now when the decision making is skewed.

danjayh 12y ago
I suspect that most families living in a half million dollar McMansions actually do pay far more in tax than the typical apartment dweller. In my area, the flow of capital is definitely the opposite of what you describe: without question, the individuals living in the suburbs heavily subsidize the lives of those living in the more urban areas and apartments, at least those who live in a tax district that has a combination of the two. More typically, the tax districts for the areas with McMansions are entirely separate from those with a high concentration of apartments and urban housing. In this situation, the residents in a particular area bear the tax burden for the services that they consume. My particular metropolitan area is divided into several "cities" (I put it in quotes because they really all run together) that serve to ensure that each area's residents bear the cost of their services. Even in this situation, due to taxes levied by the state government, the flow of capital still tends to go from the suburbs to the urban areas. In fact, I suspect that most house dwellers would be hugely in favor of further segregating the tax system so that funds paid by a group of individuals are used for services desired by that same group. In my area this would, however, result in the defunding of most public transportation (which is largely financed by people who do not use it), urban schools, the community college (which is funded by the whole county, but mostly used by lower income residents), etc. As an example, the public bus system recently appropriated lanes on many busy streets that were paid for by gas taxes. Since those with longer commutes pay more in gas tax, it stands to reason that these lanes were originally paid for by suburban commuters, and are now being used by the apartment dwellers and urban residents who are the primary clientele of the bus system (use fees make up only a small part of the funding for public transit in my area). I am not stating that the existence of any of these things is bad, but simply that your belief that apartment dwellers are subsidizing the lives of McMansion residents is entirely incorrect.
- prostoalex 12y ago
  This dilemma is solved (at least in some states) with townships and neighborhoods seceding from the major city and incorporating their own. This way "most families living in a half million dollar McMansions" get their own road-heavy city budget, and a "typical apartment dweller" gets his parks/libraries/schools/transportation fix.
  - danjayh 12y ago
    This is exactly what has been done in my area. It has unquestionably benefited those living in the 'burbs moreso than those that live closer to the urban center. The major motivation for it was schools, though. That's actually why everybody in this area moved out of the official city limits in the first place, and it's what keeps those who can't afford private schools from moving back now.
    - prostoalex 12y ago
      With a developed and dense downtown, the revenue collected per square mile should be higher than revenue per square mile out of suburbs. True, suburban single-family houses are typically more expensive than condos, but as you keep stacking those condos on top of one another, you gain property tax revenue at no loss to square footage. That's a grand theory, of course. In reality, outside of a few cities, most American urban downtowns are proverbial dumps.
- twelvechairs 12y ago
  There are plenty of studies which agree with me and diagree with you. For example https://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://newclimateeconomy.report/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/public-policies-encourage-sprawl-nce-report.pdf&sa=U&ei=FyQZVcCqEMf68QXbuYHgAQ&ved=0CBEQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNF5sIHndP-lKDZlVdlD_NNM4XKGSA https://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://newclimateeconomy.rep...