Suburban sprawl

Originally posted by normbenign
That may reflect reality in Zambia, but here in the US cities generally seem to be having the financial problems, not suburbs. And where there is cost shifting, it is the cities benefiting and the suburbs paying.

I do not know how the finances are managed in the US, but it seems to me that if cities are failing and suburbs are booming then it is possible that cities are currently subsidizing the suburbs and this explains the problems.
It is a fact that cities are significantly more efficient. So either the people in the cities are a lot poorer, or they are subsidizing the suburbs. Possibly both.

I currently live in a block of flats. We have approximately 8 households for the same amount of land as a single household across the road. So all the utility companies have approximately 8 times lower infrastructure and maintenance costs for our block. We do not, as far as I know, pay significantly less for our utilities. Our road taxes are based on the car we drive and doesn't take into account our high density living. We pay the same school fees regardless of where we live etc.
I do not know what is paid in rates as I am renting and do not own the flat. I am guessing rates are based on property value which does not, in any way reflect the density of housing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not know how the finances are managed in the US, but it seems to me that if cities are failing and suburbs are booming then it is possible that cities are currently subsidizing the suburbs and this explains the problems.
It is a fact that cities are significantly more efficient. So either the people in the cities are a lot poorer, or they are subsid ...[text shortened]... ing rates are based on property value which does not, in any way reflect the density of housing.

A strictly rational basis for taxes is impossible because the annual financial burden each of us places on society is impossible to measure and would be a political hot potato if attempted. That said, my property taxes (edit: about $4K per year) are less than half that of some of my neighbors in nearly identical housing due to our infamous CA proposition 13 and the duration of my ownership. Property taxes are assessed based on housing valuation on date of purchase, ratcheted up NMT 2% per year. There is a sort of accidental justice to this in that the newer folks tend to have children in school being educated, if we can call it that, on the public dime.

Originally posted by JS357
A strictly rational basis for taxes is impossible ....

I agree, but it could be greatly improved. High density cities are enormously beneficial to both a countries economy as well as the local and global environment. The carbon foot print of a high density city dweller is significantly smaller than that of someone living in the suburbs and those living in rural areas are even worse. I am all for freedom of where to live, but I think the benefits of city living should be recognized and the practice encouraged via the tax system as well as other policies.
Let normbenign have his car and avoid public transport, but let those who use public transport get the full benefits of it rather than subsidizing normbenign.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not know how the finances are managed in the US, but it seems to me that if cities are failing and suburbs are booming then it is possible that cities are currently subsidizing the suburbs and this explains the problems.
It is a fact that cities are significantly more efficient. So either the people in the cities are a lot poorer, or they are subsid ...[text shortened]... ing rates are based on property value which does not, in any way reflect the density of housing.

In the US, local governments tend to be heavily reliant on property taxes. This leads to a situation where money is allocated where it is least needed - in communities with lots of expensive real estate.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree, but it could be greatly improved. High density cities are enormously beneficial to both a countries economy as well as the local and global environment. The carbon foot print of a high density city dweller is significantly smaller than that of someone living in the suburbs and those living in rural areas are even worse. I am all for freedom of wh ...[text shortened]... t those who use public transport get the full benefits of it rather than subsidizing normbenign.

Your argument seems rational, and if the advantages in efficiency could be pursued without excessive force, the advantages of cities might prove true. The larger and denser a city, the less the choice for the residents. This is seen in high rise housing projects in cities like Detroit and Chicago. More recently, public housing has changed to condo like row houses, usually no more than two stories, but still with almost no individual choice. Amazingly, many suburbs suffer from the same fault (a comedic song called boxes mimicked the sameness of many suburbs).

Regardless of theories, cities in America are almost universally in trouble financially, and usually looking to shift costs to adjacent suburbs. Possibly this is because the suburbs are richer, the residents more prosperous, but theoretically if the cities were really so efficient they could equal the housing of the suburbs at a lower cost. This simply isn't the case anywhere I've seen in the United States.

The trouble with public transport is that I subsidize it, even if I never use it, and I am not subsidized by public transport users. Most public transport fare would quadruple if fares reflected true costs.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In the US, local governments tend to be heavily reliant on property taxes. This leads to a situation where money is allocated where it is least needed - in communities with lots of expensive real estate.

Ask what the primary driver of high real estate costs is? It is the scarcity of land, land on which housing can be built. In dense areas, say NY City, London or Tokyo, land is virtually non existent. Prices are bid up due to that scarcity.

In Boston the big hill called Mission Hill was a slum when I left in the 60s. Being close to the Boston Medical center, there was a demand for housing for hospital professionals, so over the years all the dilapidated housing was either refurbished, or torn down and replaced. It is now a very expensive place to live, with spectacular views. In most cities property taxes are a subtle way of making sure nobody really owns what is called their property.

Originally posted by normbenign
Ask what the primary driver of high real estate costs is? It is the scarcity of land, land on which housing can be built. In dense areas, say NY City, London or Tokyo, land is virtually non existent. Prices are bid up due to that scarcity.

In Boston the big hill called Mission Hill was a slum when I left in the 60s. Being close to the Boston Medica ...[text shortened]... property taxes are a subtle way of making sure nobody really owns what is called their property.

The liberal's dream is for the masses to be housed in government housing while the super rich/politicians get to enjoy the rest of the country. They are sick individuals.

Originally posted by normbenign
Possibly this is because the suburbs are richer, the residents more prosperous, but theoretically if the cities were really so efficient they could equal the housing of the suburbs at a lower cost.

I don't know how the finances are done in the US, but it is entirely possible that the cities are subsidizing the suburbs which would explain the situation.

The trouble with public transport is that I subsidize it, even if I never use it, and I am not subsidized by public transport users. Most public transport fare would quadruple if fares reflected true costs.
Again, I do not know all the finances involved, but I strongly suspect that you are mistaken and that you are the one being subsidized via both fuel subsidies and road construction and maintenance subsidies. Possibly even car manufacturing subsidies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know how the finances are done in the US, but it is entirely possible that the cities are subsidizing the suburbs which would explain the situation.

[b]The trouble with public transport is that I subsidize it, even if I never use it, and I am not subsidized by public transport users. Most public transport fare would quadruple if fares reflecte ...[text shortened]... dies and road construction and maintenance subsidies. Possibly even car manufacturing subsidies.

Obviously the solution is the free market, then no one is being forced to subsidise anyone.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Obviously the solution is the free market, then no one is being forced to subsidise anyone.

That sounds good, but free markets do not exist, and are practically impossible to implement.
How would you put road maintenance on the free market? Toll roads? There is concern that it costs so much to collect the tolls that it dramatically increases the cost of the roads.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know how the finances are done in the US, but it is entirely possible that the cities are subsidizing the suburbs which would explain the situation.

[b]The trouble with public transport is that I subsidize it, even if I never use it, and I am not subsidized by public transport users. Most public transport fare would quadruple if fares reflecte ...[text shortened]... dies and road construction and maintenance subsidies. Possibly even car manufacturing subsidies.

"but it is entirely possible that the cities are subsidizing the suburbs which would explain the situation. "

You'll have to explain that. Here it is the cities that are getting support from suburbs. Nowhere in the US are suburbs being subsidized by cities.

Probably the most successful and necessary public transport system in the US is the NYC subway. It is massively subsidized by taxpayers.

" I do not know all the finances involved, "

Yup. Road building is paid for by local, State, and national gasoline taxes. But those taxes are raided by subsidies for projects like the multibillion dollar "Big Dig" in Boston.

I've never owned a new vehicle, and never not paid for it myself. I'll leave it to you to explain how I'm subsidized. I pay for my gasoline, which could be much less expensive without government regulations, and opposition to building pipelines by environmentalists.

Originally posted by normbenign
You'll have to explain that. Here it is the cities that are getting support from suburbs. Nowhere in the US are suburbs being subsidized by cities.

Or so you believe. But I am willing to bet you do not know the finances.
How are roads and services that supply suburbs paid for?
Who subsidises the extra fuel you use?
Do suburbanites pay more for services such as electricity, water and sewage than the city people?

Road building is paid for by local, State, and national gasoline taxes.
Entirely? And when you say 'State', what is the source of those taxes, city dwellers or suburb dwellers?

I've never owned a new vehicle, and never not paid for it myself. I'll leave it to you to explain how I'm subsidized.
Roads/fuel/car manufacturing and more.

I pay for my gasoline, which could be much less expensive without government regulations, and opposition to building pipelines by environmentalists.
Regulations and environmentalists are irrelevant.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or so you believe. But I am willing to bet you do not know the finances.
How are roads and services that supply suburbs paid for?
Who subsidises the extra fuel you use?
Do suburbanites pay more for services such as electricity, water and sewage than the city people?

[b]Road building is paid for by local, State, and national gasoline taxes.
Ent ...[text shortened]... building pipelines by environmentalists.[/b]
Regulations and environmentalists are irrelevant.[/b]

Let's see if I can figure this out:

You pay for your own fuel, the only subsidizing comes by way of ethanol which is a greeny thing and is actually bad for both people and engines.

Your utilities are charged at different rates based on the company that controls the area. Rates are given the OK by the state government but private companies run the utilities in the US, at least electric, gas and telephone. Sewage and water are usually run by the city.

If you are paying more for gas due to high taxes which are made higher for politically correct reasons then regulations and environmentalists are relevant.

Originally posted by normbenign
Your argument seems rational, and if the advantages in efficiency could be pursued without excessive force, the advantages of cities might prove true. The larger and denser a city, the less the choice for the residents. This is seen in high rise housing projects in cities like Detroit and Chicago. More recently, public housing has changed to condo like ...[text shortened]... ublic transport users. Most public transport fare would quadruple if fares reflected true costs.

"The trouble with public transport is that I subsidize it, even if I never use it,..."

You "use it" to keep the rabble out of cars that might otherwise be in your lane.

Originally posted by Eladar
You pay for your own fuel, the only subsidizing comes by way of ethanol .....

Not true. All fossil fuels are subsidized to some extent.

Your utilities are charged at different rates based on the company that controls the area. Rates are given the OK by the state government but private companies run the utilities in the US, at least electric, gas and telephone. Sewage and water are usually run by the city.
And can you tell me whether suburbs generally pay more than the inner city folk? If not, why not, given that there are many more miles of infrastructure per person in the suburbs?

If you are paying more for gas due to high taxes which are made higher for politically correct reasons then regulations and environmentalists are relevant.
Relevant to what? Its irrelevant to the question of whether or not those in the suburbs are being subsidized by those in the cities.