Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math

[Pressure]

The taxpayers in the higher density areas. The businesses and residents.

That's the answer, imo.

How does that help frame your opinion?

I'm assuming his argument is the business owners and high earners are the ones creating the taxable surplus in the cities and those same people are the ones living in the affluent or more burdensome suburbs in most cities.

If that assumption holds true, the workers who keep the urban areas afloat are merely funding their life in the suburbs as well.

Considering the push to get workers back into the office to keep business's afloat it's safe to assume he's not completely off base.

 

[Robbie3000]

I'm assuming his argument is the business owners and high earners are the ones creating the taxable surplus in the cities and those same people are the ones living in the affluent or more burdensome suburbs in most cities.

If that assumption holds true, the workers who keep the urban areas afloat are merely funding their life in the suburbs as well.

Considering the push to get workers back into the office to keep business's afloat it's safe to assume he's not completely off base.

He is such an narrow minded ideologue, he assumes the video is attacking the wealthy and businesses. He completely misses the point that this is an argument about city planning and nothing more. No one is attacking his precious business owners.

 

[Pressure]

He is such an narrow minded ideologue, he assumes the video is attacking the wealthy and businesses. He completely misses the point that this is an argument about city planning and nothing more. No one is attacking his precious business owners.

Absolutely.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

This is seen in Houston and Dallas. Both metros are creating levers to make suburbanites feel the pain by tolls and extra fees on traditional service like trash and water. Aside for water usage you also pay an extra fee for having it. County can pass on the expenses as tolls and municipal fees

These things don’t make sense when cities are actively fighting development and are unaffordable to most.

I’m on board with the efficiencies of housing density, but at least in the Bay where development is essentially in the hands of the citizens (NIMBY’s) the idea of punishing the less well off for moving to suburbs/creating demand for lower cost housing thus sprawl is fukked up. We need a top down overhaul, not a punishment system because people can’t afford 1M 1000 sq ft homes in the city so they seek 500k homes 35 miles outside the city

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

can't wait to watch




the suburbs need to be turned into ashes and then forests and wetlands

I like living in the suburbs.

 

[DEAD7]

He is such an narrow minded ideologue, he assumes the video is attacking the wealthy and businesses. He completely misses the point that this is an argument about city planning and nothing more. No one is attacking his precious business owners.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm surprised you haven't already read up on this, the problem with suburbs has been a big topic for over a decade now.


The Growth Ponzi Scheme

 

[DEAD7]

I'm surprised you haven't already read up on this, the problem with suburbs has been a big topic for over a decade now.


The Growth Ponzi Scheme

Great read, all 5 parts

The Growth Ponzi Scheme, Part 5 (finale) (strongtowns.org)

We built places that financially sustained themselves.Do you know how I know this? Simple. If this place did not financially sustain itself, it would have gone away. In 1894, nothing was going to artificially prop it up.

Obviously im going a different direction with this than you and the author.
But still

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Great read, all 5 parts

The Growth Ponzi Scheme, Part 5 (finale) (strongtowns.org)



Obviously im going a different direction with this than you and the author.
But still

I'm not sure our views are as separate as you think, but there's definitely a divide. I think communities should be a self-sustaining as possible, certainly far more so than they are now. But a mix both of government breaks for large corporations and the ability of large corporations to manipulate market forces, in addition to the suburban problem described here, has caused American development to become more and more unsustainable.

I actually like that site and suspect most of their remedies are better thought-out than mine, so I'm not going to go into huge detail. But some moves I would prefer to increase localization and stability include:

* end the subsidization of corporate farming while increasing the subsidization of small farmers
* repeal massive tax breaks for corporate forestry and other large corporate landowners which has devastated the tax base of rural communities and pushed out smaller operators
* institute some form of carbon tax via which the negative societal effects of polluters are actually compensated by the polluters, thus reducing the financial motive to move products over large distances and increasing the competitive advantage of local business

 

[DonFrancisco]

These things don’t make sense when cities are actively fighting development and are unaffordable to most.

I’m on board with the efficiencies of housing density, but at least in the Bay where development is essentially in the hands of the citizens (NIMBY’s) the idea of punishing the less well off for moving to suburbs/creating demand for lower cost housing thus sprawl is fukked up. We need a top down overhaul, not a punishment system because people can’t afford 1M 1000 sq ft homes in the city so they seek 500k homes 35 miles outside the city

For Texas it is the lack of a state income tax. Tolls and Municipal fees are done to off set the lack of revenue from no income tax. Also in Houston there is a demand for housing not due to affordablity but consumer preferences. People are willing to live next to good ole boys and "good people" while commuting 1 hour due to historically cheap gas, "cheap land", and the false belief that living in the city is dangerous and/or expensive. The issue is the cheap land and consumer behaviors of today create tomorrow's climate and urban crisis.

Houston faces 1-2 "historic floods" per year and a lot of is due to master plan communities catering to upper middle and upper class citizens. If the state won't regulate these development so the county has to do something it offset the negative consequences. The land usage is horrible, creates environmental/infastruture issues, and ineffective use of grasslands.

This is just Houston and the Greater Houston area.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

For Texas it is the lack of a state income tax. Tolls and Municipal fees are done to off set the lack of revenue from no income tax. Also in Houston there is a demand for housing not due to affordablity but consumer preferences. People are willing to live next to good ole boys and "good people" while commuting 1 hour due to historically cheap gas, "cheap land", and the false belief that living in the city is dangerous and/or expensive. The issue is the cheap land and consumer behaviors of today create tomorrow's climate and urban crisis.

Houston faces 1-2 "historic floods" per year and a lot of is due to master plan communities catering to upper middle and upper class citizens. If the state won't regulate these development so the county has to do something it offset the negative consequences. The land usage is horrible, creates environmental/infastruture issues, and ineffective use of grasslands.

This is just Houston and the Greater Houston area.

aight, it's the opposite in the Bay Area, there are a few suburbs where the wealthy dwell, but northeast and east bay is full of burbs people flee to because they can't buy in the inner bay. but CA has shyt ton of taxes, especially on gas, + bridge tolls and is now implementing toll lanes on many highways all while not extending public transit to these other areas and continuing to let the region operate with like 6-7 different transit authorities that don't fully integrate, we're making it more expensive for the lower-paid to live while doing nothing to make the commute to or living closer to job centers more attainable. it just seems ass backward

 

[SleezyBigSlim]

I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out most money is made in the city and those people making money in the city dont live in it they go home to the suburbs for lower property taxes. What guy in that video is leaving iut is the price of real estate. The more dense a city is the more expensive it is to live there. The suburbs offer cheaper housing cost fukk living in the city.

 

[DonFrancisco]

aight, it's the opposite in the Bay Area, there are a few suburbs where the wealthy dwell, but northeast and east bay is full of burbs people flee to because they can't buy in the inner bay. but CA has shyt ton of taxes, especially on gas, + bridge tolls and is now implementing toll lanes on many highways all while not extending public transit to these other areas and continuing to let the region operate with like 6-7 different transit authorities that don't fully integrate, we're making it more expensive for the lower-paid to live while doing nothing to make the commute to or living closer to job centers more attainable. it just seems ass backward

Interesting......sounds like the Bay is using the mechanisms of government to create a Redline where they live close to where they work while making sure only young, educated, white people as owners. While black and brown people live in environmentally risky áreas. Kind of like two different mechanisms creating the output which is "organic redlining".

 

[Robbie3000]

I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out most money is made in the city and those people making money in the city dont live in it they go home to the suburbs for lower property taxes. What guy in that video is leaving iut is the price of real estate. The more dense a city is the more expensive it is to live there. The suburbs offer cheaper housing cost fukk living in the city.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Single family zoning is what leads to sprawl. Lift the zoning and allow for mixed use development. I live in a neighborhood like that in East Atlanta. I’ve driven my car maybe three times in the last two weeks because grocery, cleaners, movie theater, restaurants, bars and gym is all walking distance. All the commercial businesses are located next to residences or on the first floor of apartment buildings.

Most Americans cities grew post WW2 and were designed for vehicles. We need to design for pedestrians given climate change crisis. Plus it’s a better quality of living being able to walk or bike around the neighborhood.

 

[EndDomination]

These things don’t make sense when cities are actively fighting development and are unaffordable to most.

I’m on board with the efficiencies of housing density, but at least in the Bay where development is essentially in the hands of the citizens (NIMBY’s) the idea of punishing the less well off for moving to suburbs/creating demand for lower cost housing thus sprawl is fukked up. We need a top down overhaul, not a punishment system because people can’t afford 1M 1000 sq ft homes in the city so they seek 500k homes 35 miles outside the city

I agree with the absurdity of what you're describe but: (1) development is not in the hands of the people in the Bay Area; (2) there has been a multiple decades effort (which I'm sure you're probably more aware of than I am) to cap multi-family housing development and density in the Bay, and instead when housing is built to focus on pricey luxury housing; (3) suburbs and sprawl are part of the issue that needs to be addressed in (what I would argue would be a bottom-up overhaul), but you're right about the idea of a punishment mechanism.

The U.S. development patterns are in for a world of hurt as the decades grind on.