Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about residential property taxes and density, though?
I live in WI and the cities with the highest property taxes are the highest density suburbs and core cities. If a local government's job is to tax a population enough that it can supply public services, we can deduce that public services must cost more in higher density cities because property taxes are higher. But we always hear about higher density being more sustainable and eco friendly.
There must be some reason that increased residential density and the cost of service provision do not scale proportionately to one another. Even in high density cities that are mostly middle/upper class the property tax rates are very high.
What about residential property taxes and density, though?
I live in WI and the cities with the highest property taxes are the highest density suburbs and core cities. If a local government's job is to tax a population enough that it can supply public services, we can deduce that public services must cost more in higher density cities because property taxes are higher. But we always hear about higher density being more sustainable and eco friendly.
There must be some reason that increased residential density and the cost of service provision do not scale proportionately to one another. Even in high density cities that are mostly middle/upper class the property tax rates are very high.
Because, when well done, density itself creates economic value. Having a diversity of people, voices, experiences, opinions, sensibilities, levels of intelligence, creative abilities, etc. in close proximity to each other creates energy, energy leads to momentum, momentum leads to productivity, and productivity bestows upon all.
The analogy that works well is uranium generates a small amount of energy by natural decay in its natural state, but compress uranium enough and it reaches critical mass and it generates far more energy than any linear progression would indicate. Cities that concentrate that many people (when they're done well and combined with supportive beneficial governments and enough natural resources) can generate huge economic, social, artistic returns - far in excess of what could be achieved by merely taking low density sprawl and tripling it in size would.
Failed analogy for starts. Why do city schools have higher per-pupil expenditures and poorer results (than suburban schools)? Got some radioactive analogy for that, too?
What about residential property taxes and density, though?
I live in WI and the cities with the highest property taxes are the highest density suburbs and core cities. If a local government's job is to tax a population enough that it can supply public services, we can deduce that public services must cost more in higher density cities because property taxes are higher. But we always hear about higher density being more sustainable and eco friendly.
There must be some reason that increased residential density and the cost of service provision do not scale proportionately to one another. Even in high density cities that are mostly middle/upper class the property tax rates are very high.
This sounds like it has more to do with local US political set up then it does with any principles of urban phenomena. Toronto's property taxes are considerably lower then in any of its suburbs, which makes sense since there's more people using the same infrastructure more efficiently. The suburbs have more infrastructure per capita to pay for. Maybe it's because US cities rely more on corporations to pay taxes and less on residents.
Because, when well done, density itself creates economic value. Having a diversity of people, voices, experiences, opinions, sensibilities, levels of intelligence, creative abilities, etc. in close proximity to each other creates energy, energy leads to momentum, momentum leads to productivity, and productivity bestows upon all.
The analogy that works well is uranium generates a small amount of energy by natural decay in its natural state, but compress uranium enough and it reaches critical mass and it generates far more energy than any linear progression would indicate. Cities that concentrate that many people (when they're done well and combined with supportive beneficial governments and enough natural resources) can generate huge economic, social, artistic returns - far in excess of what could be achieved by merely taking low density sprawl and tripling it in size would.
I understand your point - that taxes are higher because the land is more valuable and productive, but if you think about it, that should not necessarily increase a high density city's tax levy to a rate higher than a lower density city.
The theoretical duty of municipal government is to set a tax levy that is high enough to provide necessary public services (police, fire, water/wastewater, parks, etc etc). Municipal government is not a for-profit institution, so the value of land should have no impact on tax levies.
Consider this scenario:
-2 (almost) identical cities, A and B.
-Both have populations of 10,000 people
-Both cities provide identical levels of public services
-City A has a very low population density
-City B has a very high population density
Which city will have higher property taxes? Almost everyone would say City B. But why? Why would the property taxes in city B have to be higher in order to provide the same level of services? City B probably has half as much road area since it is compact, a smaller water pipe network due to it being compact, police/fire/service vehicles travel fewer miles since the city is smaller, etc. All of these factors should make the property taxes lower since the city would have a lower cost of service delivery (road maint, pipe/sewer maint, etc). So why are the property taxes higher in B?
An exponential relation sounds unlikely. Maybe a power law or polynomial relation?
Yes, the point is that it's superlinear. Because density costs more, not less, after a certain density. I suspect a roughly U-shaped curve in cost per capita, with the bottom of the U being somewhere in typical suburban ranges.
You'd also need to separate political and demographic causes that are independent of density. Governance, poor decisions made decades ago with associated legacy costs also have an effect.
As for taxes, I don't think density in particular could cause higher taxes (more complicated plumbing and sewage system? More complicate fire system? etc. all these could offset somewhat by the lower distances). I don't think Long Island has lower taxes than the much denser adjacent New York City. Housing costs in some, but not all of New York City are higher, but that hasn't always been the case.
Our experience here with suburbanization of a once rural County becoming a bedroom community was that increased density and development increased costs.
There were several reasons:
The development was unbalanced with a preponderance of residential over commercial.
A belief that the new residents weren't of child-bearing years because of the cost of the housing that was being bought. The local political establishment ignored both Census trends and the American Community Survey.
Increased demand for services. Not just police and fire but parks, ballfields, passive recreation, etc.
The relative wealth of the County meant that state funded aid was low.
The fact that each child in school cost $10000 while the tax revenue generated from residences was around $3000.
Referencing some other threads about people moving back to the city. The people who came here, and who are still coming, albeit at a slower rate, came from the city and more built up inner ring suburbs. The reasons varied from cost of housing, to lower cost of living, to much better schools.
The analogy that works well is uranium generates a small amount of energy by natural decay in its natural state, but compress uranium enough and it reaches critical mass and it generates far more energy than any linear progression would indicate. Cities that concentrate that many people (when they're done well and combined with supportive beneficial governments and enough natural resources) can generate huge economic, social, artistic returns - far in excess of what could be achieved by merely taking low density sprawl and tripling it in size would.
You get an 'F' for your physics analogy. The potential energy released by radioactive decay is a state function. E= mc^2, and radioactive decay is simply the conversion of mass into energy. All that a having critical mass accomplishes is kinetic, not thermodynamic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
