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.
A lot of folks don't turn off their automatic sprinklers when it rains. On the west coast and southwest, there are regions where it doesn't rain for months at a time (where I live, it typically stops raining in April and generally doesn't start again until October or November), but a lot of cities have some sort of ordinance about keeping your lawn looking decent and will levy a fine if you let it go dead. Of course, it's pretty ridiculous to even have a lawn you have to water in an arid climate, but that generally doesn't stop people.
I live in Travis County. That article is so full of fail it makes me laugh.
The Austin area has tried for 20 years to avoid dealing with growth and under-funded roads almost everywhere. In other words the "if we don't build roads there they won't build there" strategy is a complete failure. Homeowners, families, etc. move where life is a reasonable compromise for them.
Homes in central Austin are > $400K. Schools in Austin are spotty. But homes, land are much more affordable outside the urban core, and the schools in suburban school districts are generally much better. Jobs are all over. So most people drive where they need to go.
The subsidizing of suburbia is the "gift" that keeps on giving. As suburbia ages, its infrastructure needs maintenance and most suburban areas of cities just aren't generating enough tax revenue to cover the ongoing costs. The urban areas of cities carry the financial load. I wonder how many people would choose suburbia if they had to carry their actual costs instead of having them subsidized by urbanites? For me, it's very ironic that the suburbs tend to be more "fiscally conservative" than the urban areas yet their lifestyle choice is putting a financial burden on others.
The subsidizing of suburbia is the "gift" that keeps on giving. As suburbia ages, its infrastructure needs maintenance and most suburban areas of cities just aren't generating enough tax revenue to cover the ongoing costs. The urban areas of cities carry the financial load. I wonder how many people would choose suburbia if they had to carry their actual costs instead of having them subsidized by urbanites? For me, it's very ironic that the suburbs tend to be more "fiscally conservative" than the urban areas yet their lifestyle choice is putting a financial burden on others.
Right. And of course, city infrastructure NEVER needs maintenance. It magically just revitalizes itself. What suburban city do you know of that gets a subsidy from the central city for infrastructure? Please provide at least one credible link.
The subsidizing of suburbia is the "gift" that keeps on giving. As suburbia ages, its infrastructure needs maintenance and most suburban areas of cities just aren't generating enough tax revenue to cover the ongoing costs. The urban areas of cities carry the financial load. I wonder how many people would choose suburbia if they had to carry their actual costs instead of having them subsidized by urbanites? For me, it's very ironic that the suburbs tend to be more "fiscally conservative" than the urban areas yet their lifestyle choice is putting a financial burden on others.
The subsidizing of urban cities is the "gift" that keeps on giving. As cities age, its (sic) infrastructure needs maintenance and most urban areas of cities just aren't generating enough tax revenue to cover the on going costs. The suburban areas of cities carry the financial load (of housing and providing social services for the urban areas which decided to depopulate in order to avoid having to provide human services and appropriated those moneys for things such as "Redevelopment" oriented towards the fiscalization of land-use) . I wonder how many people would choose cities if they had to carry their actual costs instead of having them subsidized by surbanites? For me, it's very ironic that the cities tend to be more "fiscally wasteful" than the suburban areas yet their lifestyle choice is putting a financial burden on others (such as California's general fund which kicks in the difference Redevelopment agencies siphon off for the building of bars and luxury hotels to keep educational funding the same, most of which money gets spent outside of urban areas, most of which have depopulated or not grown either by intention or by lowering the QOL such that all or almost all population growth has occurred in the suburban areas.)
More tax dollars are spent per capita in suburban and rural counties in Pennsylvania than in the urban county of Philadelphia. When you build infrastructure you have to pay for it. In cities more people use the same infrastructure, so we use less of it per capita say than suburban users will. For instance, more of us live on the same street, so we need less streets. Many of us walk or take the train or subway to commute, so we don't put wear on the roads, and rail is a very efficient people mover, in fact much more efficient than even the largest superhighway. When you look at the efficiency inherent in cities you see where we save money. Suburbs are less efficient in how people will use the infrastructure that's built. It has less to do with overall expenditure and more to do with efficiency. Both suburbs and cities have to replace infrastructure, but it's how much they have to rebuild relative to how many people are using it. Part of the misconception has to do with cities that have lost significant population and don't meet infrastructure capacity, thus leading to inefficiency in the system, and a loss of income with which to pay for said system. That's where the subsidization comes in, however, if we're looking purely in terms of efficiency, cities have suburbs beat easy.
More tax dollars are spent per capita in suburban and rural counties in Pennsylvania than in the urban county of Philadelphia. When you build infrastructure you have to pay for it. In cities more people use the same infrastructure, so we use less of it per capita say than suburban users will. For instance, more of us live on the same street, so we need less streets. Many of us walk or take the train or subway to commute, so we don't put wear on the roads, and rail is a very efficient people mover, in fact much more efficient than even the largest superhighway. When you look at the efficiency inherent in cities you see where we save money. Suburbs are less efficient in how people will use the infrastructure that's built. It has less to do with overall expenditure and more to do with efficiency. Both suburbs and cities have to replace infrastructure, but it's how much they have to rebuild relative to how many people are using it. Part of the misconception has to do with cities that have lost significant population and don't meet infrastructure capacity, thus leading to inefficiency in the system, and a loss of income with which to pay for said system. That's where the subsidization comes in, however, if we're looking purely in terms of efficiency, cities have suburbs beat easy.
Please provide some supporting documentation (e.g. a link). Include federal and state taxes.
More tax dollars are spent per capita in suburban and rural counties in Pennsylvania than in the urban county of Philadelphia.
The entire state?!? I should think so ...
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.
