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.
You might want to check him out as well as the organization he launched.
Chuck Marohn is a "recovering highway engineer" (a term he used to describe himself in the early days of the movement he launched but has since dropped, for his work and positions now speak for themselves) from Brainerd, Minn. His political leanings are libertarian conservative.
Sometime around 2000, he put on his green eyeshade and did a little number-crunching on all the auto-oriented development surrounding his hometown and even eating away at its center.
He came to the realization that all this "growth" was actually being paid for by a giant Ponzi scheme.
Sorry, you lost me at "giant Ponzi scheme". I literally quit reading, which is why I deleted the rest of your post. I doubt he knows what a Ponzi scheme is. He can go fly a kite.
Sorry, you lost me at "giant Ponzi scheme". I literally quit reading, which is why I deleted the rest of your post. I doubt he knows what a Ponzi scheme is. He can go fly a kite.
In this case, it's metaphorical:
The actual Ponzi scheme pays the initial investors the promised returns only by giving them the money later investors put into the scheme. Eventually, you run out of enough new investors to maintain the charade, and the whole house of cards collapses.
The "Ponzi scheme" here means this: The costs of maintaining the existing infrastructure can't be covered by the existing buildings and residents, so more buildings and residents must be added to cover the cost. But that also means more infrastructure to serve the new residents. Eventually, your infrastructure repair tab outstrips the ability of the community to add residents to cover it, and you have a fiscal crisis, an infrastructure crisis, or both.
You might want to read the blog posts linked at the end all the same.
Let's get back to the thread topic folks... But a question: why do we hold public transport on a different standard than our highways and freeways?
Because when you make a useful road or highway, people like it so much that they'll pay the capital, and operating costs of a vehicle and drive themselves.
Quote:
Why is it acceptable that highways and freeways are 100% financed by taxes when these are probably more expensive to construct and maintain, and with much less capacity than a high frequency train?
Highways and freeways are far more likely to be paid for (capital and operating) by direct user fees than public transit in most of the world. I wouldn't be surprised in Europe and parts of Asia, where governments pocket most of the revenue from fuel purchases and get vast amounts of sales and registration taxes from vehicles that they essentially pay for themselves.
This compares to public transit, especially in North America when despite getting gifted the tracks and vehicles from taxpayers, few transit services can even pay for half of the operating cost of the services, requiring further tax money. Now that is a subsidy from the virtually the entire population to a small segment.
The actual Ponzi scheme pays the initial investors the promised returns only by giving them the money later investors put into the scheme. Eventually, you run out of enough new investors to maintain the charade, and the whole house of cards collapses.
The "Ponzi scheme" here means this: The costs of maintaining the existing infrastructure can't be covered by the existing buildings and residents, so more buildings and residents must be added to cover the cost. But that also means more infrastructure to serve the new residents. Eventually, your infrastructure repair tab outstrips the ability of the community to add residents to cover it, and you have a fiscal crisis, an infrastructure crisis, or both.
You might want to read the blog posts linked at the end all the same.
Because when you make a useful road or highway, people like it so much that they'll pay the capital, and operating costs of a vehicle and drive themselves.
Highways and freeways are far more likely to be paid for (capital and operating) by direct user fees than public transit in most of the world. I wouldn't be surprised in Europe and parts of Asia, where governments pocket most of the revenue from fuel purchases and get vast amounts of sales and registration taxes from vehicles that they essentially pay for themselves.
No. Please go read MarketStEl's excellent post at #22 to read an explanation why. It's basically one big Ponzi scheme.
I read a lot of vaccine/communicable disease articles. Believe me, professionals use words correctly.
IMO, "Ponzi Scheme", which implies illegality, is inappropriate in this situation. It's also hyperbole, which you don't see in science writing.
Scienctific writing (and any other kind of writing aimed at members or practitioners of a specific profession) and journalism (and any other kind of writing aimed at a broad general audience) are two different beasts, as I'm sure you know, and while we scribblers don't have to have professional credentials to practice our craft, we are nonetheless professionals who do undergo training (it used to be on the job; now it's more likely in college, often in a journalism or communications program) to learn the skills we need to carry out our mission.
Metaphor is permissible in general writing. So is hyperbole. Granted, the effect of "recruiting" new residents to pay for existing infrastructure is not the same as the collapse of a Ponzi scheme, but we may indeed run the risk of municipal bankruptcies.
You might want to check him out as well as the organization he launched.
Chuck Marohn is a "recovering highway engineer" (a term he used to describe himself in the early days of the movement he launched but has since dropped, for his work and positions now speak for themselves) from Brainerd, Minn. His political leanings are libertarian conservative.
•••
Here's a critique from the organization's blog that deals with the place you call home that I just noticed when I called up the website. You may even be familiar with its author, who runs a blog called "Strong Denver."
Commented on the fallacious arguments a few days ago in the comment section of that article.
Strong Towns "mission statement" until recently included this gem:
"Land is the base resource from which community prosperity is built and sustained. It must not be squandered."
That's not a libertarian nor a conservative platform but rather something more akin to a socialistic platform. Has the mission really changed? Probably not. They're here to tell you that you are squandering your property because you aren't doing enough to increase ad valorem tax liability to the city.
It ain't "community property" and the prosperity needs to go to the property owners, not the city nor the mythological "community".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Edited to add this other blog post that explains the problem at a macro level, linked from the blog post above:
Strong Towns "mission statement" until recently included this gem:
"Land is the base resource from which community prosperity is built and sustained. It must not be squandered."
That's not a libertarian nor a conservative platform but rather something more akin to a socialistic platform. Has the mission really changed? Probably not. They're here to tell you that you are squandering your property because you aren't doing enough to increase ad valorem tax liability to the city.
It ain't "community property" and the prosperity needs to go to the property owners, not the city nor the mythological "community".
Maybe I mischaracterized Marohn, who has historically voted Republican, but:
Actually, that statement is consistent with a left-libertarian world view.
Yes, there is such a thing. I consider myself one. I'd probably put Henry George, the famed advocate of a "single tax" on the value of land alone*, in that category too, though you will find both left- and right-libertarian fans of his.
We run the gamut from pro-capitalist to anarcho-socialist. What puts us on the left is our egalitarianism.
*The legend on the state historical marker in front of George's birthplace at 413 S. 10th Street in Philadelphia's Washington Square West neighborhood sums up his philosophy as: "Tax socially produced land values, not labor or capital, he argued." (emphasis added)
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.
