News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by bcrosby95 on Monday October 07, 2019 @01:09PM (#21183266)
One of the reasons why suburbs are so attractive is because other taxpayers subsidize their existence. New developments shouldn't get the same free ride regardless of density. Ideally what should happen is the city should plan the infrastructure, and the development should be forced to pay in their percentage of estimated load capacity into the building of it.

But I don't know how realistic that is or isn't. Maybe it's more feasible to have a temporary special tax assessment on the property to help pay for their share of it.

Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by journalctl on Monday October 07, 2019 @01:11PM (#21183293)
I mean, it’s realistic enough considering we used to build infrastructure and buildings. Only relatively recently did this become an issue.
Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by lotsofpulp on Monday October 07, 2019 @01:18PM (#21183391)
Is it possible that a larger portion of government expenses goes towards debt service such as debt for infrastructure built years ago and pension payments? This would leave fewer resources to invest in the future.
Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by sharkmerry on Monday October 07, 2019 @02:39PM (#21184426)
I think thats a big part of it. Strong Towns blog aruges that suburbs are a growth ponzi scheme.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/16/the-growth-pon...

From part 4: talking about the 70s when infrastructure maintanence and replacement bills started coming due "The critical insight today is to understand how we reacted to the end of the first life cycle of suburban development, when those maintenance costs started to come due and cut into our growth-generated wealth. This time there was no spatial shift as seen in the other large, economic corrections. Instead, we made a choice to double down on the suburban experiment by taking on debt.

We used debt to drive additional growth and sustain the unsustainable development pattern for a while longer. A lot of this debt was public debt, but we facilitated mechanisms for increases in private debt as well (for example, Fannie and Freddie early on and then subprime mortgages and securitization later). Here is a graph showing our public and private debt levels since the beginning of the suburban experiment. I have noted roughly the first and second life cycles of those initial investments."