While I agree with the strong towns assesment overrall, I think this analysis may rely on some assumptions on the distribution of wealth and tax revenue within a population. Ultimately the "once per generation expense" in all of these towns was funded once per generation in the past. This money came from the federal government, and not the local tax payer - ultimately with the federal government taking on long-term debt to fund it.

While this seems like a ponzi scheme of perpetual growth, there is nothing that would prevent the federal government ( or the local government ) from repeating this exercise to rebuild the infrastructure. If we can't redo this exercise it means that

- Despite economic growth, the cost of replacing existing infrastructure is higher than it was a generation ago e.g. Cost disease: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease

- The balance of payments in the economy is not well calibrated on a generational scale, profitable economic activity is not attributed on a local scale with free cash flows diverted elsewhere by rentiers/global financial flows e.g. a factory in annaheim california sees all profits recognized in Delaware/Ireland. The federal government/central bank may have more capability to provide local governments with finances than we would expect in such a scenario by rebalancing payments.

- The current US city landscape has real long-term economic costs that drain capital on unprofitable activities, immediate pivots in city planning are required to avoid economic fallout.

I suspect a little bit of all three options are at play, but I would be curious for more exploration on items 1&2. A great irony of the modern world is that the City of Flynn borders several pipe manufacturers.