Anecdotally, Philadelphia is the poorest county in our state, while Chester county is the richest. Seems like suburban areas bring in the most money and can afford excellent infrastructure, while infrastructure in the city is in constant disrepair.

One could say the same if you choose to be a car-less urban dweller who relies on transit and high-density infrastructure.

You can stereotype and caricature people both ways, neither helps the discussion.

You can stereotype and caricature people both ways, neither helps the discussion."

Car-less urban dweller pays ticket fees for transit, so the argument doesn't work.

They aren't car-less because they are saving money - if you give everyone who uses public transport a car, gridlock will get so bad there will be bodies in the street.

Neither side can be diluted down to an anecdote, but I guess here we are all trying to do it anyways.

My point was actually about the stereotyping and the painting of all rural dwellers as recreational, as if urban dwelling is the only valid choice and everyone else is intentionally choosing a lesser or more difficult lifestyle.

The _overall_ point here is that connecting to any public utilities should not be made prohibitively expensive just because you live in rural areas.

In this case, the argument is not that it was "made" prohibitively expensive. It's that it is prohibitively expensive, and the debate is whether or not it should be made less expensive through subsidy by government actors.

This same debate will be occurring with providing other services to remote locations as carbon costs get incorporated into the prices of distribution of services. It's not going to get better.