What on earth do you mean "neutral" as if there are two sides to caring about long term infrastructure sustainability. If by "cherry-pick" you mean, explain a falsifiable hypothesis and then point to example of the hypothesis playing out exactly as predicted (Detroit, Jackson, etc.).

If you really think their hypothesis is totally wrong, we're currently living in a real time experiment of the thesis in the Phoenix metro area. Due to water concerns, the suburban development model is no longer feasible. It's unlikely that Phoenix will suddenly become density mecca (as it's not feasible with automobile transportation), so we should expect to see a massive hole in the metro cities' budgets sooner rather than later. If Phoenix turns out to be fine a in 15 years, I'll happily concede the point and will have learned a lot.

That is exactly the cherry picking that I mean. You can point out a few examples that appear to fit the Strong Towns hypothesis (although causality isn't clear) but there are many other suburban cities which are quietly doing fine and have sustainable budgets.

The Detroit metro area would be a mess even if it had higher density housing and better public transit. The problems there are more due to federal trade policies, toxic labor relations, and failed progressive social policies. It isn't valid evidence to either support or refute the Strong Towns hypothesis: too many confounding variables.

Their thesis is clear and falsifiable, it's just that the timelines are very large. If you are going to criticize the thesis, it would make sense to address the actual arguments of ongoing cost-per-resident of various pieces of infrastructure, rather than just calling the organization 'biased'.

The Strong Towns "hypothesis" is at least partly falsified by objective economic data. Many suburbs/exurbs have been around for decades now. If the costs per resident were truly unsustainable then we would expect to see a surge in Chapter 9 bankruptcies, or at least a major spike in muni bond insurance premiums. So far that isn't happening. Most cities manage to muddle through and patch their infrastructure well enough to keep things working.

I mean, the main argument against their thesis is just that most people will pay more for services than they otherwise would have and be poorer, but not collapse. On the other hand, the trouble in the mid-west and rustbelt we are seeing more and more bailouts on infrastructure (the $1B Blatnik bridge fix, for example, will be paid for by the US Gov't), while also seeing more deferred maintenance.

The good news is that, again, this is falsifiable, and I'm an empiricist. If Phoenix doesn't can weather their future lack of growth without adding density, then I'll wave the white flag.