Spending vs revenue in car-centric development (trigger warning, not politics)

[Crissa]

It's come up more than a few times, but I really like urban planning. And we all like trucks - at least the Cybertruck. So we want to get away from urban places.

But making those urban areas stronger, perhaps ironically, makes our remote places more protected, too.

Cool maps in this video:




To encourage urban areas, taxation should be based on acreage (not development) which would protect rural areas from development. And we should be willing to pay our share. (I am) That way those who don't want to live in spread out areas have the chance to... it's only expensive to live in town because we subsidize suburbs over urban.

-Crissa

 

[JJ_Tex]

Interesting graphic and I totally understand that urban/non-car centric settings can be more efficient especially when talking in terms of road infrastructure.

The 2 things I do not see accounted for are:
1. People who live in the suburbs but work in the downtown areas. The biggest expense for a government is typically schooling so those "profitable centers" with heavy commuters do not have to bear the burden of schooling expenses so of course they are going to look more profitable.

2. The models did not account for various jurisdictions and just used cities with heavy residential populations within the city limits. In many places, the suburbs are in a different city or even county than the downtown area. I'm in a suburb of Dallas, which is in a different city, county, and school district than the downtown "profitable" areas so I would not consider them as subsidizing my suburb since the tax revenue goes to totally different jurisdictions. I would imagine the same would be true for say Orange County and LA, Staten Island and Manhattan, etc.

 

[Ogre]

This is very much what I was talking about in the ton mile thread… an idea you were against. LOL

I’d also be ok with paying per acre. It’s simpler than what I’d proposed (and FWIW would be bad for me since I have 4 acres.

EDIT: ROFL… just got to the Eugene OR map… the Crescent village area they mention is super nice, very good model for future development. There are a few other developments like that going in. Weirdly enough I think the city actually listened to those city planners.

 

[Crissa]

They're accounting for schooling by the entire area. Urban schools have less bussing costs (but higher land cost). It washes out until you get to rural or exurban where busses end up stretched out. Of course, not all towns have to pay the same, as different states pay for it in different ways.

Also remember that the big box stores generate sales tax as well as property tax. The thing is, when you average it out over a bunch of smaller stores that would take the same footprint, again, it's a wash.

I think the big takeaway is that we need to make sure urban areas (even urban areas of suburbs need to have fill-in so those big parking lots aren't eating up valuable, walkable space that could be housing or stores or destinations.

-Crissa