- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Building high density apartment complexes in affluent suburbs
Posted on 5/24/24 at 12:33 pm to Mushroom1968
Posted on 5/24/24 at 12:33 pm to Mushroom1968
quote:
But most people I know who live in suburbs are out of the city.
And they come into the city to work and for entertainment, no?
Cities subsidize suburbs by offering services that benefit commuters. Commuters take the benefits of police, fire, roads, parks, etc. provided in their destination city without paying taxes to fund those services.
quote:
The other is the realization that the revenue collected over time does not come near to covering the costs of meeting these long-term obligations. Development spread out over a broad area is very expensive to maintain. Over a life cycle, a city frequently receives just a dime or two of revenue for each dollar of liability, a ridiculously low level of financial productivity.
Strong Towns - America's Growth Ponzi Scheme
1
Posted on 5/24/24 at 12:36 pm to ghost2most
quote:
I'll gladly take my 15 minute commute to the grocery store vs. 5 and having to deal with neighbors up my arse, homeless camps nearby, crime, shitty schools, etc.
What happens when your suburb goes bad and you get all of that along with the 15 minute commute?
Posted on 5/24/24 at 12:43 pm to ghost2most
quote:
What resources are we taking?
The increased road, sewer and water lines, and electrical infrastructure that must be built to allow for your community to exist.
quote:
We're outside the city limits
Oh really? So the county and urban centers are subsidizing your existence then, no?
quote:
We don't get to vote in city elections.
Okay? We still subsidize you via our economic production and tax base.
quote:
We have hardly any sherrifs deputies patrolling. Roads are from the county.
Oh, so the county which is majority funded via taxation from the city?
I am not trying to attack your self worth with all this. I'm just pointing out that the suburbs are unsustainable long-term once the large maintenance adn replacement bills come due.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 12:43 pm to Wally Sparks
quote:
What happens when your suburb goes bad and you get all of that along with the 15 minute commute?
Why would the suburb go bad? Only reason they do is allowing shitty apartments and low income housing.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 12:50 pm to ghost2most
Shamelessly stolen from Reddit but a good analogy:
quote:
So the normal behavior would be, as the city grows, to expand the boundaries of the city. And that often is what happens, cities, especially young or rapidly growing cities, do absorb suburbs periodically. But every so often there's a holdout, and more often than not, it's because the suburb is wealthier and feels as though it's better off on its own. The tendency for certain suburbs to push back on being absorbed obviously relates to class/race as well, but generally the suburbs that go it alone do tend to believe they can survive that way.
But an important distinction is that suburbs are a drain on cities, but that doesn't mean suburbs aren't profitable for the suburb itself. A suburban dweller pays local property taxes, which is a major major source of revenue for any town/city. The reason they're a drain is that they're basically paying to live in Suburb A but working and enjoying the benefits of City A. They might spend money while they're there, might even contribute directly given their work, but the key point is that they're not paying to live there. The city benefits more if someone does all that, but also pays property taxes. It's like a roommate's boyfriend who spends every day at your apartment and kicks in for food, but crucially, doesn't pay rent or utilities. While on the other side of town, his roommate is benefiting from a two bedroom apartment where the second occupant is barely even home.
Suburbs are using generous property tax revenue to pay for enough nice roads, good schools, and manicured parks for their residents, without having to subsidize their use by people from outside the suburb.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 12:54 pm to ghost2most
quote:"was" is the appropriate verb.
This is a very affluent area.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:01 pm to ghost2most
you need to know a guy that knows a guy
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:18 pm to jclem11
quote:
But every so often there's a holdout, and more often than not, it's because the suburb is wealthier and feels as though it's better off on its own.
And... nearly 100% of the time, they are right. They ARE better off own their own or as their own city. There's a reason why the city needs to expand and absorb... and it's NOT because the suburbanites are unfairly using the services of said city and not paying for them... it's because the cities by and large and been run into the ground, people of fled the cities and the cities can no longer support themselves.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:27 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
They ARE better off own their own or as their own city.
Precisely because of their proximity to the urban center that generates all teh economic activity.
The "wealthy" suburb does not exist in a vacuum. I am a suburb hater but it's because I know that they bankrupt us all in the long-term. Stay mad, suburb bros.
City and all governments are terribly managed and suffer from only focusing on the short term.
quote:
A developer builds a new subdivision. There are new homes and new businesses and everything is really nice. The developer builds all the infrastructure and passes those costs along to the new property owners as part of the sale. The city collects new tax revenues and hookup fees and promises to provide ongoing service and maintenance to it all.
At that moment, the local government has made an intergenerational promise to these new property owners: pay your taxes and your fees and we will provide service and maintenance. They made that promise without knowing exactly what they were promising, the amount of revenue they stood to collect, or how much that long-term promise would cost. It’s not that it’s unknowable, it’s just that cities never ask. All the city cared to know was that they would get that cash TODAY and the bulk of those promises wouldn’t come due for DECADES.
With a cash budget, that seems like a great transaction. Lots of money coming in; throw a big party. With an accrual budget, where future liabilities are recognized and accounted for when the promise is made, it’s clearly a horrible transaction. Nearly everything built in Houston over the past 75 years costs more to provide service and maintenance to than it generates in revenue for the local government. The gap becomes greater when development spreads out, with the furthest edges having the greatest negative cash flow. (See this case study of Lafayette, Louisiana, for more explanation.)
Cities use cash accounting. They have literally hit the infrastructure iceberg and don’t know it because they have not accounted for any of it. Not even asked the question. They’ll talk about pensions and firefighter settlements because that hits their cash right now—that is the thing creating immediate pain—but it is their insolvent development pattern that is grinding them down, and it won’t show up anywhere.
Cities invest in infrastructure to attract new growth and development. Stated another way, they spend public money, and take on public obligations, to attract private investment. The private investment is supposed to create the payoff that not only sustains the public investment, but pays for an improved quality of life for everyone. If that payoff is not happening, why bother?
That payoff generally does happen, in the short term, in a cash accounting system. Long term, or with accrual accounting, it’s a financial disaster. If you understand that you will understand why cities frequently do ridiculous things, often despite overwhelming opposition.
Strong Towns - Why Houston is broke
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:30 pm to jclem11
quote:
Shamelessly stolen from Reddit but a good analogy:
quote:
So the normal behavior would be, as the city grows, to expand the boundaries of the city. And that often is what happens, cities, especially young or rapidly growing cities, do absorb suburbs periodically. But every so often there's a holdout, and more often than not, it's because the suburb is wealthier and feels as though it's better off on its own. The tendency for certain suburbs to push back on being absorbed obviously relates to class/race as well, but generally the suburbs that go it alone do tend to believe they can survive that way.
But an important distinction is that suburbs are a drain on cities, but that doesn't mean suburbs aren't profitable for the suburb itself. A suburban dweller pays local property taxes, which is a major major source of revenue for any town/city. The reason they're a drain is that they're basically paying to live in Suburb A but working and enjoying the benefits of City A. They might spend money while they're there, might even contribute directly given their work, but the key point is that they're not paying to live there. The city benefits more if someone does all that, but also pays property taxes. It's like a roommate's boyfriend who spends every day at your apartment and kicks in for food, but crucially, doesn't pay rent or utilities. While on the other side of town, his roommate is benefiting from a two bedroom apartment where the second occupant is barely even home.
Suburbs are using generous property tax revenue to pay for enough nice roads, good schools, and manicured parks for their residents, without having to subsidize their use by people from outside the suburb.
I don't think this is true in our case at all. I rarely go to the city. I don't work in the city. I don't even venture into it very often.
My neighborhood is not new. It's been around since the 80s and has been doing just fine without the city. We purposely signed non-annexation agreements so we would NEVER be part of the city.
This post was edited on 5/24/24 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:34 pm to jclem11
See... your link is titles "Why Houston is broke" and goes into a very detailed explanation of how it is the suburbs fault that Houston is broke.
Memphis, on the other hand, is broke because... well... the leadership of Memphis absolutely SUCKS and has for well over 30 years. And the idiots who live IN Memphis keep electing... idiots to represent them. Memphis tried annexing a few areas many years ago... the services in those areas went dramatically down... Memphis couldn't keep up and ended up un-annexing said areas.
Piss poor, stupid and self serving leadership simply can't be overcome, so why, as someone who lives in a suburb, should you force me to support it?
Memphis, on the other hand, is broke because... well... the leadership of Memphis absolutely SUCKS and has for well over 30 years. And the idiots who live IN Memphis keep electing... idiots to represent them. Memphis tried annexing a few areas many years ago... the services in those areas went dramatically down... Memphis couldn't keep up and ended up un-annexing said areas.
Piss poor, stupid and self serving leadership simply can't be overcome, so why, as someone who lives in a suburb, should you force me to support it?
This post was edited on 5/24/24 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:40 pm to jclem11
quote:
The increased road, sewer and water lines, and electrical infrastructure that must be built to allow for your community to exist.
The City of Atlanta didn’t pay for water lines, sewer, electrical infrastructure that supply most of the surrounding suburbs. Neither did Fulton county (where Atlanta is located). Your assumptions don’t seem to apply to all cities/suburbs.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:41 pm to jclem11
quote:
And they come into the city to work and for entertainment, no?
Well yea many do. And there’s people like me who live smack dab in the city but go out in the parish to work. Doesn’t mean I should have to pay more taxes because of that. If people knew how to behave others wouldn’t be hitting flight to get away from them. That’s not a white people bad problem, that’s people work hard to not live around shite who commit violent crimes and theft
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:44 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
The City of Atlanta didn’t pay for water lines, sewer, electrical infrastructure that supply most of the surrounding suburbs. Neither did Fulton county (where Atlanta is located). Your assumptions don’t seem to apply to all cities/suburbs.
Who paid for the infrastructure?
Funding does get complicated with the feds being involved.
Your suburb likely would not even exist if not for the urban center, which is the entire point.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:45 pm to ghost2most
Is your username a DBT Reference? If so... 
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:51 pm to ghost2most
quote:
They're building a 650 unit apartment complex that will feed into my kids' school district and will include some units for low income. This used to be a semi rural area. No cultcha. Low to no crime.
The property value in the surrounding area will plummet.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:51 pm to LegalEazyE
quote:
Is your username a DBT Reference? If so...
Yup.
The City of San Antonio does jack shite for us.
We don't have floods here. My neighborhood is 1500 feet above sea level in the hills.
We don't have sewers. We have septic systems. Most of us don't have natural gas.
We don't have city trash pick up. We don't get city cops.
Really, I can't think of a single thing the city actually provides for us. The County does the roads.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 1:56 pm to jclem11
quote:
Your suburb likely would not even exist if not for the urban center, which is the entire point.
Maybe, maybe not. My suburb is built on old ranch land and has been here since the 80s and has been doing just fine all these years. Nothing has changed in the last few years that would make the city or its inhabitants more appealing to us.
If anything, we need the city even less with WFH.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 2:07 pm to jclem11
quote:
Who paid for the infrastructure?
The counties and municipalities that house the surrounding suburbs. Dekalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, Etc.
quote:
Funding does get complicated with the feds being involved.
Wasn’t even talking about that part. Atlanta wouldn’t have enough water if it wasn’t for the federally run Resevoir located well north of Atlanta in 3 different counties.
quote:
Your suburb likely would not even exist if not for the urban center, which is the entire point.
Atlanta exists because it’s a junction point for first railroads and later federal interstates.
The suburbs exist as they are today because the city has shitty schools and high crime, not in small part due to low income housing and families subsidized and funded by the federal govt. Prior to that (60s/70s) effort (which is similar to what is being done in the OP) many of the suburbs were just rural towns.
This post was edited on 5/24/24 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 5/24/24 at 2:09 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
Atlanta exists because it’s a junction point for first railroads and later feral interstates.
As opposed to tame interstates? Having been to Atlanta, feral works for them, though.
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News