Topic List | Page List: 1 |
---|---|
Topic | dominance of personal automobile ownership in the US is bonkers |
LinkPizza 04/09/23 8:46:42 PM #49: | adjl posted... Depending on how much car-dependent sprawl they've already built, they may not have a choice. When developers propose new subdivisions to cities, it's often with the offer to pay for the initial construction of all roads and other infrastructure (transit excluded) required to connect that subdivision to the rest of the city. That means the city gets a sizable infusion of extra property tax revenue at no immediate cost. Fast-forward ~25 years, though, and that free infrastructure starts to wear out and need maintenance, while the property tax infusion from when the development was built has already been spent on maintaining older infrastructure that wore out in that time frame, so they need a new source of revenue in the form of a new development. Lather, rinse, repeat until they can't find new growth to capitalize on and the city goes bankrupt. What Im asking is what if when they propose new subdivisions, the cities say no to them? Wouldnt they still need approval from the city to build the subdivision? And I probably live in one of those exceptions. Out of the three factions here, the church is the biggest one. They keep things out of the city. And have a lot of money, somehow (Though, Im pretty sure I know how) I cant say exactly what happens back home, but I know public transit isnt good At least, in my home town. And barely anyone uses it Kids mostly walk until they can drive because walking long distances fucking sucks Even with shortcuts So, even if public transit is a thing there, its not good And I know they have tons of extra buses that they just dont use For the train, its a coin toss Though, thats not my hometown, but a place close by, I guess --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard! |
Topic List | Page List: 1 |