Comment 83058

By one way two way (anonymous) | Posted November 20, 2012 at 17:30:38

Again not entirely accurate. The costs for urban sprawl are more to do with real additional costs created by re-use, demolition, site size limitations than any fees the city may or may not impose. The entire infrastructure debate is also much more complex than most wish to acknowledge since the core is suffering from aging infrastructure that needs to be upgraded. These required upgrades often neutralize the perceived advantage of core vs suburbs but even conceding that there is an imbalance the current tax structure see suburban taxpayers paying more than the core taxpayers based on property values. This could easily change if the core goes through a gentrification process that increases property values particularly among the single family dwellings that still make up the majority of housing units even in the core. I really think we need to also consider what deficit spending really is. Technically spending the city reserves and future fund is not deficit spending but even understanding that its legally deficit spending I am sure most reasonable people recognize it as such.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds