The boom resulted in more people moving to more expensive housing with higher carrying costs without the underlying economic growth to support the increased costs. This article suggests a similar bubble bursting could be coming for state governments.
What do you think? Particularly about his final paragraph:
"I’m not saying we should ban people from moving to the exurbs in stagnant or declining regions, but at a minimum it should be made very clear to those who do that they have to pay 100% of the freight on their own, and that no state or federal funds are going to be expended in support of that."
As an aside, Aaron Renn/Urbanophile is about the best urbanist writing I've found, I'd really recommend reading it regularly if you have any interest in cities, urban policy or urban economics
He calls suburban living a "consumer preference".. but as it exists today, is sprawl really human preference? Do individuals really get joy out of isolation from one another in cookie-cutter houses?
ReplyDeleteYes, today many suburbs are "safer" and sometimes more community-oriented places to live. But its up to humans to structure these places. And I think that many American urbanites would say that they enjoy the convenience of safe city-living as much, or more...
As for that final paragraph--I think it's an interesting idea to have people "pay" for access to suburban living (that's essentially what he's saying, right)? He seems to be saying to suburbanites, "You can keep building up highways and infrastructure--creating a 'fiscal mess'-- but you will have to clean it up." It's as though the "resources" and energy that go into sprawl are limitless for those who have the money to pay for them. But the mess is beyond fiscal, because at some point we're not going to have the materials and oil to keep building out, and we'll (hopefully) be forced to find new (environmentally sustainable) ways to shelter and maintain our communities.
At what point
This article makes a good point. As you loose population in states such as Michigan, your costs per person rise, while your tax base revenue decreases. A lower population spreads the cost per person over a smaller number.
ReplyDeleteLooking specifically at Michigan as we loose population we continue to add projects and services to shrinking communities. If we have fewer people using these services why do we continue to pump excessive amounts of money into them? A prime example of a service that has been hitting the news lately is education. The education budget is being cut and public schools are losing funding. While I am not saying I agree or disagree with the budget cut here is something to take into consideration. In the case of public schools, if the school is not housing enough students to pay for the building then do we really need that school? In areas that have lost a large percentage of children between 5-18 years old do you need five elementary schools, three middle schools, and two high schools? Just because you can does not mean you should.
By reducing the number of buildings the remaining funds can be distributed to the buildings in use and make them into a better educational environment.
I thought that this was an interesting article. I had never considered the costs that suburbs would have as the population decreased.
ReplyDeleteI think that ET also has an interesting point about decreasing schools. I know that Detroit Public school system is an example of closing down buildings to reduce the budget.
This article also reminded me of the Tiebout reading we had from the first week. People chose to live in and leave suburbs and cities, based on what they want. In my opinion, if they chose to live to live in a particular location, than that set of people should pay for those expenses with out dipping too much into federal and state government.