TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why Many Cities Have No Money

576 点作者 cassieramen超过 8 年前

39 条评论

vvpan超过 8 年前
I can&#x27;t say much about mathematics of taxes described in the article, but I always thought that Soviet Union got a lot of it&#x27;s city planning very much right. Even a small town is built as a relatively tight formation of high-rises, yet leaving plenty of public space and greenery in the middle. The quality of life in the town that I grew up in is super high, because everything one might need: school, hospital, store, swimming pool, park, woods is an easy _walk_ away. The traffic through the town was even disallowed, which opened up a giant traffic-free area for us to play around as kids and elderly to use for socializing and to run their errands. For ease of visualizing here&#x27;s an aerial photo of said town in early 00s: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;sj9t3Jy.jpg" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;sj9t3Jy.jpg</a>
评论 #13372249 未加载
评论 #13371930 未加载
评论 #13372198 未加载
评论 #13371756 未加载
评论 #13371677 未加载
评论 #13371734 未加载
评论 #13374166 未加载
评论 #13373516 未加载
评论 #13371802 未加载
评论 #13371966 未加载
评论 #13372652 未加载
评论 #13373265 未加载
评论 #13371801 未加载
评论 #13371508 未加载
评论 #13372547 未加载
评论 #13372281 未加载
windlep超过 8 年前
I&#x27;ve seen the infrastructure thing come up for awhile now, and it&#x27;s definitely true. In my area, as in others I&#x27;ve read of, they&#x27;re smashing paved roads into gravel roads as the paved are too expensive.<p>The thing that fascinates me is that it feels like a forgone conclusion that infrastructure costs cannot be made cheaper. Have we really hit the most cost effective, cheapest, most sustainable method of laying&#x2F;replacing sewer&#x2F;gas&#x2F;water lines and roads?<p>There&#x27;s no innovation left at all when it comes to making pipes that are more easily replaceable without digging the entire road up? There&#x27;s no brilliant ideas left at all on how to &#x27;pave&#x27; roads so they&#x27;re smooth enough in a way that costs less money, or lasts way longer? Heck, while we&#x27;re talking improvements maybe we should have a way to pave a road such that we don&#x27;t have such massive runoff and its more resilient to minor settling underneath without opening large potholes.<p>I do wonder whether the shit really hitting the fan, and massive chunks of the population having their roads smashed back to gravel might shake a few new ideas out.
评论 #13374295 未加载
评论 #13372331 未加载
评论 #13374999 未加载
评论 #13374409 未加载
评论 #13373396 未加载
sfifs超过 8 年前
It seems to be a uniquely American practice to expect infrastructure maintenance and renewal to be funded by cities exclusively using property taxes.<p>Cities generally act not only as trading hubs providing services to the region surrounding them, they also act as tax revenue sweeteners due to higher concentration of high income residents. Ie. they have positive externalities for the region, province or nation.<p>While I&#x27;m certain there would be a level of corruption in city administration, it seems to be incredibly short sighted to force cities to fund infrastructure through only property taxes and such without funding from income tax the province&#x2F;nation collects as what happens in other parts of the world.
评论 #13374822 未加载
评论 #13374377 未加载
评论 #13374838 未加载
devb超过 8 年前
There&#x27;s a blog I enjoy that covers this sort of issue very frequently. It&#x27;s interesting to see a hard data approach to explaining some of the municipal funding problems that are brewing nationwide.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;granolashotgun.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;08&#x2F;31&#x2F;a-thousand-hidden-subsidies&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;granolashotgun.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;08&#x2F;31&#x2F;a-thousand-hidden-subs...</a>
评论 #13375003 未加载
评论 #13371942 未加载
评论 #13371731 未加载
erikb超过 8 年前
Sorry if that hurts some American self-respect, but what&#x27;s the difference between this and the Chinese housing bubble that American media always complain about? Sure some details are different, but the basic layout is the same from what I can see: Politicians had about 20 years long time of incentives to grow without really building self sustaining cities. Now the current generation is at a point were it nearly doesn&#x27;t know any more what to do. Seems quite similar, doesn&#x27;t it?
评论 #13373131 未加载
评论 #13372339 未加载
twblalock超过 8 年前
There are some cities that get around this by requiring HOAs in new subdivisions, and requiring those HOAs to pay for maintenance of much of the infrastructure. The homeowners pay the same property tax they would pay anywhere else in the same city. There are a number of cities in the Sacramento area that have been doing this kind of thing for over a decade now.<p>That approach brings in another set of problems, but it&#x27;s worth mentioning.
评论 #13371713 未加载
评论 #13374544 未加载
评论 #13371752 未加载
评论 #13371785 未加载
Gustomaximus超过 8 年前
&gt; When we added up the replacement cost of all of the city&#x27;s infrastructure -- an expense we would anticipate them cumulatively experiencing roughly once a generation -- it came to $32 billion.<p>A generation is what, 25 years? If you expect to replace all roads&#x2F;electricity poles&#x2F;sewers etc every 25 years you seriously need to look a quality. For this I feel this whole article is off.<p>&gt; Humans are predisposed to highly value pleasure today and to deeply discount future pain<p>This is not true. One of the best test for predicting a child success is seeing if they will defer a treat now for more treats later. Many people have the sacrifice now for a better future instinct.<p>This article seems to make some vastly incorrect assumptions. Personally I think where cities are overspending 3 things could really help.<p>1) Making asset sales&#x2F;tenders&#x2F;expenditure very public and show comparable cost ratios. E.g. cost per km of sewer<p>2) Bringing more work back in-house. I feel this &#x27;privatise everything is better&#x27; mentality is simply not true and does things that leads to infrastructure that needs replacement every 25 years and cost blowouts.<p>3) If you are going to privatise services price them on points of quality that you can enforce. E.g. Rather than jails getting a straight fee, they should get a small per convict allowance but a generous bonus for each released convict that spends 5 years crime free after release.
评论 #13371672 未加载
评论 #13371663 未加载
评论 #13371864 未加载
评论 #13372409 未加载
评论 #13371670 未加载
评论 #13371846 未加载
aurizon超过 8 年前
City governments are parasitised by three groups. One is the body professional politicians that manage to get elected.The second is the construction companies they use to build&#x2F;repair their infrastructure The other is the work force they employ. All three arrange matters so they get twice as much money on average as the voters that pay their wages&#x2F; The politicians do it by simple theft by vote. They vote themselves large salaries&#x2F; The civil serpents form unions and strike and strike and get 3-5 year contracts with cost of living allowances (COLAS) AND 1 to 3% wage increase, for that 3-5 years. The politicians pay it - to buy peace at the expense of the taxpayers. The construction companies are similarly unionised and do somewhat the same.<p>Compare the wages of the average city employee with the average non union tax payer.<p>Now you see why this insoluble problem has emerged over the past 30 years or so.<p>One year contracts. No signing bonus AT ALL (why reward strikers), so a one month strike costs ~~8% of your annual wage, 2 months ~~17% etc.<p>Why should these people get more than the tax payers? They are not more skilled.<p>They are in power or in the union.<p>Look at how much teachers wages have made books and equipment a vanishingly small % of their budget and how much they force the taxpayers to pay them.<p>These factors wrecked Detroit. They will wreck Chicago and all other cities as union wage and pension demands take so much money that people move away. Newark died this way years ago.
评论 #13372246 未加载
评论 #13372003 未加载
bufordsharkley超过 8 年前
The author, Chuck Marohn, has previously made this video that explains how a Land Value Tax would affect the fiscal situation of a city (for the better):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE</a>
评论 #13372172 未加载
评论 #13374484 未加载
leodeid超过 8 年前
In the intro, it is stated that &quot;literally five or less&quot; cities do not have these monetary problems. I&#x27;m curious what those cities are, and why are they special. If the answer isn&#x27;t &quot;they&#x27;ve always used accrual accounting&quot;, I don&#x27;t buy that most cities are doomed due to accounting problems.
评论 #13371741 未加载
评论 #13371498 未加载
评论 #13371440 未加载
评论 #13371488 未加载
评论 #13371409 未加载
ideonexus超过 8 年前
This problem can be projected out to Federal Spending as well. We can see this in the taxes paid versus tax revenue spent on urban states compared to rural [1]. Alaska gets $1.84 back in federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes compared to the $0.79 New York gets back on its federal taxes.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;taxfoundation.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;taxfoundation.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;federal-spending-received-d...</a><p>One quibble I have with the article though is that suburban communities did not start out as luxuries or inventions of convenience. Suburban growth was actually promoted by the federal government with tax incentives in response to the threat of nuclear war. The idea was to spread populations out away from the cities, where a single bomb could kill millions. Shawn Otto&#x27;s book <i>The War on Science</i> covers this development in great detail, which I&#x27;ve clipped here:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;mxplx.com&#x2F;meme&#x2F;2504&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;mxplx.com&#x2F;meme&#x2F;2504&#x2F;</a>
h4nkoslo超过 8 年前
Summary: infrastructure costs to maintain spread out exurb style development end up being more than the incremental tax revenue, especially when you consider replacement costs and the potential for future higher borrowing costs.<p>Property developers (along with car dealerships) are by far the strongest advocacy groups in many areas. It&#x27;s not totally surprising that they&#x27;ve managed to capture the local government and push them towards counterproductive development that ends up being a massive subsidy from the taxpayers.
评论 #13371980 未加载
评论 #13371551 未加载
评论 #13372203 未加载
davidw超过 8 年前
As elsewhere: I&#x27;m a member of Strong Towns, and think they&#x27;re doing good things. Another one I like is the &#x27;Market Urbanism&#x27; group - although some of the people there are very, very libertarian, there&#x27;s still a mix of us so that it&#x27;s not really a partisan thing. Then there are the various YIMBY groups, led by the one in the SF bay area.<p>This is one area where I think that people can move the needle some. The issues are not partisan in the way that so many others are, and I think there&#x27;s a growing movement interested in doing things differently, that&#x27;s more financially and environmentally sustainable.
nradov超过 8 年前
This article seems to focus overmuch on infrastructure maintenance costs. While those are certainly an important factor, most of the actual municipal bankruptcies in recent years were caused primarily by expensive union contracts and pension obligations. Declining populations and financial malfeasance were also factors in some cases.<p>Perhaps an explosion in infrastructure maintenance costs will cause a new wave of municipal bankruptcies within the next few years but so far it&#x27;s just not happening.
评论 #13372580 未加载
crashedsnow超过 8 年前
32 Billion for 125K people.. feels like a lot. ~250K for each and every person? I wonder what that calculation looks like.
评论 #13371553 未加载
评论 #13372008 未加载
acveilleux超过 8 年前
There&#x27;s a followup article pointing out that the track of green on their revenue graph is actyually the poor part of town and going over some reason why that may be:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2017&#x2F;1&#x2F;10&#x2F;poor-neighborhoods-make-the-best-investment" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2017&#x2F;1&#x2F;10&#x2F;poor-neighborho...</a>
En_gr_Student超过 8 年前
This suggests that China has an amazing infrastructure time-bomb waiting perhaps a generation to mow it from the pinnacle of the world to the ground. As a nation that is &quot;in it for the long game&quot; I am going to watch and see what they do there.<p>-EngrStudent
amai超过 8 年前
Before saying no to higher taxes think about the value of your own property. If the infrastructure (streets, water, electricity, internet, schools, ...) becomes broken in the area around your house and garden, the value of your property will go down, too. In that sense paying higher taxes for infrastructure is also good for preserving the value of your property.
评论 #13374357 未加载
评论 #13374613 未加载
mirekrusin超过 8 年前
Wait, what? He&#x27;s saying that horizontal expansion is bad? Is he really advocating vertical expansion (concentrated tall buildings)?<p>Just compare London (horizontal) to any vertical city. London feels like so much better place to live. Low traffic (in comparison to vertical cities), parks everywhere etc. - you feel like you can breathe, not cramped in concrete walls.
评论 #13372158 未加载
评论 #13372234 未加载
评论 #13375799 未加载
Spooky23超过 8 年前
This is a problem, but not the problem.<p>Like schools, local public safety and other core government functions in incorporated cities are provided by municipal government.<p>Broken streets and infrastructure are expensive, but engineers always overstate the costs of maintenance and replacement when they are waving the tin cup around. The acute problem is that opex is driven by police and fire salaries, pensions and workers compensation. Take those numbers and divide by 3 or 4 to get a realistic number, especially for things like water pipes that have very long service lives.<p>The more fundamental problem is that post-war America focused investment and tax bad growth on towns and other places outside of cities, and left the costs in the cities. If the average suburban&#x2F;exurban community requires 1 police&#x2F;fire visit per 100 household, and urban environment requires 15-20 per 100 households.
the_gastropod超过 8 年前
This sums up the main reason I&#x27;m not all that excited about electric&#x2F;self-driving cars. The only scenario I see remedying our sprawling city is for gasoline prices to increase, making current levels of car travel financially painful. If we can continue driving cars cost effectively (with electric cars), I don&#x27;t know if there will be enough political motivation to address our need to stop expanding cities.
a3n超过 8 年前
The followup article linked on the same page is telling. It shows that the green areas, where positive revenue comes from, is the <i>poor</i> part of town.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2017&#x2F;1&#x2F;10&#x2F;poor-neighborhoods-make-the-best-investment" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2017&#x2F;1&#x2F;10&#x2F;poor-neighborho...</a>
crawfordcomeaux超过 8 年前
Lafayette is my hometown. The article says this isn&#x27;t a cultural issue, but when a majority of cities shares the problem, that speaks to a national culture of scarcity. The desire for growth stemming from feeling there isn&#x27;t enough to do, land to build on, people living there, etc. was definitely prominent in Lafayette. It&#x27;s that shared mindset driving this phenomenon.
ShabbyDoo超过 8 年前
I&#x27;ve always been opposed to folks who grumble about suburbs and urban sprawl. I thought that new developments and neighbourhoods meant a growing population and a bigger tax base. I&#x27;ve always lived in the suburbs and love it. I still think there&#x27;s lots of great things about living in the suburbs, and there will always be demand for it.<p>I like how the author says that sprawl isn&#x27;t the problem, the problem is that new developments are large scale, single-purpose, and with no room for improvement or addition.<p>The graph&#x2F;map showing how downtown and poorer areas bring in more tax is what did it though. Even just thinking about ploughing in the winter makes it pretty clear that winding suburbian roadscapes are costing the city a lot more than we pay them. That&#x27;s without mentioning schools, fire halls, garbage collection, etc.<p>I guess one of the more difficult issues is convincing North Americans that they don&#x27;t need a private single-family house, large yard, 2+ cars, etc.
ffjffsfr超过 8 年前
OK so the reason why US cities have no money is that they have grown horizontally instead of growing vertically and horizontal growth means high infrastructure cost. That&#x27;s all very well, but I still dont understand why it happened. Does anyone know why US cities expanded horizontally instead of following growth patterns similar to Europe?
评论 #13373889 未加载
评论 #13373933 未加载
gozur88超过 8 年前
I&#x27;m not sure they&#x27;re drawing the right conclusions from that winning&#x2F;losing graph. That area downtown is green because that&#x27;s where all the toniest businesses are located, and you can&#x27;t have a city that consists of only upscale businesses.
评论 #13371769 未加载
评论 #13373169 未加载
ilaksh超过 8 年前
Extreme density is overrated. See <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tinyvillages.org" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tinyvillages.org</a>
评论 #13372585 未加载
评论 #13378617 未加载
tn13超过 8 年前
Other there is another reason : Wasteful expenditure.<p>At least in case of San Bernandino that was the case.
turc1656超过 8 年前
Good piece, but there is another major factor that is missing entirely - the impact of debt financing and continuously rolling bonds. In addition to what the article mentions, this is the other factor contributing to the slow death of our cities. What nearly every municipality in the US has done (all municipalities BTW, not just the &quot;cities&quot;) is to take on a debt load to finance their desired expenditure, whether it be for infrastructure or otherwise - very similar to what our Federal government has done. And at first glance, it makes sense. It&#x27;s a huge expenditure so let&#x27;s finance it and pay it off over time in accordance with tax revenues. The problem is that they almost never pay it off. I know that statement sounds crazy at first, but it&#x27;s not. Sure, they pay off bonds as they come due. But they pay them off and roll them into new bonds - that&#x27;s the problem. This has been fueled by steadily decreasing bond rates over the past 30-33 years. This allows the municipalities to roll over their debt at a lower rate when it comes due, which reduces their interest payment and also allows them to borrow more at the same time.<p>Here&#x27;s an example - It&#x27;s 1&#x2F;1&#x2F;1985 and the rate on the 10 year treasury note is 11.65% (yes, that was the real rate), so our city was able to get a rate of, say, 12%. They issue a 10 year bond for $5 million to build a school and some road maintenance. They make the required coupon payments (usually semi-annually) using tax revenues - and that amounts to $600,000 each year. They keep doing that until just before the principal comes due in full on 1&#x2F;1&#x2F;1995. The idiots running the city haven&#x27;t saved the 5 million required to pay off the principal so what do they do? Well they take a look at the market and see that the 10 year treasury note is now 7.19% so they can get around 7.5%. So they issue a new bond for $5 million for another 10 years and now only have to pay $375,000 in interest coupons every year. But they are still collecting 600k at the given tax rates which leaves them 225k in the green. So they can either spend that every year or they can use that as the coupon payment on an addition $3 million bond and they get it right now! Even if some scrupulous treasurer or township board member were to say that they should just spend the 225k and not take on any additional debt, someone will point out to them that over 10 years that&#x27;s $2.25 million and here they get to instead use that money to spend a total of $3 million - these guys feel like they are making money taking on debt. And as long as interest rates keep going down and they don&#x27;t need to repay principal, it all works so they agree. Now 1&#x2F;1&#x2F;2005 rolls around - they owe $8 million but rates are 4.5% so they can get 4.75%. So they rollover the $8 million for a yearly coupon of 380k. They also use the remaining 220k to open up a new bond for ~$4.6 million (4,631,578.95 to be precise) - and now they can still pay the same 600k in interest that they have been for decades but they have an outstanding debt issuance of $12.6 million.<p>Now, if you are still reading this far and fully grasp the horror of the above, you can begin to understand one of the many reasons rates can&#x27;t go too far up anytime soon. We have been Japan&#x27;ed, and this is just part of the reason of how it happened. Also, I want to point out that in the above example no increase in the tax rate is needed to help pay for this, even without population growth at all. Tack on population growth, productivity and technological progress, as well as the increase of the money supply by the federal reserve over that time period and in real terms it becomes even less. Now think about how much your taxes have increased on a percentage basis over the same period on the state and municipal levels and it should become clear just how horribly mismanaged everything has been for quite some time. Rates can&#x27;t really go much further south so even if they hold constant and never increase...all of our broke ass cities and towns will only be able to refinance at the same rate (best case scenario). This means they can&#x27;t increase expenditure at all for anything unless they make taxes sky high to support the spending. The free money game is over.
stmfreak超过 8 年前
This article embodies a lot of magic thinking and completely avoids asking the questions about _why_ things cost so much vs. when the infrastructure was first built.<p>Here is a clue: defined benefit pensions
jaddood超过 8 年前
So what&#x27;s the main reason?
miltonfriedman超过 8 年前
too many overpaid city employees?
miltonfriedman超过 8 年前
too many city employees?
ebbv超过 8 年前
What a crock. This is an extremely biased presentation meant to prime the reader for the awful right wing plan he&#x27;s going to unveil in his next blog post. No doubt privatizing the infrastructure to &quot;relieve&quot; the taxpayer of the burden. Never mind that somehow it is still going to have to be paid for and if it&#x27;s privatized we will have to pay more so the new owner can make a profit.<p>The reality is cities are insolvent because of decades of tax breaks for businesses and the stagnant wages of the middle class.
评论 #13371485 未加载
评论 #13371956 未加载
评论 #13371484 未加载
评论 #13371517 未加载
评论 #13371515 未加载
known超过 8 年前
Solution <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;marshallbrain.com&#x2F;manna1.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;marshallbrain.com&#x2F;manna1.htm</a>
zkhalique超过 8 年前
It&#x27;s the same reason Greece was going bankrupt ... they couldn&#x27;t print their own currency and run their own fiscal policy after they joined the Eurozone.
spectrum1234超过 8 年前
&quot;This isn&#x27;t a political, cultural or social failing.&quot; - Wrong this is 100% a political failing. This doesn&#x27;t happen in the private sector.
评论 #13371934 未加载
sliken超过 8 年前
Why are high rises so much more profitable to the city? Is it just that a larger part of the infrastructure (stairwells, elevators, power distribution, water supply, sewage, and related) are privatized and managed by someone with an eye on the bottom line?<p>Cities seem extremely poor paying for infrastructure based on performance. Water supplies should be paid for uptime, percent of the population they deliver water to, and quality of the water. Road companies should be paid by lanes * miles * years they last (according to some quality metric for common road failure methods). Bridges similar. If someone builds a building for the city they should be paid by the usable square foot and an incentive for delivery time.
jcoffland超过 8 年前
The median house in Lafayette costs roughly &gt; $150,000. A family living in this house would currently pay about $1,500 per year in taxes to the local government of which 10%, approximately $150, goes to maintenance of infrastructure (more is paid to the schools and regional government).<p>I&#x27;m sorry but this kind of calculation is, I believe, the real reason infrastructure in America is suffering. If only 10% of my property tax is going to infrastructure then I don&#x27;t need to pay 6 times as much, I just need my local government to cut the crap and spend 60% of my property tax on infrastructure. I understand that means less government jobs but we are already kidding ourselves if we think it&#x27;s a good idea to grow government to reduce unemployment.
评论 #13371992 未加载