Headline:
Suburbs aren't financially viable in a declining growth environment. Every suburban muni is, in effect, a long-duration ponzi scheme, because suburban growth doesn't pay for itself--doesn't pay enough in taxes to support the infrastructure it requires. Stage 1 is the desperate pivot toward commercial development as bedroom communities realize that they can't support an urban level of services (schools, fire, police, curb & gutter) on a residential tax base. Stage 2 is the dawning realization that all buildings depreciate, and with that depreciation comes falling tax revenue. And that's next pivot: either raise taxes or reduce services. Doesn't really matter which option is chosen, as the result is the same: The people who can move away, do. And the people who replace them only move in because housing is cheap, if somewhat unpleasant. And you get a muni made up of beige boxes with avocado kitchens and conversation pits, and streets lined with vacant strip malls, houses transformed into nail parlors, etc.
As long as a suburb can keep building, it's ok. New houses means new households, and new households have kids, and kids needs all kinds of stuff, and that attracts retail, and retail pays the taxes. And that works for about a generation. But over time the demand for new stuff falls, until the kids leave, and then the demand for even essential groceries halves. Then the retail leaves and the tax base collapse.
I grew up in SLC, Utah. There's only one highway to speak of, I-15. And the path of growth followed it, so you can see this process taking place simply by driving north from the county line. Every mile north the houses are a few years older, the store-front rents a bit cheaper.
It's funny to think of suburbs as extractive industries, as if suburban development was like coal mining. But in a way, it is--development extracts the accessibility of the land. And once that potential has been exhausted, what does a suburban muni have to offer, really? It's as dead as any Kentucky coal-mining company town, dead the same way the Detroit is dead.
Crisis Intervention: First Suburb City Managers Are Our First Responders in a Declining Growth Environment
Cue Charles Marohn of StrongTowns, and the 'Growth Ponzi scheme'. (Google it).
Suburbs aren't financially viable in a declining growth environment. Every suburban muni is, in effect, a long-duration ponzi scheme, because suburban growth doesn't pay for itself--doesn't pay enough in taxes to support the infrastructure it requires. Stage 1 is the desperate pivot toward commercial development as bedroom communities realize that they can't support an urban level of services (schools, fire, police, curb & gutter) on a residential tax base. Stage 2 is the dawning realization that all buildings depreciate, and with that depreciation comes falling tax revenue. And that's next pivot: either raise taxes or reduce services. Doesn't really matter which option is chosen, as the result is the same: The people who can move away, do. And the people who replace them only move in because housing is cheap, if somewhat unpleasant. And you get a muni made up of beige boxes with avocado kitchens and conversation pits, and streets lined with vacant strip malls, houses transformed into nail parlors, etc.
As long as a suburb can keep building, it's ok. New houses means new households, and new households have kids, and kids needs all kinds of stuff, and that attracts retail, and retail pays the taxes. And that works for about a generation. But over time the demand for new stuff falls, until the kids leave, and then the demand for even essential groceries halves. Then the retail leaves and the tax base collapse.
I grew up in SLC, Utah. There's only one highway to speak of, I-15. And the path of growth followed it, so you can see this process taking place simply by driving north from the county line. Every mile north the houses are a few years older, the store-front rents a bit cheaper.
It's funny to think of suburbs as extractive industries, as if suburban development was like coal mining. But in a way, it is--development extracts the accessibility of the land. And once that potential has been exhausted, what does a suburban muni have to offer, really? It's as dead as any Kentucky coal-mining company town, dead the same way the Detroit is dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment
And your thoughts on the matter?