Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Cougar In Des Moines

Sigmapolis said:
It is not like there is a lot of population in the area under question.

There is probably going to be even less in the future, too, outside of some big urban enclaves, as water supplies decline and agriculture is automated.

View attachment 64178

Once you are west of I-35 and before you hit the Rockies... there is just not much there. There are a few good-sized Front Range cities like Denver, Calgary, and Edmonton that are probably viable in a long-term of hyper-urbanization, but after them, it is more dicey.
Click to expand...
I’ll wait for @capitalcityguy to chime in, he’s the expert on our horrible urban futures due to things like cul de sacs and individual liberties...
 
  • Funny
Reactions: khardbored, Sigmapolis, CycloneDaddy and 1 other person
dosry5 said:
I’ll wait for @capitalcityguy to chime in, he’s the expert on our horrible urban futures due to things like cul de sacs and individual liberties...
Click to expand...

Just to set the stage here so we are on the same page.

It can be demonstrated that when you crunch the numbers and determine that the property tax paying single family homes on streets ending in a cul de sac often times do not generate enough tax revenue to maintain their corresponding infrastructure put in place solely to service their homes. So....the money to maintain these streets (and other above/below ground infrastructure), have to come from somewhere else. They are not long term self-sustaining neighborhoods....especially as you push out further to the edges of a city.

Sooooo....I'm against "individual liberties" when I speak against supporting this style of socialized cost sharing that is needed to pay for unproductive and non-self-sustaining areas of a cities.

Got it. Great joke.
 
capitalcityguy said:
Just to set the stage here so we are on the same page.

It can be demonstrated that when you crunch the numbers and determine that the property tax paying single family homes on streets ending in a cul de sac often times do not generate enough tax revenue to maintain their corresponding infrastructure put in place solely to service their homes. So....the money to maintain these streets (and other above/below ground infrastructure), have to come from somewhere else. They are not long term self-sustaining neighborhoods....especially as you push out further to the edges of a city.

Sooooo....I'm against "individual liberties" when I speak against supporting this style of socialized cost sharing that is needed to pay for unproductive and non-self-sustaining areas of a cities.

Got it. Great joke.
Click to expand...
Lighten up Francis, it was a joke. But ya gotta admit, you took the bait and lectured on the topic....that’s why it’s funny. It’s kinda your thing and people know it.
 
  • Like
  • Funny
Reactions: Urbandale2013, khardbored, The_Architect and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom