So I am trying to understand the math that is used today versus the math that you are suggesting.
My understanding is that if I was building a new development. I would have to take a look at how the municipality currently spends money on roads and other infrastructure. I would then assume some kind of maintenance plan that would cover the new development. If we assume the new development will require new streets in 10 years, then the tax base from those houses multiplied by the % that the municipality spends each year on streets, tells you if the neighborhood can afford to be there, or if we need to increase the tax or if we shouldn't build at all
Do you believe that each homeowner should only pay for streets on which they drive? Or how do we account for streets that have no homes on them. Or other infrastructure that isn't supported by houses in front of them. Shouldn't we take all of the tax bases (new and old) to see if we can maintain the same number of years in between maintnenace.
In other words. lets assume we did the above calculation for just the infrastructure in front of my house and it looks like it take 79 years for pay back.
Then lets compare that to the full plan the municipality has, and lets assume (for grins) that it currently has a 10 year cycle where it fixes all of the streets. If the new neighborhood doesn't add to that cycle...meaning it doesn't take 10 years to 11 years, isn't that okay. I am not clear on some of this methods. You could argue that we should never have cul-de-sacs. Maybe that is true, but from a financial perspective, I am not sure it makes that much of a difference??
Also, let's assume you are building a ramp onto a highway. Well, a short ramp with a stop sign is much more economical than a long ramp that allows you to get into traffic more easily...but it seems like I would rather have the long ramp for safety purposes.
I read strongtowns and I am now going through the videos. I am just not understand the math when we look at the whole town (versus some small section) and how we should be making decisions based on that.
In the book, it kind of criticizes for building to the finished product. I think we got to this point because iterating has a number of problems as well. Neither have perfect outcomes. But if a developer can build 300 houses and fill them within a year (or faster), financially that seems okay. Now if we can not pay to maintain them, doesn't that mean our taxes are too low? Shouldn't the tax rate be set at the lowest rate possible that allows for proper maintenance of the infrastructure?
I am just looking for more clarity.