If a given area can't fund the infrastructure it needs to sustain itself then some combination of...
1) tax should go up
2) services should be cut*
3) the area needs to be redesigned to better balance costs/revenues
*obviously some kind of service floor would be needed
1) tax should go up
2) services should be cut*
3) the area needs to be redesigned to better balance costs/revenues
*obviously some kind of service floor would be needed
Comments
Or allow more density in those neighborhoods.
Whichever they find least objectionable.
"I want all the same services as downtown, and I don't want to pay for any of them!"
Making the "the only money available to your neighbourhood is from your neighbourhood" rule stick is probably too hard, politically.
“I pay all these taxes but live on a gravel road, it takes me an hour to get to any rec facility, and I don’t even have streetlights.”
Yes. that’s because you live on a gravel road an hour from town.
There are obviously some baked in for fire etc. But we probably over-tax both rural (actual rural) and urban land uses.
But other people shouldn't have to pay for it. At scale, that's bonkers.