>>1765773>>1765976>>1765978>>1765979>>1765981>>1765982>>1765984>>1766250Suburban sprawl is more properly considered to be a residential district of the city that yall consider it to be "leaching" from. It typically (in these cases) lacks the local infrastructure to be considered a real "town" so in reality it's just an organ of the greater whole.
The contribution it makes to the city is typically that the workers there are happier, more-skilled, less unrestful, and will provide tax via income, sales tax, and doing good work for the companies that are in the city center. Not to mention things like typically having assets which are taxable in other ways, such as cars and investments.
On top of this, for every couple of office worker grunts who own their own home, you have an accountant or doctor or lawyer or other high-earner who makes up for those living outside their means, and for whom a house is a better option than a city apartment (even a nice one).
In summary, they aren't "tax burdens" because despite the lack of land tax vs infrastructure costs, they are still contributing massively to the total taxable commerce within and the general prosperity of the city. (Also, the general premise completely fails to understand that taxes don't pay for services, they serve as a way to remove money from circulation as a way to control inflation...)
This isn't to say that things are all fine - subdivisions genuinely suck and the "urban planners" that are so focused on things like "traffic calming", "walkability" and destroying thru-traffic don't seem to understand that a town is not static. Cities were once towns.
The real way you "solve" this isn't from increasing density but from allowing these suburbs to be independent with their own town centers and industrial districts rather than being a dependent extension of the city. But of course no city government wants that.
>>1766113Correct
>>1766268Mostly correct.
