data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7391d/7391d462a4d422628be24131959d1f1ff0c4bf48" alt="Quote Quote"
Originally Posted by
Just the facts
MAPS was passed by a public vote mostly as a plan to enhance the quality of life, and was all built without debt. The problem with projects like this are they don't generate enough tax revenue to pay for their construction, maintenance, and eventual replacement. The fact that bonds have to be sold (borrowing from the future to pay for things now) should be the first red flag that we can't afford this stuff. Local government is increasing living off the equivalent of credits cards, and we have already seen how that eventually turns out.
City after city around America have been looking at the long-term consequences and costs associated with continuing this type of development pattern and the finding are not pretty. In many cases the tax increase that is going to be necessary to pay for this stuff simply is unattainable - that amount of money simply doesn't exist. So if we can't possibly afford to maintain it then why are we even building it? With streets decaying all over the city why are we continuing to expand and build new streets so far out? If you want to know why things like MAPS became necessary - THIS (continued expansion and diversion of public funds to the fringe) is why.
Imagine if all of metro OKC was divided up in to 1,000 squares. Would It be too much to ask that the people living and the businesses operating in each square produce/generate enough tax revenue to cover the costs associated with providing public services to their square? Asked a different way, should some squares be allowed to operate at a deficit, meaning they don't generate enough tax revenue to cover their associated costs - thus shifting their tax burden to others? If the answer to that is yes - should a square consisting of multi-million dollar homes be one of them?
Bookmarks