urbanMSP

Nah, it's understandable you'd feel that way. It's clear that some of us get so absolutely passionate about StrongTowns and how we feel it ties together everything that we end up putting off other people. I hope that doesn't happen, and I appreciate challenges to the ideas.

I'm curious as to why some people have an aversion to the concept that public infrastructure should be financially productive. It's not necessarily libertarian, since it allows for the concept of public infrastructure (and even expensive public infrastructure) if we can calculate that it's a good investment. The results are also fantastic: Financially productive infrastructure looks like Paris, New York, the Grand Rounds here in Minneapolis, and quaint small town main streets like Northfield or Red Wing have. Conversely, non-productive infrastructure usually stinks it up by other criteria, with results like the St. Croix bridge or the Red Line BRT. I'm not trying to be combative or even proselytizing - more curious. If you feel this way, I'm sure a lot of people feel this way, and it's obviously a perception that is not beneficial to us Strong Towns boosters.

I agree with it, but I think it could put some people off because of what it means to be financially sustainable. For example, we shouldn't fund this community center because it won't make any profit. We can't build this transit line (or any transit line for that matter) because we'll always be subsidising it. But I don't think those are the kinds of things Chuck is talking about when he talks about sustainable infrastructure. He hammers it home in case studies that it's basically about water and sewer and roads. Why run new sewer to this greenfield for 10 homes when we can build 20 on this brownfield in town that requires no new infrastructure.

And while lot's of "conservatives" talk about profitability in terms of charing for use and seeing a positive number on a bottom line, that's not what he's talking about either. It comes down to "what value does this infrastructure provide to the area." If a $100k investment in sewers lets $2 million worth of homes be built, and we charge 10% taxes, then we're "earning" $200k per year on that $100k investment. Meanwhile if we spend $10 million to run pipes to build $10 million worth of homes in a greenfield, well we're probably not going to recoup that before we have to start doing major maintenance work and spend another $10 million.

It's so hard to find conservatives that understand the value of infrastructure. When the GOP is dead set on not spending money on anything at all, other than keeping brown people out, it's hard not to see anybody on the right through that lens, but I think Chuck's right wing politics are a bit more nuanced than the current GOP view.

Keep in mind, too, that ST doesn't think publicly-run things like parks or community centers should pay for themselves. Being on the tax payroll they technically can't. I think the message is that the properties served by other infrastructure generate enough revenue to not only pay for their roads and sewers and buses and police and etc etc and then have money leftover to create valuable public spaces. Also that well built/placed parks/etc can increase the value of parcels surrounding them, just like well-built streets can. And, even though I'm sure 97% of people here think I want to dismantle the entirety of our freeway structure (I don't), high-capacity roads can also further increase the value of a city or region by connecting them with other regions or cities.

I just read Chuck's piece on Detroit. Somewhere in the middle he says "I get all these emails from people saying I should stop talking about fiscal policy but it's so important to everything I can't ignore it" and then proceeds to say nothing about how it contributed to the decline of Detroit.

I guess I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't want his take on fiscal policy.

I usually think Steve Sack's cartoons are great, even (or especially!) when they are obvious cheap shots at republicans. Some are downright moving, especially given their simplicity. I'll never forget the one he did after Obama publicly announced his support for marriage equality. The Pullitzer Prize was well deserved.

This one I need a little help with: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/217669891.html

I just don't get it...

blind I guess

Detroit being big auto

Yes, the blind used to sell pencils from cups on the streets, or so they say.

http://finance-commerce.com/2014/10/bil ... s-no-jail/

Billionaire Dan Gilbert envisions a vibrant and shiny downtown Detroit, where he owns a casino and about 60 buildings. His urban Eden doesn’t include a jail with 2,000 criminals.

Apparently Detroit wants to build a real BRT line all the way up to Pontiac along Woodward.

http://www.woodwardanalysis.com/

That would be awesome, I think they had plans for rail there not too long ago, but BRT is cool too. Woodward goes through suck amazing/potentially amazing neighborhoods.

Whatever happened to the LRT plans for Woodward?

It turned into a curbside running mixed-traffic streetcar:

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-1 ... --,00.html

http://m-1rail.com/


Sadly, this amazing YouTube video wasn't persuasive enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egc_MwazUWo

That video made my day.

Can we do a video like this for the 4 options for the Nicollet street car to get to Hennepin

That video made my day.

It's my all-time favorite example of a transportation organizing public engagement campaign.

Detroit is lucky to have a billionaire that want to make his city better. Our business people who once championed this city have all died off. There seems to be no one left that really cares about the city anymore.

There seems to be no one left that really cares about the city anymore.

Excuse me?

Detroit is lucky to have a billionaire that want to make his city better. Our business people who once championed this city have all died off. There seems to be no one left that really cares about the city anymore.

Let's see, Maguire, Taylor, and the Daytons all spring to mind without so much as a pause.

Detroit is lucky to have a billionaire that want to make his city better. Our business people who once championed this city have all died off. There seems to be no one left that really cares about the city anymore.

Detroit also has billionaires actively working against it.

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/colu ... /15587395/