Holy cow, if this article doesn't demonstrate the money losing capacity of low density sprawl nothing will. Imagine if everyone had to pay for their own portion of the street. Low density sprawl would be gone so fast it would make your head spin, but alas, most people just want to freeload off the other taxpayers despite whatever political labels they want to apply to themselves.

Oklahoma City Council denies Chesapeake request | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-denies-chesapeake-request/article/3949297)

That's ridiculous!

That's ridiculous!

If the adjacent property owners don't pay for it guess who does. See, that is the danger of sprawl. It creates so much tax liability that there is little wonder we choose to tax future people instead of ourselves, because if we had to pay for it we couldn't afford it. When you lose money in every transaction you can't make up for it in volume. So now the millennials are here and they are asking WTF.

I should refuse to pay property tax that pays for schools because I don't have any kids in school either. Let's make schools all private and non subsidized. Then, people will quit having kids and they can all live in small apartments downtown. Sprawl problem solved. No more people, no more sprawl.

Viva la libertarians

I should refuse to pay property tax that pays for schools because I don't have any kids in school either. Let's make schools all private and non subsidized. Then, people will quit having kids and they can all live in small apartments downtown. Sprawl problem solved. No more people, no more sprawl.

Viva la libertarians

The problem with your analogy though is that not everyone needs a school. By law, everyone has to have access to a street. There are not any non-users to pass the expense off to except people who don't exist yet. So you either need enough people on your section of street to share the cost with or in the case of low density sprawl, people can't afford the street.

I can choose not to have a car and don't have to have street access. I can choose to not have a child and not need a school.

I am kind of just poking at you JTF. :D However, it is true that libertarians are kind of funny about which things they want to be independent or directly proportional on and what they don't. Your crusade is anti cars. But I do know some for which the child and school issue is a real one for them. Kids don't want to pay for insurance until they are sure they will get more paid out than they pay in. Some want all of life to be ala carte. There are lots and lots of economic compromises we make for the betterment of society. Some think suburbs are the betterment, you obviously don't.

I in no way am minimizing the seriousness of the sprawl issue, but it is very complicated and not as black and white as some make it out to be.

Holy cow, if this article doesn't demonstrate the money losing capacity of low density sprawl nothing will. Imagine if everyone had to pay for their own portion of the street. Low density sprawl would be gone so fast it would make your head spin, but alas, most people just want to freeload off the other taxpayers despite whatever political labels they want to apply to themselves.

Oklahoma City Council denies Chesapeake request | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-denies-chesapeake-request/article/3949297)

I'm not sure this is evidence against urban sprawl. I think this is more evidence of Chesapeake saying "What the heck, we may as well ask", and the city asking "Are you nuts?". They asked and the city answered correctly. End of case.