[tomrod]

Not the OP. It's a literal claim, not metaphorical.

Pipes break. Schools wear out. Roads wear out. Houses and fencing wear out, etc.

Many cities don't budget in perpetuity and (further) can't maintain existing infrastructure as a population bulge dissipates or as young people move away.

[egberts1]

You can move into cities whose mayor is constantly reinvesting.

Or you can move out if the mayor does not bother to reinvest into its community.

[tomrod]

Aye, some communities get it (mayors don't typically have a lot of power or knowledge in these matters). These tend to be communities that have an industrial base of some sector, the more varied the better. Farming communities tend to have more maintainable infrastructure than bedroom communities under stable or growth regimes.

All hell breaks loose when the population sinks. Its hard to justify higher taxes now to pay for things 10 years away.

[egberts1]

Aldermen or council folks typically have too much power over their mayor such that it renders such city inert and non-responsive to rapid market changes (technologies).

I am reminded of some cities having "weak mayor" government structure. And it is painfully self-evident by looking at the unmaintained roads and sidewalks.

Also I noticed unchecked huge retirement benefits used as an award for "good" governance toward token administrators, and disproportionate sapping of local taxation by its state government (one such tax example, Robin Hood school funding).