[NorthOf33rd]

It’s more like “fuck subsidizing anything other than the 1st ring suburbs.” Strong towns’ fiscal philosophy looks great if you’re in a stable or growth market without any significant poverty. I’m all for investing in small walkable communities, but while their policies rail against the exurbs, they would be just as detrimental to our inner cities as they would be to 1970s onward suburban development.

[actionfromafar]

Please elaborate, I don't see how it automatically is detrimental to inner cities.

[NorthOf33rd]

The key messages of strongtowns are unambiguous 1) fiscal conservatism and 2) small-scale self dependence.

Small scale self dependence is a significant problem in the US (and many parts of the world) where the poor have been, through intentional historic policy, ghettoized. If you first scale back spending to maintenance levels, and then push against state level redistribution, you end up with pretty predictable results that look alot like the ghost of redlining come back to life. Even if you excise #2 from the platform, it's still the end result. By explicitly adopting strongtowns brand fiscal austerity, there just wont be money left to fund schools in poor neighborhoods.

Look, I'm not saying what we've got now is a perfect solution, far from it. I even think that if we could start from absolute scratch, there are some aspects of strong towns that would solve some of today's ills. But we have poor cities, of every makeup, size, demographic, and skin color, and I don't think that "market urbanism" (ie the same market forces that got us to where we are today albeit with stronger federation) can get us out.

Edit: I guess I should clarify that my criticism of strong towns applies equally to economically destroyed rural communities, who make up the largest recipients of food stamps in America.