[tshaddox]

> The fact that so many people choose to live in suburbs, or the "sticks", suggests that there is something desirable to _them_ about living there.

The fact that people dump their sewage into the creek instead of paying for proper sewage treatment/disposal suggests that there's something desirable to _them_ to do the easier and cheaper thing. Of course! The problem is externalities.

[johnweldon]

I think your comment is a bit misleading.

Dumping sewage into a creek is an externality that is bad.

Someone preferring to live in a suburb does not mean they're generating externalities at that level.

The very reason I pushed back on the comment was because of this black and white thinking.

Saying

> The fact that people dump their sewage into the creek instead of paying for proper sewage treatment/disposal suggests that there's something desirable to _them_ to do the easier and cheaper thing. Of course!

seems condescending to me. As though "those" people don't have the character or moral rectitude to live in the city. Maybe I'm reading in more than you intended.

[adeimantus2001]

Suburban development, as it stands in America today, has enormous levels of externalities. The roads and sewers of suburban developments are subsidized by downtown areas which are more tax-dense. Suburban development requires cars which are always the least efficient way to get around vs. walking/transit, regardless of electrification. Suburban homes are large and freestanding both of which detract from building energy efficiency. Most suburban homes today are built with only a 50 year expected lifespan making them incredibly wasteful compared to construction in other parts of the world.

[twblalock]

People keep talking about the "subsidies" as if they apply to all suburbs. It seems to be an article of faith. It really needs some evidence (preferably from an unbiased source).

[tshaddox]

There are probably exceptions, of course, but surely the basics are not controversial, e.g. that public infrastructure spending per capita tends to be much higher in suburbs than in urban areas, carbon emissions per capita are much higher in suburbs, etc. Not to mention that political representation in the United States favors lower density areas.

[kortilla]

This is false. The tax districts are independent in the suburbs in many locations. Sewers and water are local city taxes are paid for out of the suburb property taxes. The only “city tax” subsidizing suburbs would be state taxes and that’s if and only if more people lived downtown than in the suburbs, which is not true in California.

[closeparen]

Driving is straightforwardly bad for everyone around you. Carbon emissions, particulate emissions, traffic congestion, noise, safety, you name it. The more of it you do, the worse it is. Suburbia is built around lots and lots of driving. It’s not complicated.

[stouset]

> Someone preferring to live in a suburb does not mean they're generating externalities at that level.

They are, but those externalities are simply not as straightforwardly obvious.

[johnweldon]

Do you have any references for this statement.

I'm not arguing there are no externalities (there are externalities in just about every choice we make). I just haven't been convinced that there are common egregious externalities at the level of dumping raw sewage into the creek.

[bandofthehawk]

Are you looking for references that dense population areas subsidize the less dense areas? Strong towns has lots of examples, here's one: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...

[stouset]

How many sources would you like?

Of course it’s not going to be on the same order as literally dumping raw sewage into the surrounding area. But there is an enormous body of research demonstrating the overall drain of resources from economically-productive urban areas out to costly suburban ones.

Then there’s the carbon cost of enormous, congested highways and stroads where people idle in traffic for hours of their day. Or the overall inefficiency of providing general city services (water, power, sewer) to people in comparatively sparse areas (which ties back into the resource drain imposed on denser areas).

[elbigbad]

I would, personally, love to read at least one source. Which you didn’t even provide for some reason. And I mean that, I would happily read any source you provide, with a preference for more academic sources.

[stouset]

One it is. Link to original academic source is in the first sentence.

https://cayimby.org/sprawl-costs-the-u-s-1-trillion-every-ye...

Actually I’m an overachiever. Let’s do two! Direct academic reference.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3325575

[rcme]

Do people prefer to dump sewage in creeks? The GP said people live as close to their ideal as they can within their means. Generally, people with the means to afford sewers or septic tanks choose to use them.

[stouset]

Generally, we've enacted laws that prohibit people from dumping their waste into the surrounding area.

GP is suggesting that we start to perceive extremely damaging low-utilization, ponzi-style suburban development in a similar manner.

[rcme]

Aren’t laws passed democratically, or are we being subjugated by a sewer-preferential minority?

The point is that the premise of the counter-example is flawed. People do prefer to have their waste carried away cleanly when they can afford it.