Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Hmm, let me put it another way: that you have to spend money on upgrading current infrastructure does not prove the suburbs are subsidizing older developments. It's a non sequitur. It could be *part* of an argument that this is happening, but by itself it is proof of nothing.
|
Ya. I agree with that I suppose. I just think that we have a growing city and are adding households, regardless of where we're adding them. It appears that the two "sides" don't want to bear the costs to add households in the "other" areas. It costs money to add them, no matter where we do that though, so its kind of a pointless argument. It becomes even more pointless when you consider that the "boundary" for what would be considered is so ambiguous. Who knows what is considered too far out anymore?