In an area where the population is growing, one question often vexes neighbors: why is that house or storefront vacant? It just doesn’t seem to make sense. Why do landlords leave properties empty when they could be getting rent?
Charging electric scooter companies for their use of public space is sensible, but why stop there? What if car drivers were actually asked to pay the full costs they impose as well?
The phrase "value capture" has been tossed around a lot lately. Here's what it does and doesn't mean.
We're on a smoother ride to the same general, crappy destination.
Local governments have a moral duty to pursue growth and investment strategies that have no chance of blowing up.
Charles Darwin said, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Modern Monetary Theory is growing in populist appeal, but it doesn't address the problems we are struggling to overcome with the Strong Towns movement.
Here’s how to adapt the 12-step model for a community wanting to come to grips with financial insolvency.
The crazy distortions we see in housing and real estate won't be solved by centralized interventions, be they corporate or government. Only at the local level do we have the nuance to start creating something that works.
Cities need to be given the responsibility -- and the ability -- to fund their own local transportation improvements.
The best kind of horror filmmakers, like the best kind of placemakers, find ways not just to survive their budgetary shortcomings, but to make work that is more creative and exciting because of that constraint.
In this interview, Chuck Marohn and Russ Roberts, host of the EconTalk podcast, discuss the political appeal of infrastructure spending vs. the economics perspective. They also talk about how to ensure a good return on investment and how to focus on smaller-scale projects.
There’s just no reason why a four-year college degree should cost anything like what it does. Here's a different model.
Our decision during the 2016 election is not about whether or not to build infrastructure as a way to experience growth. No, our decision is about what to maintain and to what extent we will walk away from stuff we built in the past. The easy growth is done and has been for some time.
Does anyone think the folks in the $700,000 suburban homes would be living there in anything like their current circumstances if they had to pave their own roads and pump water up to their own homes? Does anyone believe these homes would be worth $700,000 without the heavily subsidized public infrastructure?
This video explains why our cities are going broke in spite of what appears to be so much economic activity and growth.
Respected economists know that investing in infrastructure clearly makes us richer. It's obvious. No further discussion needed... Respected economists are wrong.
Duncan's approach -- and the bipartisan approach of others who would shower money on our current system -- can only make our fragility problem worse. This thinking scares me.
If the global economy is like a hot air balloon, we're only given the option to continually go higher -- despite the risk -- or cut all the air and crash. Those options aren't good enough.
My town bills itself as a walkable community, but refuses to put its money where its mouth is.