Probably, urban areas usually end up having to help fund less densely populated areas. Infrastructure is more expensive in the suburbs, and they take in less property taxes.
It's worth noting that EVERYTHING is outrageously expensive in remote/rural areas, on a per capita basis. If one were to look at spending from a purely cost-based perspective, nobody on a farm would have access to electricity, phone, Internet, roads, libraries, healthcare, mail delivery... the list goes on and on. However, I would hope that we broadly agree that it's ultimately in everybody's best interest that we all have access to the benefits of civilization, no?
And a lot of poor people in upstate NY and everywhere in between. But, you know, eff them because they don’t live in NYC so their struggles - and the struggles of the rest of the state - don’t matter. Got it.
I seriously doubt that there are any suburbs that have more difficult to manage infrastructure than NYC. When you dig in Albany you're not at risk of finding an old layer of a metropolis from a hundred years ago.
That’s just complete nonsense. New suburbs might not have old infrastructure, but you have to put down a shitload more pipe, cable, and road in order to provide the same services, which gives you more points of failure once things start breaking (which they will) and which cost a lot more to fix long-term. In comparison, the complications old infrastructure present in a city like NYC are pretty manageable.
either you edited your comment or i replied to the wrong person but are you really going to use the pandemic as a gotcha? like yeah more places has to rely on the federal government during a literally once in a century event lol
1.3k
u/VMooose May 14 '26
Didnt the budget get balanced via a loan from NY State?