Re: Streaming TV Enshittification Will Continue Until Morale Improves

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Nov 30, 2024 at 7:38:23 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

With the $165 billion we've given to Ukraine, we could have built six border
walls to stop illegal immigrants from pouring across our southern border.

We also could have fixed Flint's water system 215 times over.

How is paying for the replacement of lead service lines a national
issue? Jesus. I never thought I'd hear you say something so
anti-federalistic.

I've made peace long ago with the wholesale abandonment of federalism in our
current government system. Railing against it at this point is an exercise in
futility. However, if the federal government is going to spend a massive pile
of U.S. treasure on someone, I figure it at least ought to spend it on the
well-being Americans.

It is *their* money, after all.

No. No, it's not. Not at all.

ANY community can afford to replace and upgrade its infrastructure. No
one can plead poverty on this. It's bullshit.

Now, in Flint's case, they are getting state monies. After all, the
state took a bad situation and made it into a dangerous situation.

New infrastructure raises land value. After all, quality of
infrastructure that directly serves land or is nearby is the key
component of underlying land value. They taxed themselves to build that
water system in the late 19th or early 20th century. Nobody in those
days thought infrastructure was unaffordable, couldn't be built, or
simply wasn't worth the effort. That was all the bad attitudes of post
WWII and post GM closing the plant, that it's old, not worth
maintaining, can't be done, the population the city of Flint serves
doesn't deserve a safe and reliable water system, etc.

The voters didn't hold their shitty government's feet to the fire.

A city-wide tax on land value to replace lead service lines in a
comprehensive manner would do the trick. Approve a bond issue then pay
it off over 20 years.

Who benefits if the federal government pays it all? Those who just
happen to be the land owners. It doesn't do renters any good. They'll
simply pay much higher rent and their rent won't be going toward the
improvement.

What, exactly, did the landowners do to deserve the largesse? They'll be
made rich by approximately the size of the federal grant plus the huge
rise in land value knowing that local water is no longer poisonous.

Now they absolutely deserve mitigation from the state of Michigan as
outside forces lowered their land value. As I said, the state monies are
perfectly fair. But the federal monies are not.

Infrastructure improvements raise the value of land, so tax land value
to pay for them.