• Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    Good.

    Better for the environment anyway.

    Rewild the rural landscape back to forests and prairies.

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        Pave it for what purpose with what money? No one wants to park in the middle of no where.

        There is a lot of rural land and it is worthless, that’s why they cannot fund themselves.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          No, they cannot fund themselves because of corruption, and lack of funding and will (and competent governance) to fix it.

          • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            I maintain that there simply is not enough tax base for these areas to fund themselves but you’ve done a wonderful job moving the goal posts beyond anything the article is stating; they rely on federal funds to operate.

            What data do you have to back up corruption?

            Keep in mind there are far more small towns than large towns. As a ratio it seems unlikely that small towns are more likely to be corrupt than cities.

            The question then is what funds are they using to facilitate this corruption. My guess is federal and state funds because again, they lack the tax base.