This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity.
By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content.
Good.
Better for the environment anyway.
Rewild the rural landscape back to forests and prairies.
They’ll pave it over and accelerate the destruction of arable land while also screaming about population decline.
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.
No, they cannot fund themselves because of corruption, and lack of funding and will (and competent governance) to fix it.
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.