While it's true that many of the small rural places don't pay their way....and can't- the downside of having so much government influence which doesn't support infrastructure is that it's difficult to gain any equity in a lot of places as well.
simplify that statement for me would ya.
If you build something of your own - perhaps because you believe the gov't doesn't owe you; or perhaps because you don't qualify for gov't handouts- your place essentially has no value greater than pennies on the dollar invested when it stands next to the 'free stuff' which the gov't provides. IOW it's hard to compete with the gov't when they get involved in housing. It's a basic no-brainer that many folks don't think about.
You might own your own place in one of the hugely supported places - paying mightily to own it. Yet it has no value anywhere close to what you've invested due to the fact that no one who might want it could afford it and/or they can get a gov sponsored dwelling for less than they price of interest on the principal.
Sound investment advice right there.
So again where is the incentive to get off/stay off the gov.tit? People view reality largely based on their own backyard. Whether 'I' earned it or not- as long as I have mine- why should I worry about anyone else; that seems to be a prevalent attitude.
As I pointed out previously when the government gives the gov't takes away. Some gain- some lose. Anchorage (Ship Creek) only exists because the railroad came through. Wasilla would have been nothing had not Anchorage sprung up. It's kind of hard for the major population center to bitch about what other places get when they exist on the backs of some of those same places. Anchorage might be largely responsible for electing our representatives but they aren't elected to represent Anchorage alone - or Juneau- or Fairbanks; they represent all of Alaska - even those parts some of us don't care about.
