So while I think the government should invest in these projects, I think that also means that they/we need to have more of a say, and not just yelling loudly at community meetings or posting on internet forums.
I agree with you that government investment in infrastructure is a good thing, Van. But one thing that I don't like about the idea that if government is going to spend money on infrastructure, it needs to listen to "us," is that everyone wants to define "us" as they see fit.
What seems to happen too often is that all of the taxpayers are asked to foot the bill, but when the city goes to listen to "us," it holds a "community" meeting for the people who live in the immediate vicinity of the park, development, or whatever other project is at hand.
Generally, "the community" throws down a gauntlet: If the city is going to build a park (or allow a new apartment building), it must meet our demands. Those demands, almost inevitably, are for "open space," shorter heights, and "affordable housing."
Those things are almost never in the interests of the other 99% of the city's residents, who are asked equally to foot the bill (unless there's a special tax levied against businesses or residents in the immediate area).
That open space often takes the place of a theater, waterfront cafe, shops, other attractions that can engage and draw anyone from the city (or tourists, who often also foot the bill via sales and hotel taxes) or even just apartments, which provide a richer urban experience than "open space." Of course, the immediate neighbors know that nobody will care about a bland yard; that's in their interests, as it means that the people footing the bill won't have any use for the new amenity and therefore won't spoil their peace and quiet. But the city as a whole is often the worse off -- when it turns every development opportunity into open space, residents and tourists have no place to enjoy a beer by the water, stroll along a tree-lined shopping promenade, or see a movie or play.
Shorter building heights and "affordable housing" as well are seldom in the interests of the rest of the city. Both of them mean reduced tax bases for the city -- ultimately meaning either reduced services for the rest of the populace than would otherwise be possible, or higher taxes to support those services. On an aesthetic level -- and I realize that the vast majority of a city's residents generally don't give a damn about this -- it usually means uglier, cheaper structures that cheapen a city's livability.
So while I 100% agree that cities should be spending on infrastructure, and that the interests of the taxpayer should be kept in mind, the huge caveat I'd offer is: have the interests of ALL taxpayers (including tourists) in mind when determining whether, e.g., to build a park, allow a zoning variance to build a new apartment building, etc. By allowing the parochial NIMBY interests of "open space," short buildings and "affordable housing," the vast majority of the city, who are footing the bill, get a bum deal.
