Kahn’s critique is grounded in a familiar problem: federal funding often detaches the spender from the consequences of the spending. Whether it’s a high-speed rail line in California or flood levees in New Orleans, the logic behind many local projects is influenced more by the availability of external funding than by a sober cost-benefit analysis at the local level. The result is often wasteful projects that lack sustained public support or deliver disappointing returns.
Cities may pursue flashy but low-impact projects because the funding comes with few strings. Kahn points to the fact that when Washington pays, local decision-makers are less likely to demand efficiency or accountability. Local residents, in turn, have little reason to scrutinize projects that don’t affect their tax bills directly. In short, spending someone else’s money encourages poor planning.
A better model, Kahn suggests, would rely more heavily on local financing for local projects. Cities that fund their own infrastructure are more likely to prioritize what they actually need—be it water main replacements, street repairs, or school ventilation systems—rather than what might win a competitive grant. Local voters can then weigh in through bond measures or tax referenda, ensuring a tighter feedback loop between residents, elected officials, and outcomes.
Federal aid, under this approach, should be reserved for projects with clear national benefits—like interstate commerce corridors or emergency disaster recovery. For everything else, local governments are better positioned to determine both the costs and the benefits. This doesn’t mean starving cities of resources; it means trusting them to allocate their own.
The potential upside isn’t just fiscal responsibility. Local financing brings infrastructure closer to democratic accountability. When voters see the costs directly, they are more likely to insist on transparency and performance. Politicians are also more likely to scrutinize project design and delivery when local taxpayers—not distant agencies—are footing the bill.
The pushback, understandably, is that some communities lack the tax base to take this on. That’s a valid concern, but it points toward better-targeted equalization aid or financing support—tools that preserve local decision-making rather than centralize it.
Cities don’t need more top-down grants. They need the autonomy and responsibility to plan, finance, and deliver infrastructure that works. Aligning funding and control at the local level is the first step.
