In reply to Paul Udstrand.

The scope at which the City of Minneapolis operates is far different than SLP. A large portion of Minneapolis' budget is paid for with sales of services (38% v. 8% for SLP). So the city may have more expenditures, but it also has more streams of revenue.

For example, Minneapolis maintains an advanced system of surface water treatment and drinking water delivery that it sells to other cities. An extremely sustainable practice that has earned the city accolades. SLP pumps water out of ground. Minneapolis sells parking in its regionally vital central business district. The city runs its own trash and recycling collection, SLP contracts that out. It makes the city overall budget look larger, but actually are revenue neutral.

Secondly the city has many business. educational, cultural, recreational and entertainment organizations that SLP does not have. Many of these do not pay the city property taxes. SLP derives value from these, Minneapolis would survive essentially unfazed without SLP and did so for a long time, the opposite cannot be said.

Going by overall budget numbers to compare the two cities is lazy and does not answer the question to whether or not dense cities are more efficient. Going by direct tax incidences in the two cities the number are closer than what you suggest. The delta I attribute is that Minneapolis has much more to offer its residents, and offers places that actually affordable to many more people. It is a fools errand to try and directly compare the two, but common sense would indicate that more people sharing common infrastructure is more efficient than not.