Whatever the closest shared government you have pays more to provide services to sparsely-populated areas than densely-populated ones.

But frequently, those governments do not charge people who live in sparsely-populated areas enough to cover those increased costs.

For example, a mile of urban street/utilities might serve 40,000 people, while a mile of suburban street/utilities may serve 400.

There's a decent amount of writing and videos on the subject, both for[1] and against[2]. The "for" arguments have convinced me because they use data and are presented by experts in urban planning and government, while the "against" arguments rely on appealing to principles/emotion and are frequently presented by politicians who treat the suggestion as a cultural threat.

1: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...

2: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/do-cities-really-subsidiz...