Because it's completely orthogonal to the original arguments. Infrastructure is more than sewer systems, roads for example. Moreover everyone moving to septic tanks is a non environmentally friendly solution, and where are you going to bring the waste when the tanks have to be emptied (they need to be pumped out regularly), who is going to pay for that infrastructure?

Let's not even start on the argument that not everyone can and wants to live on a farm. Also rural living is probably the most inefficient when it comes to infrastructure.

I'm not talking about everyone moving to the country, I'm talking about bringing localized infrastructure to suburban sprawl. I doubt that would work in high density urban areas, but why could it not work in suburbs where every house is sitting on a 60x120ft lot?

Its those areas that the article describes as the expensive areas because everything is so spread out.

The claim that any of this has zero infrastructure cost is laudable. Either OP is extremely naive or being very disingenuous in there bias.

The farmer is notoriously running around the farm fixing shit in between tending to the crop because living off the grid is hard.