U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2012, 11:45 AM
Box
 
382 posts, read 535,423 times
Reputation: 227

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Urban pioneers will transform the hood areas and they will become more desirable. Most people living intown are waiting longer to have kids, but once they do they will become more involved. Those school will improve, look at what happened to Inman M.S. and Mary Lin E.S. 20 years ago they were not the desirable schools they are now, but hardwork transformed them into schools that are now busting at the seems. The same thing is happening at schools in Grant Park, Edgewood, and Kirkwood. As gas prices rise and suburban homes, along with intown homes, continue to decrease in value. There are people that want to live closer to transit and the urban core, walkable neighborhoods- not walking to a national park for recreation, but walking to the store or MARTA station.
But what about the people who live there already?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2012, 11:45 AM
 
1,250 posts, read 1,487,112 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrgpill View Post
I'm not sure where you are getting at as I did not even mention atlanta in my post. Perhaps you have an agenda, I dunno.

Looking at the region (west), Portland trails Seattle and San Jose in jobs. So while I understand your comparison to Atlanta which I have never mentioned, it makes practical sense to compare apple to apple.

Ashville also has 2% lower uneployment then Atlanta and they are both in the South..... You made the assertion that Portland lacked jobs vs people.

Seattle and Portlan have about the same unemployment rate. San Jose has a higher unemployment rate then both Seattle and Porland.

http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,147 posts, read 16,140,747 times
Reputation: 4894
Quote:
But what about the people who live there already?
What about them, they are having kids and there is a baby bubble growing? Toomer E.S. has made huge strides in the past years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 11:49 AM
 
7,687 posts, read 9,527,345 times
Reputation: 5657
It makes very little sense to compare Portland to Atlanta at all.

It's a city on the opposite end of the country with a population roughly 10% of ours.

I don't know much about the residents of Portland, but I'm going to guess that they are a lot less diverse and higher educated than Atlantans.

Whatever, the takeaway is that what would work in Portland would no necessarily work in Atlanta. It's a relatively moot point anyway, because even if it would work, it will never ever be voted in here.

I'm not saying you can't look to cities like that for inspiration and ideas, but it's all relative. You can't say "it worked for them, so it will work for us." Maybe, an overhauled and tweaked version of what they did to suit our city could help out, but restricting development here the way they did will never fly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,147 posts, read 16,140,747 times
Reputation: 4894
Quote:
It makes very little sense to compare Portland to Atlanta at all.
The cities have 2 different mindsets and agendas. Portland wanted to concentrate growth and create transit villages around MAX stations. They went thru the same freeway revolts we did, but used that money to build a light rail system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 11:55 AM
 
1,250 posts, read 1,487,112 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLTJL View Post
I don't know much about the residents of Portland, but I'm going to guess that they are a lot less diverse and higher educated than Atlantans.
Nope, that would be incorrect.

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

Last edited by Yac; 06-19-2012 at 05:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 11:58 AM
 
9,124 posts, read 32,094,329 times
Reputation: 3519
Quote:
Originally Posted by toll_booth View Post
That I'M trying to control? Excuse me? I knew the strawmen would come flying fast and furious. It's always amusing to see just what flavor they will take.
Yes- "you" as in you via your ideas regarding what "we" should do, per your original post. You said that "we" shoud put a boundary on growth, which means that "you" think that "we" need to control the growth. No strawman here- just stating the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toll_booth View Post
Instead of this Tea-Party-esque rant, perhaps we could more rationally explore WHY people would want to sell their land. .
Nothing "Tea-Party-esque" about it, and it's not a rant. You said that the "rural vote" would be the one to support the growth boundary that you propose, yet the very people in that "rural vote" block are highly unlikely to support your idea based on their actions.

Why do they want to sell? I don't know- I'm not a mind reader. But based on your theory about the "rural vote" wanting to preserve the area as it is, if that was the case, they wouldn't want to sell at all, since they want to preserve their way of life where they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toll_booth View Post
Are land values dropping, and they want to sell before the values are reduced to near nothing? As development continues to expand, is it better to be one of the first to sell? Is the productivity of the land decreasing? Are they getting excellent offers? Without further exploration, who knows.
Seeing how the signs have been up since before the decline started, I doubt its a matter of wanting to sell before the value is reduced to nothing- they were trying to sell as the prices were rising. Regarding the rest of your theory and your feeling that there needs to be further exploration, feel free to explore all you want, but I doubt any of the answers you find would support your original theory that these rural voters would want to put up a growth boundary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 12:03 PM
JPD
 
11,849 posts, read 14,459,174 times
Reputation: 7536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Box View Post
But what about the people who live there already?
What about us? My neighbors and I are all very happy to be able to walk to just about everything we need. The only time we HAVE TO drive is if we go buy something that's too heavy to carry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Georgia
4,940 posts, read 3,989,015 times
Reputation: 2727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
Cherokee is the one county that did propose a rather restrictive zoning law about a decade ago that would have preserved much of its rural character and would have concentrated developments in "villages" and pre-existing towns. Patterned after some New England county master plans.

It was soundly defeated. The locals wanted control of their own land. Call Bob's position tea-party-esque all you want, I believe the land owners of Cherokee would like to keep the time-honored rights that property owners have been afforded in this country since its inception. Don't know why you are concerned as to why they are selling... unless you plan to buy your personal home or land as an investment and want to understand the local market. Something makes me think this is not your goal.
Again, that doesn't surprise me. That would be the demographic I expect to be vehemently against urban planning. Not trying to demonize them, just saying that were my proposal to somehow make it to a vote, they would be among its most vocal critics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Georgia
4,940 posts, read 3,989,015 times
Reputation: 2727
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobKovacs View Post
Yes- "you" as in you via your ideas regarding what "we" should do, per your original post. You said that "we" shoud put a boundary on growth, which means that "you" think that "we" need to control the growth. No strawman here- just stating the facts.
Nobody's claiming that they can't sell their land. The issue is what the buyers could do with that land. There are rules about building a toxic waste dump just wherever, after all. Externalities--this is the issue here.

Quote:
Nothing "Tea-Party-esque" about it, and it's not a rant. You said that the "rural vote" would be the one to support the growth boundary that you propose, yet the very people in that "rural vote" block are highly unlikely to support your idea based on their actions.

Why do they want to sell? I don't know- I'm not a mind reader. But based on your theory about the "rural vote" wanting to preserve the area as it is, if that was the case, they wouldn't want to sell at all, since they want to preserve their way of life where they are.
But how do you know that? Have you listened to them? Do you know why they would want to sell? Would it be any different from the reasons people in the suburbs and in town would want to sell?

Quote:
Seeing how the signs have been up since before the decline started, I doubt its a matter of wanting to sell before the value is reduced to nothing- they were trying to sell as the prices were rising. Regarding the rest of your theory and your feeling that there needs to be further exploration, feel free to explore all you want, but I doubt any of the answers you find would support your original theory that these rural voters would want to put up a growth boundary.
So it's simply a matter of the ebb and flow of the market? That's plausible.

Like I said, I believe you underestimate the desire of rural Georgia to keep Atlanta from "creeping in and taking over their way of life."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top