Not happy about moving to the area (New York, Brookhaven: loans, hotels)

[Orwelleaut]

Originally Posted by denibeans63

I undestand where you are coming from, but you will learn to love it here. My husband, then 2 year old son and I moved here 14 years ago. We moved here from Vancouver, BC, on Easter weekend. It was SNOWING. everything was brown and dirty... we had lived previously in Vancouver, Stossdale, AZ, Miami, Washignton DC< and Chicago. He is from London, UK. It took me about 2 years to get adjusted. My first winter I asked people if they went to work when it snowed. (HAH!!!). I din't like sports and was told to pick either football or hockey. Fast forward ..I LOVE THIS PLACE! Husband got a job in Omaha and has been "commuting" for the past 18 months b/c we don't want to leave. You have lots of of choices. Funky elmwood village, or grand homes in delaware park or off Hertel over by main st, or you can move out to the beautiful village of East Aurora, or WIlliamsville, or you can live 25 minutes outside of the city and have horsefarem Or like me, you can live in lancaster, and lease a horse, 25 minutes away! We have the lake in the summer (take a book, lunch and a chair and it is like a day at the beach, you have the falls, the big TO for city living, trendy bars and clubs downtown,

We dont' have to worry about tornados, hurricanes or earthquakes. Snow melts and we deal wiht it well. Schools in the burbs are good. Ok, taxes suck, but that is the trade off. People are friendly here, small city with a big heart is what I say....and yeah, I hated sports , now I am a bigtime hockey mom at son's games, and I LOVE the sabres....I can't imagine living anywhere else. I love it here. I didn't when I came, ..at all...give it a chance, take your time and find out where you want to live - city or burbs, countryside or not, new town or older historic one, diverse community or no, it is all here, You will love it, it will grow on you. Just give it a chance. I am gld I did...

Three cheers for you, denibeans!!! I live in Northeast Ohio, visit Western NY often, and also love Western NY. THose high taxes give you the nicest State Park system I've ever experienced, and the best roads I've ever experienced. "The Buff" is awesome!!!

[Canerican]

Originally Posted by Orwelleaut

THose high taxes give you the nicest State Park system I've ever experienced

Actually those parks were pretty much created how they are. New York State might maintain them to an extent, but you can't say that they did anything to enhance the the beauty of Letchworth State Park.

If you like our park system, you'd probably like Ontario, Quebec's, and New Hampshire's. I have spent lots of time of those three areas (live in two), and I can say without a doubt that they give New York a good run for its money.

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by Canerican

Actually those parks were pretty much created how they are. New York State might maintain them to an extent, but you can't say that they did anything to enhance the the beauty of Letchworth State Park.

If you like our park system, you'd probably like Ontario, Quebec's, and New Hampshire's. I have spent lots of time of those three areas (live in two), and I can say without a doubt that they give New York a good run for its money.

I thought Canada on average has more taxes than the US? Maybe that's why their parks are kept up so well. As for New Hampshire, NH has no sales tax but I believe a whopping property tax or something. Besides, what else are they going to spend taxes on but parks in NH? They don't have any major cities like Buffalo or or Rochester to take care of.

[Canerican]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

I thought Canada on average has more taxes than the US? Maybe that's why their parks are kept up so well. As for New Hampshire, NH has no sales tax but I believe a whopping property tax or something. Besides, what else are they going to spend taxes on but parks in NH? They don't have any major cities like Buffalo or or Rochester to take care of.

Yes, Canada's tax rate is far higher, but what I am saying is that it is not the government that makes a beautiful park, it is just that way naturally. Look at Utah, Wyoming, or Oregon if you want, all have very nice parks, all have low taxes.

NH does have a high property tax, but very low tax rate everywhere else (however property taxes in NH are still lower than here). The income tax is 5% at all brackets.

Why should a major city cost a state more? If anything it should cost less, as all the infrastructure can be largely shared. A large city should cause surpluses, not shortfalls. I know that you are talking about welfare, SSI, and the like costing more in cities... but still.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by Canerican

Yes, Canada's tax rate is far higher, but what I am saying is that it is not the government that makes a beautiful park, it is just that way naturally. Look at Utah, Wyoming, or Oregon if you want, all have very nice parks, all have low taxes.

NH does have a high property tax, but very low tax rate everywhere else (however property taxes in NH are still lower than here). The income tax is 5% at all brackets.

Why should a major city cost a state more? If anything it should cost less, as all the infrastructure can be largely shared. A large city should cause surpluses, not shortfalls. I know that you are talking about welfare, SSI, and the like costing more in cities... but still.

You still have to maintain infrastructure in a bigger city as well due to higher levels of traffic and use.

[Canerican]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

You still have to maintain infrastructure in a bigger city as well due to higher levels of traffic and use.

You might think that, but that is definitely wrong You aren't considering economies of scale when you say that.

What costs more:

A street in a city of 1 million that needs to be repaved once a years.

Or

A street in a village of 50, that needs to be paved once every 20 years?

Imagine this scenerio, in either case, every resident of the town contributes $1000 per year for street repairs alone. In the city of 1 million, you receive $1 billion P.A., in the village of 50, you receive $50,000 PA. Pretend that the large city has 100 main roads that need an overhaul every year, because of massive traffic. The village of 50 has 4 roads that need to be overhauled every 20 years, because there is nearly no traffic. Each road cost $1 million.

The village fixes 0.2 roads per year at a cost of $200,000, leaving a deficit of $150,000 (75%)

The city fixes 100 roads per year, at a cost of $100 million, leaving a surplus of $900 million! (90%)

In reality the city can likely fix roads for cheaper as it likely has the both the labor, supplies, and machinery on hand, while the village needs to borrow or rent these things, which leads to even great costs.

The taxes offset the additional cost of usage by far. It's all economies of scale. I'm kind of an economics nut, so this stuff is enjoyable to me. Wikipedia can explain it well for you.

Economy of scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, the more you produce, the more your fixed costs become dilluted, the less it costs per unit. It works in all sectors, including this one.

Cities should ABSOLUTELY NEVER requite more money per capita for infrastructure than rural areas.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by Canerican

You might think that, but that is definitely wrong You aren't considering economies of scale when you say that.

What costs more:

A street in a city of 1 million that needs to be repaved once a years.

Or

A street in a village of 50, that needs to be paved once every 20 years?



The taxes offset the additional cost of usage by far. It's all economies of scale. I'm kind of an economics nut, so this stuff is enjoyable to me. Wikipedia can explain it well for you.

Economy of scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, the more you produce, the more your fixed costs become dilluted, the less it costs per unit. It works in all sectors, including this one.

Cities should ABSOLUTELY NEVER requite more money per capita for infrastructure than rural areas.

but how many villages of 50 people are there in relative terms?

Also, what about places like NY where that would most likely be a hamlet instead of a village, which in turn would be a part of a town's expenses? So, government charters also play a big part in that, among other things.

[Canerican]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

but how many villages of 50 people are there in relative terms?

Also, what about places like NY where that would most likely be a hamlet instead of a village, which in turn would be a part of a town's expenses? So, government charters also play a big part in that, among other things.

Not sure about what you mean about a hamlet (a hamlet can be unincorporated, though New York does not have ANY hamlets, maybe it's a colloquialism?). I am assuming that you are talking about incorporated villages and towns.

I don't see why the number of villages is relevant, even the population of villages should be mostly irrelevant, barring a state that is nearly entirely rural, or nearly entirely urban. This doesn't apply in NY, as about 10% of the population is rural... not a real low number, but not very high either.

(source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Statefacts/NY.HTM)

Either way most LAND in New York is sparsely populated. That means that the state needs to meet the shortfall there, as a village of 50 cannot support the infrastructure needed (as I proved above).

Look at the density of NY, it is mostly rural:



At any rate, I don't get your point, cities shouldn't cost NYS more than rural areas. Do you deny that? I would be a sort of silly thing to deny, as it can be easily disproved though simple economics.

look at it this way. A city that has 10,000 people per can wire a lot more houses at a lower cost per capita than a place with 100 per mile.

Use this for reference (this is all my own figures, just invented for an example).

Say is costs $1,000,000 to bring an electric crew out to wire a square mile, plus $50 per housing unit wired. Each person gives $1000 for taxes, no matter where they live.

To wire 1 square mile of a densely populated area (10,000 /m) it costs (1,000,000 + (10,000*50))= $1,500,000. Minus taxes (1,000*10,000) = $10,000,000, or a surplus of $8.5 million

To wire 1 square mile of a rural area (10,000 /m) it costs (1,000,000 + (100*50))= $1,050,000. Minus taxes (1,000*100) = $200,000, or a deficit of $950,000

You see, this works everywhere. It should never cost a city more than a rural area... I don't get what's so complex about this, maybe I just don't get your point, could you elaborate a little on what you are trying to say. Surely not that rural areas should normally cost less that urban per capita? If so this is demonstratively false, as I proved twice, and can prove all day.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by Canerican

Not sure about what you mean about a hamlet (a hamlet can be unincorporated, though New York does not have ANY hamlets, maybe it's a colloquialism?). I am assuming that you are talking about incorporated villages and towns.

I don't see why the number of villages is relevant, even the population of villages should be mostly irrelevant, barring a state that is nearly entirely rural, or nearly entirely urban. This doesn't apply in NY, as about 10% of the population is rural... not a real low number, but not very high either.

(source: New York Fact Sheet: NY agriculture income population food education employment unemployment farms top commodities exports counties financial indicators poverty organic farming farm income Rural Nonmetro Urban Metropolitan America USDA)

Either way most LAND in New York is sparsely populated. That means that the state needs to meet the shortfall there, as a village of 50 cannot support the infrastructure needed (as I proved above).

Look at the density of NY, it is mostly rural:



At any rate, I don't get your point, cities shouldn't cost NYS more than rural areas. Do you deny that? I would be a sort of silly thing to deny, as it can be easily disproved though simple economics.

look at it this way. A city that has 10,000 people per can wire a lot more houses at a lower cost per capita than a place with 100 per mile.

Use this for reference (this is all my own figures, just invented for an example).



You see, this works everywhere. It should never cost a city more than a rural area... I don't get what's so complex about this, maybe I just don't get your point, could you elaborate a little on what you are trying to say. Surely not that rural areas should normally cost less that urban per capita? If so this is demonstratively false, as I proved twice, and can prove all day.

My point was that a community of 50 people most likely would not be a village. It would most likely be a hamlet of a town(or township in other states). So, with that said in terms of that reality in NY, how would that community be effected considering that it would be under the town's costs?

This is what I mean by hamlet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_(place)

Also, I mention corporate entities in terms of community standing to say that cost might depend on what that standing is for a community. For instance, the smallest city in NY is Sherrill, which only has about 3,200 people, but cities get more funding due to their corporate community standing.

[Canerican]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

My point was that a community of 50 people most likely would not be a village. It would most likely be a hamlet of a town(or township in other states). So, with that said in terms of that reality in NY, how would that community be effected considering that it would be under the town's costs?

Oh, so we didn't really disagree on anything.

I should have used the word rural instead of village, as that would have said what I meant better.

I should have said:

So, rurals areas should required far more money per capita in order to create and maintain infrastructure, in accordance with the law of economies of scale.

This is what I mean by hamlet

Oh, I know what a hamlet is, but there are none in New York, that's what sort of confused me.