How can Georgia's second tier cities grow to rival their counterparts in the Carolinas? (Atlanta: moving to, best)

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by masonbauknight

I honestly don't know what universe you live in with your silly remark about "racism" in an expression like "wandering off the reservation". I do know I don't live in that universe. It goes beyond political correctness and into the realm of pure theatrics. No thanks.

Mason,

That phrase is so commonplace I don't believe you yourself was trying to be racist at all, but the phrase itself is racist is racially charged.

It refers back to the days Native Americans were confined to Indian Reservations as a word of warning to what happens when you wander off the reservation. Pretty racist in root.

[masonbauknight]

Originally Posted by Galounger

Savannah only has Savannah to blame (or it's residents).

It's a victim of years and years (no centuries) of the Old South mentality and way of doing business even much more so than Atlanta.
.

That's actually been discussed in Georgia Trend and other GA-related biz magazines, and there's even a passage about Savannah's "backwater business" mentality at the beginning of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by masonbauknight

I honestly don't know what universe you live in with your silly remark about "racism" in an expression like "wandering off the reservation". I do know I don't live in that universe. It goes beyond political correctness and into the realm of pure theatrics. No thanks.

See cwkimbro's response. It is sufficient, and yeah it's racist. Perhaps privileged old White guys don't think so for whatever reason, but anyway.

I'll also stick to my universe regarding the Big 3 SC metros, which are as different from GA's 2nd tier as it gets. All three have been booming since the 1960s, and when I was a kid, my SC-born family called them "metropolises". They were already far more populous than GA's 2nd tier, growing much faster with every decade and attracting companies from home and abroad. The SC statehouse has long privileged those cities, and the results speak for themselves. Georgia has centered its economic energies on Atlanta and its environs. Only rarely has the GA statehouse given any attention to the rest of the state. Two examples: the Georgia Ports Authority and UGA. The GA legislature decided that the seaports at Savannah and Brunswick needed retooling and that if they were developed, they would boost the entire state's economy. And in the 1980s, the legislature decided that UGA must be more like UNC-Chapel Hill and less like USC-Columbia. In those two projects, they've done a good job.

Charleston and Savannah have three things in common: history, an active seaport, and tourism. Both the revitalized port and tourism have arrived late to Savannah if you're comparing either industry in Charleston. As for the military, all of Sen. Hollings' emotional hype over the loss of the Charleston Naval Yard is muted by the huge military facilities that replaced it with Joint Base Charleston in North Charleston. That vigorous military presence -- right smack in the middle of metro Charleston -- is not comparable to Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah (or to Savannah's proportional military loss either). Charleston County boomed nonetheless in the 1990s, while Chatham County lost residents in the 1960s. All of GA's 2nd-tier cities have had a few good years but mostly lackluster ones. They are literally decades -- repeat, DECADES -- behind SC's Big 3 in population, economic vitality, infrastructure, highways, and amenities. As for the health of their core counties, there's no contest: Muscogee, Bibb, and Richmond have been flat or in decline much of the time, while Greenville, Richland, or Charleston-Berkeley in SC have been perennially expanding like gangbusters since the mid-1960s (and with no letup).

I don't care what terminology you wish to use, or how many linguistic hairs you want to split, but SC's big metros are not "counterparts" with Georgia's 2nd tier. I also don't buy your divine rule about "Metros between 500,000 to 1 million" either. You have to consider a metro's political, cultural, and geographic differences -- and those between South Carolina's capital city and 2nd-tier Augusta are enormous. As for Savannah and Charleston, all of Savannah's economic and demographic gains are very recent while Charleston's go back decades, and Savannah is HALF the size of Charleston. No one should cavalierly compare the three SC metros with GA's 2nd-tier cities. They are different animals right off the bat, and Atlanta makes it all the more difficult for Augusta, Columbus, and Savannah to compete with them. Sorry, no cigar.

Here's the thing that you're missing: I didn't create this thread, and I'm not hellbent on making the comparisons that you say I am. Why you're so obsessed with spewing your vitriol towards me is just puzzling.

And yes, Charleston did a good job in replacing the jobs that were lost with the naval base closure, but you were still flat-out wrong in saying that the city never experienced the closure of major military installation because it did. As usual, you move the goalposts and change your point ever so slightly when proven wrong. It's beyond tiring at this point.

Based on the actual definition of "counterparts," most reasonable people would indeed say that Charleston and Savannah fit that definition as they have similar functions within their respective states. No they are not clones of each other and yes they have differences, but they do indeed fit the definition of being counterparts--a word that was introduced by the OP in the original post which you had absolutely NOTHING to say about up until now.

The differences between Columbia and Augusta are "enormous"? Dude, we're not comparing Augusta and Boston here. I don't have a "divine rule" (whatever the heck that means), but generally speaking yes Columbia and Augusta are in the same league or tier of cities. Again, look at the differences in the size of the metro populations and economic of Houston and DFW compared to Atlanta (which are much greater than the differences between Columbia and Augusta), yet all three cities are generally considered to be in the same league, and rightfully so.

Anyway, you're just splitting hairs with me for whatever reason. You claim to have such a huge issue with SC's largest cities being compared with Georgia's second-tier cities, and you dispute the validity of the term "counterpart" used to describe them--yet you didn't say any of this to the actual creator of the thread who is making the comparisons and introducing the terminology. Take it up with him if you're that mad about it, but I sincerely wish you'd just go away because it's just getting creepy now the way you try and pick fights over dumb $%$&.

[masonbauknight]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

. Perhaps privileged old White guys don't think so for whatever reason, but anyway. .

Thanks for the "old white man" lecture, Mutiny. And so relevant to any discussion of Georgia's 2nd-tier cities -- and the three SC cities that are in a different tier.

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

. It's just getting creepy now.

I'd call it something else, but have a pleasant weekend.

[Joe kenn]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

So, since you say the actual topic at hand isn't lost on you, explain to us how Augusta is further ahead than Columbia, Savannah further ahead than Charleston, Greenville further ahead than Columbus, Macon further ahead than Winston-Salem, etc. I'll wait.

And unlike you, I've actually called both South Carolina and Georgia home and hope to get back to Atlanta in the near future. You only have a small-town perspective and know very little about the largest cities in your own state. "I live in Pelzer and because it sucks, I know Georgia is better than SC." Laughable.

Very funny dude, I've lived all over the upstate of SC and I've visited every city in the Atlanta metro and North Georgia. Georgia is the better state!!!! Get that in your head! Georgia has a bigger population and geographically the bigger state. SC cannot compete with Atlanta

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Joe kenn

Very funny dude, I've lived all over the upstate of SC and I've visited every city in the Atlanta metro and North Georgia. Georgia is the better state!!!! Get that in your head! Georgia has a bigger population and geographically the bigger state. SC cannot compete with Atlanta

You're still having trouble comprehending the subject here. The focus of this thread is the second-tier cities in Georgia (Savannah, Augusta, Columbus, Macon, etc.) compared to cities in the Carolinas (Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, Fayetteville, etc.), not Atlanta. It's not a state vs state matchup, but a comparison of pairs of cities. I don't know how else to explain it to you, but a 37-year-old should be able to grasp such a simple concept. Furthermore, bigger has never meant better (and better is quite subjective anyway).

And I doubt VERY seriously you've visited every city in metro Atlanta. I lived there for almost five years and didn't come close to visiting all those cities (well over 50); that's an extremely tall order, considering how expansive metro Atlanta is.

[Joe kenn]

I have visted all of Atlantas metro. I've been visit Georgia all of my life. Please don't tell me what's simple. I get the thread ok but I don't like the topic. I think Georgia is better and that my opinion. You have some undying love for SC. you should live the rest of your life there.....go down to charelston and live it up. Anybody that is as crazy about SC as you are should be living there. You probably think SC is better than California.lol

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Joe kenn

I have visted all of Atlantas metro. I've been visit Georgia all of my life. Please don't tell me what's simple. I get the thread ok but I don't like the topic.

If you don't like the topic, then DON'T COMMENT. It's really that simple.

I think Georgia is better and that my opinion. You have some undying love for SC. you should live the rest of your life there.....go down to charelston and live it up. Anybody that is as crazy about SC as you are should be living there. You probably think SC is better than California.lol

You are one very interesting person. I thought it was natural for a person to have an affinity for their home state even if they prefer not to live there, but what do I know? *shrugs* And no rational person would read my responses in this thread and come to the conclusion that you have.

[Joe kenn]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

If you don't like the topic, then DON'T COMMENT. It's really that simple.



You are one very interesting person. I thought it was natural for a person to have an affinity for their home state even if they prefer not to live there, but what do I know? *shrugs* And no rational person would read my responses in this thread and come to the conclusion that you have.

You might as well accept the fact that Georgia is the superior state. SC is a horrible state. I have no affinity for the place even though I'm stuck here. But you keep you delusion up dear sir. Georgia is better

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Joe kenn

You might as well accept the fact that Georgia is the superior state. SC is a horrible state. I have no affinity for the place even though I'm stuck here. But you keep you delusion up dear sir. Georgia is better

I have no clue what kind of "delusion" you're referring to, but I've never even argued for SC's superiority as a state over Georgia in the first place (and that's subjective anyway). Now stop taking the thread off track; you said you don't like the topic so it's just best to refrain from commenting. This is a site full of subforums and different sorts of threads, yet you've only commented on this one thread since you created your account. How about expanding your horizons a bit beyond SC and Georgia.