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.
Katiana, you have quite a way with words. What I am talking about is funding and allocation formulas for state and regional funding sources. that assure that a disproportionate share of tax revenues go to suburban projects, even if those suburban projects are less needed, more ecologically damaging, and less efficient. Some of these were written into the last federal transportation bill, and the Obama administration, desperate to get anything past the House, acquiesced. I am talking about states that starve their big city transit systems, even though those systems are integral to the functioning of key economic places in the state. I am talking about Metropolitan Planning Organizations that are building their third ring freeway while central city roads are cratered, and central city buses stop running at 7:00 at night. It's hardball politics out there and poor city dwellers are the most common losers.
Indianapolis is the most affordable city of its size in the country. Home prices and rental can't be found cheaper anywhere else. Even insurance rates in the area are kept low. The secret? I'm not entirely sure.
Katiana, you have quite a way with words. What I am talking about is funding and allocation formulas for state and regional funding sources. that assure that a disproportionate share of tax revenues go to suburban projects, even if those suburban projects are less needed, more ecologically damaging, and less efficient. Some of these were written into the last federal transportation bill, and the Obama administration, desperate to get anything past the House, acquiesced. I am talking about states that starve their big city transit systems, even though those systems are integral to the functioning of key economic places in the state. I am talking about Metropolitan Planning Organizations that are building their third ring freeway while central city roads are cratered, and central city buses stop running at 7:00 at night. It's hardball politics out there and poor city dwellers are the most common losers.
Thank you. I always did like to write.
And what states are these? Not the one I live in. In fact, all the urban transit systems I am familiar with also serve the suburbs.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-10-2013 at 10:59 PM..
Katiana, you have quite a way with words. What I am talking about is funding and allocation formulas for state and regional funding sources. that assure that a disproportionate share of tax revenues go to suburban projects, even if those suburban projects are less needed, more ecologically damaging, and less efficient. Some of these were written into the last federal transportation bill, and the Obama administration, desperate to get anything past the House, acquiesced. I am talking about states that starve their big city transit systems, even though those systems are integral to the functioning of key economic places in the state. I am talking about Metropolitan Planning Organizations that are building their third ring freeway while central city roads are cratered, and central city buses stop running at 7:00 at night. It's hardball politics out there and poor city dwellers are the most common losers.
As Katiana said, what states are these? California siphons of gas taxes to pay for transportation. Half the funds inefficiently but somewhat equitably go to any transit agency on a dollar-for-dollar basis from the county they were collected in and per capita from there. The other half more efficiently but not equitably goes to agencies based on ridership. It's actually the opposite of what you're saying. The suburban and rural areas have their gas money disproportionally going to fund transportation in the cities.
Looking at just federal funds, the lion's share did go to road projects. Of course, there are far more drivers than transit riders. By usage, transit spending was over represented some 40-fold.
Specifically, what Metropolitan Planning Organizations are out building their third ring freeway while central city roads are cratered and buses stop running at 7:00? I'm not aware of any. There's some metros such as Detroit where that's certainly the case. But it isn't the Metropolitan Planning Organizations that are doing it. It's state and local governments of the suburbs where people live. Only 16% of people in the Detroit Metro live in the city of Detroit. Why should the entire metro of tax chattels be beholden to pay for Detroit's surface streets and Detroit's buses?
Here's a brief history of the Michigan's Tax Chattel scheme. It's pretty much the opposite of what you're saying... none of which stops Detroit from decaying. Masking the problems by directing funds from the suburbs to failing cities doesn't do anything to encourage failed cities to stop the policies that lead them to fail in the first place. Revenue Sharing - Michigan in Brief
Indianapolis is the most affordable city of its size in the country. Home prices and rental can't be found cheaper anywhere else. Even insurance rates in the area are kept low. The secret? I'm not entirely sure.
I think there is a fair balance of cheap cities vs expensive cities.
The cheaper cities I know are Pittsburg,Cleveland,Columbus,Detroit,Buffalo,Balti more,and Indianapolis.
Even Philadelphia isn't so expansive compared to Manhattan.
Come to think of it,most of the inexpensive cities seem to be in the midwest. Why?
We have a house in Waynesville and a house in South Florida. Taxes are $2100 in Wville and about $9K Fl. Insurance is $500 in Waynesville and $5k in Florida. HOA are $400 in NC and $3,000 in Fl. Electric is around $500 a year in NC, around $3,000 in Fl. We pay for water in Fl and have a well in NC. Gas costs about $500 in NC, $ in Fl.
We don't have any mortages and can maintain our NC house for peanuts compared to the Fl. house. If the big economic Waynesville for less than $5k a year, including internet and Direct TV. The Fl. house would cost around $24-30K a year.
Thats why people are moving to NC. So long as we can afford it, we'll keep both houses, but if push comes to shove, we're heading for the mountains.
In the Northeast, you are paying for all the people living off the state,
either as state dependents, or as state employees.
You are also paying for an entrenched class of rentiers, who own property,
and are collecting high rents.
If you want to save money, you need to go somewhere that these sorts of parasites
have not yet become well-entrenched.
FWIW, I think only in the U.S. NYC and San Francisco certainly have unique crises with housing affordability which warrant a change in policy. What's needed is probably some combination of loosening of rent control (which people have noted helps old-time tenants, but makes rent unaffordable for recent transplants), and allowing for easier redevelopment of areas with adequate transit access which are now zoned for attached housing or low-rises into high-rise apartments.
Please note that even if you ease development of new residential units in NYC and San Francisco, the new units will cater to the wealthy - developers will not build affordable housing without subsidies as long as they know there are wealthy people who will pay the rents. That said, the construction of extensive new housing options for the wealthy will depreciate rents in existing old construction, which over time will make things more affordable.
It's arguable there is also a housing crisis in DC, but it is not as bad as NYC and San Francisco, as there are still sketchy (and in some cases outright dangerous) gentrifying areas which sop up young transplants who cannot afford high rents. Certainly it's become unaffordable to buy a home in DC now, but I haven't heard about the rental market being unusually tight yet. Still, the height limit or infilled, and it will be too expensive to take down existing development for new residential high rises. Further densification in Alexandria and Arlington might remain the best bet.
I think there is a fair balance of cheap cities vs expensive cities.
The cheaper cities I know are Pittsburg,Cleveland,Columbus,Detroit,Buffalo,Balti more,and Indianapolis.
Even Philadelphia isn't so expansive compared to Manhattan.
Come to think of it,most of the inexpensive cities seem to be in the midwest. Why?
Lower taxes, lower insurance rates, less desirable areas of the country compared to the coast where most of the population is concentrated, not as densely populated as the east coast states, etc.
The cheapest state to live in within the whole country is Mississippi, home prices are ridiculously low there, very low desirability.
Obviously, residents of our biggest cities live with the burden of high rents/mortgages. To me, this seems just as much a "livability" issue as any other. And not just for people, but for business and government as well. What are some feasible steps that could be taken to address this, but also avoid the monstrous failures of 20th century public housing?
Nothing. Everyone who lives with the burden of high rents/mortgages ultimately made the choice to accept it.
Nothing. Everyone who lives with the burden of high rents/mortgages ultimately made the choice to accept it.
[cities are not prisons]
Unless someone conditions themselves to live a certain way within a city, then perhaps they can be to some.
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.
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.
