U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
 
Old 01-18-2014, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,327,543 times
Reputation: 3562

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent View Post
In my experience, renters do not typically involve themselves in local issues and are markedly less likely to vote for additional taxes than homeowners, either because they are uninformed or because they don't plan to stick around long enough to reap the benefits.
Good point. However, it does depend on the person. Someone may live in or around the same town as a renter, having stake in what happens in the town. However, to your point, a good portion of renters are probably less likely to vote for tax increases or cuts because they don't plan to stick around. My previous point being that "urbanists" aren't exactly pushing people into renting through dissuasion of ownership so they can sneak tax increases by the public.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2014, 12:17 PM
 
Location: The analog world
17,086 posts, read 9,856,223 times
Reputation: 22739
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Good point. However, it does depend on the person. Someone may live in or around the same town as a renter, having stake in what happens in the town. However, to your point, a good portion of renters are probably less likely to vote for tax increases or cuts because they don't plan to stick around. My previous point being that "urbanists" aren't exactly pushing people into renting through dissuasion of ownership so they can sneak tax increases by the public.
I agree. It's a bit too "conspiracy theory" for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 12:39 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,984 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
I've never encountered a situation where "urbanists" were calling for higher taxes, and I've never heard of a situation where they were serving an underhanded agenda of increasing the amount of people that rent so they could sneak those taxes by them. I'm not saying it's not a variable that affects people, but I find it hard to believe that there's an agenda by urbanists (who ever they are) to push people to only rent...

As someone who has rented before, owns now, is looking to rent again in a few months, and then own again in a few years...I would be concerned equally about taxes because I know it's going to either directly or indirectly affect me regardless of whether I buy or rent (aka either figured into my mortgage payments or monthly rent).
You should just take a leisurely look back through this forum, for starts.

Not every renter understands that they are paying property taxes as well. That's something else you could learn on a leisurely look through CD. It was a big topic of discussion a few months ago, on "Great Debates" I believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 07:15 PM
 
7,895 posts, read 5,028,121 times
Reputation: 13533
Somewhat of topic, but regarding the discussion 10-15 posts ago, about lawn mowing. The countryside in my locale consists of 5+ acre estates; some farms, but mostly residential. The farms may or may not be profitable as primary businesses. Some (most?) are hobby-farms. Lawn mowing is the dominant local custom. My neighbors regularly mow 5, 10, 20 acres of grass. Tractors are substantial diesel jobs, often more expensive than luxury cars. The issue regularly arises in the "small town and rural living" forum. Owner-occupants become of necessity semi-professional lawn mowers, at least during the spring high-rate growing season.

Another topic is property taxes. Of course ultimately renters pay property taxes through the taxes assessed of the property owners, but let's not forget the economy of scale. Property taxes on a block of 100 apartments in an apartment-complex are proportionally different (and vastly smaller) than taxes on 100 single-family houses. I agree that owing to the tax issue, and related issues, renters are less "connected" to the community than owners. This is conceivably a bad thing. But by the exact same reasoning, renting is more tax-efficient.

As to the whole new-urbanism thing, what I've observed is that advocates of this lifestyle actually extol buying over renting. Gentrification and renovation isn't really tractable if the preponderance of occupants are renters. The call to revitalize the city includes the call to buy property in the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Good for Wiki. In my field, we do look at the source. Do you have any idea how many quackery websites are out there?
If you're talking about something like scientific research, of course you should rely upon peer-reviewed studies to form your opinion. But in terms of having a logical, rational debate with someone, it's a failure, because you cannot prove someone is wrong by saying merely "your sources are biased"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
We weren't talking about people whose mortgages are underwater. We were talking about home ownership.
You can't have an underwater mortgage unless you're a homeowner, can you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Agreed, I don't know why some people do that. Most of the large lot houses keep part of it as woods. I find the "great american prairie" look unappealing. Just seems like space for no purpose, and the privacy advantage is minimal if open.
I wonder if that's one reason why you don't see large lots much in places like Arizona, New Mexico, or Nevada? I mean, unless you live in the mountains a sprawling "estate" is pretty much just open empty land you couldn't grow much vegetation on without extensive watering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 08:58 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Gentrification and renovation isn't really tractable if the preponderance of occupants are renters. The call to revitalize the city includes the call to buy property in the city.
No. Gentrification can occur by a class of renters moving in that are willing to pay higher rents, with the landlords renovating because their property would earn more income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 08:59 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Somewhat of topic, but regarding the discussion 10-15 posts ago, about lawn mowing. The countryside in my locale consists of 5+ acre estates; some farms, but mostly residential. The farms may or may not be profitable as primary businesses. Some (most?) are hobby-farms. Lawn mowing is the dominant local custom. My neighbors regularly mow 5, 10, 20 acres of grass. Tractors are substantial diesel jobs, often more expensive than luxury cars. The issue regularly arises in the "small town and rural living" forum. Owner-occupants become of necessity semi-professional lawn mowers, at least during the spring high-rate growing season.
Yes, I can't understand why anyone would want lawns that big. I've seen similar in upstate NY a bit. Rural New England has some residential property of similar size, but rarely is a large continuous section mowed, most of it is left forested.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2014, 08:07 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,984 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
If you're talking about something like scientific research, of course you should rely upon peer-reviewed studies to form your opinion. But in terms of having a logical, rational debate with someone, it's a failure, because you cannot prove someone is wrong by saying merely "your sources are biased"



You can't have an underwater mortgage unless you're a homeowner, can you?



I wonder if that's one reason why you don't see large lots much in places like Arizona, New Mexico, or Nevada? I mean, unless you live in the mountains a sprawling "estate" is pretty much just open empty land you couldn't grow much vegetation on without extensive watering.
You are correct. You have to present some other sources that disprove their argument, and prove yours. The way to pick good sources is to follow the guidelines in those links I posted, e.g. "Who wrote the article, What are their credentials in this area, etc". In my field, you can always find people, including some doctors, who oppose immunizations, BUT you'd be hard put to find a pediatrician or family practitioner who is opposed to them. "Who is publishing the article", eg a .gov, a .org., .edu, or .com. As one of the articles pointed out, a .org may or may not be non-biased. There are plenty of activist groups out there that are .orgs. When you say "home ownership is linked to unemployment" you need to present some decent data. A working paper that uses the term "NIMBY" is not very credible, IMO.

I did not think the topic was underwater mortgages. That is not a big problem here in Colorado, and the way you and your fellow Pittsburghers are always bragging about Pgh's housing situation, not there, either.

Lots are smaller in the west. I don't know why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2014, 11:21 AM
 
50 posts, read 47,552 times
Reputation: 103
Quote:
Why is density and walkability taken so seriously on this forum?
Because most posters on this forum are europhilic liberal yuppies whom live in a bubble in the big cities and have a bizarre hatred of open space and cars. They're not a true representation of the general population though; I've never heard anyone talk about density or walkability in the "real world". There also seems to be a consensus of bashing anything American but worshiping anything European, no matter what it may be.

These posters seem to forget that Europe is a continent, made up of many countries. These counties are also very small, so they have to build things to be dense. Another thing is that many of their towns and cities were built hundreds of years ago, before cars even existed. The US on the other-hand, is a very large country with lots of open space so there's no need for us to build things so dense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2014, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You are correct. You have to present some other sources that disprove their argument, and prove yours. The way to pick good sources is to follow the guidelines in those links I posted, e.g. "Who wrote the article, What are their credentials in this area, etc". In my field, you can always find people, including some doctors, who oppose immunizations, BUT you'd be hard put to find a pediatrician or family practitioner who is opposed to them. "Who is publishing the article", eg a .gov, a .org., .edu, or .com. As one of the articles pointed out, a .org may or may not be non-biased. There are plenty of activist groups out there that are .orgs. When you say "home ownership is linked to unemployment" you need to present some decent data. A working paper that uses the term "NIMBY" is not very credible, IMO.

I did not think the topic was underwater mortgages. That is not a big problem here in Colorado, and the way you and your fellow Pittsburghers are always bragging about Pgh's housing situation, not there, either.

Lots are smaller in the west. I don't know why.
I'm sure there some unemployed people that own homes. It doesn't mean homeownership causes unemployment. Actually, intuitively it seems the opposite. Generally speaking, homeownership is the working poor and up. I mean, when you're talking about the majority of the population it's obviously a very broad cross section of society. But in general, higher income is more likely to own a home and higher income is less likely to be unemployed at any given time.
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:

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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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