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.
Do you know the total municipal debt in this country? It's trillions of dollars and that money will never paid because too many suburbs depended on taxes from future residents that never came. Look at what's happening in California.
and all those policies have failed and has caused the decline of this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
The suburbs are total ponzi schemes that are parasites on rural land.
I'm sure you all noticed that the bulk, in fact about 99%, of the story was concerning incorporated towns or small cities. You know, urbanized areas and not a classic suburb.
The road pieces were interesting, I'd like to know who those towns' Bond Counsels were because the ones I've dealt with for 20 of the last 30 years as a local elected official would never have given the green light to bond issues with those kind of numbers.
That was one alarming article. And I can see that playing out many times over al over the US.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. That article was horse hockey! (And if there's someone who objects to that term, they can go post on the Religion forum. I've seen worse on Parenting.) Any time someone uses "Ponzi Scheme" as a descriptor, I get suspicious. And like North Beach Person said, these stories were not about suburbs for the most part. Talk about hyperbole!
I also agree with mbradleyc: People have to live somewhere.
I cannot understand how reasonably intelligent people can even read this dreck, let alone think it's accurate!
I think you misunderstood what I meant. That article was horse hockey! (And if there's someone who objects to that term, they can go post on the Religion forum. I've seen worse on Parenting.) Any time someone uses "Ponzi Scheme" as a descriptor, I get suspicious. And like North Beach Person said, these stories were not about suburbs for the most part. Talk about hyperbole!
I also agree with mbradleyc: People have to live somewhere.
I cannot understand how reasonably intelligent people can even read this dreck, let alone think it's accurate!
In NE Ohio, people were already living somewhere in the 50s-60s. Yet, even though the population of NE Ohio has since declined, the "footprint" of developed area increased.
Government policy decreased the opportunity for people not to live in the suburbs.
Things are not also so binary. We have a big redwood forest in the middle of my city, and a ton of other green space. There are a couple of community gardens within a mile of my apartment, on the other hand other people on my block have yards and in the surrounding areas there are citrus trees all over the place.
There is a trend right now for people to live in more walkable places. Walkable urban and walkable suburban. It is not an either or proposition. There are people (like me) who prefer walkable urban places. I have other friends that want walkable suburban places.
Unfortunately the only areas we left walkable are pretty much urban areas. We took the walkable out of the suburbs.
That is the thing that bothers me the most is when proposing ideas to make suburbs walkable and bikeable some suburbanites freak out that you are trying to turn all their suburbs into a crime ridden Manhattan style area.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. That article was horse hockey! (And if there's someone who objects to that term, they can go post on the Religion forum. I've seen worse on Parenting.) Any time someone uses "Ponzi Scheme" as a descriptor, I get suspicious. And like North Beach Person said, these stories were not about suburbs for the most part. Talk about hyperbole!
I also agree with mbradleyc: People have to live somewhere.
I cannot understand how reasonably intelligent people can even read this dreck, let alone think it's accurate!
That is true, people have to live somewhere, but why is it wrong to promote areas, suburban and urban that promote walking, biking, and alternative forms of transportation besides car use? No one wants to get rid of the car, just provide more options than just the car.
Sure you may need to drive to work, but what about when you are on a day off and want to get out of the house, why can't suburbs have things that you can walk to just like urban areas, or better yet, why can't suburban neighborhoods be more like streetcar suburbs where it is suburban, walkable, bikeable, can provide bus or rail transit as well as being a place one can own and drive a car easily?
I think you misunderstood what I meant. That article was horse hockey! (And if there's someone who objects to that term, they can go post on the Religion forum. I've seen worse on Parenting.) Any time someone uses "Ponzi Scheme" as a descriptor, I get suspicious. And like North Beach Person said, these stories were not about suburbs for the most part. Talk about hyperbole!
I also agree with mbradleyc: People have to live somewhere.
I cannot r
understand how reasonably intelligent people can even read this dreck, let alone think it's accurate!
Ponzi scheme was a harsh choice of words, but the infrastructure funding gap is no joke. The trends are that the furthest flug suburbs and exurbs won't get built out. We have one in the Bay Area called Mountain House. They promised schools shopping etc and then people didn't want to deal with that annoying commute, and the homes stopped selling. Same thing happened to Stockton with the foreclosure crisis, Stockton has no jobs and isn't close to job centers.
That is the thing that bothers me the most is when proposing ideas to make suburbs walkable and bikeable some suburbanites freak out that you are trying to turn all their suburbs into a crime ridden Manhattan style area.
Both of my grandparents lived in rural areas. But I liked going to my maternal grandmas place more because she lived on a quieter street. Even though there were no sidewalks we could walk to the store, church, and visit other cousins on foot. Her town was pretty boring and the "city" was 8 miles away.
Although my paternal grandparents lived in a town with more stuff closer to their house, they lived on a busy highway, and the town didn't really have those quiet streets, so we were confined to the front yard and backyard.
That's the difference for me. None of these places were dense, but the street layout was very different, so you could do more stuff without a car.
My maternal grandmother never learned to drive. But she was able to participate in her community, since her core needs were a short walk away. When my paternal grandparents were older it was a fight to take the keys to the car away (grandma had Alzheimer's and in her last couple of years she was getting into minor car accidents, granddad had cataracts), but the loss of the car meant they would be trapped at home, everything was far away and required a drive. You couldn't even go to the convenience store across the street since the highway was 45mph and there was not a crosswalk anywhere on this highway (at least the 35 mile portion we regularly drove).
You don't have to make things super dense to make them walkable or bikeable. It just takes better planning.
Both of my grandparents lived in rural areas. But I liked going to my maternal grandmas place more because she lived on a quieter street. Even though there were no sidewalks we could walk to the store, church, and visit other cousins on foot. Her town was pretty boring and the "city" was 8 miles away.
Although my paternal grandparents lived in a town with more stuff closer to their house, they lived on a busy highway, and the town didn't really have those quiet streets, so we were confined to the front yard and backyard.
That's the difference for me. None of these places were dense, but the street layout was very different, so you could do more stuff without a car.
My maternal grandmother never learned to drive. But she was able to participate in her community, since her core needs were a short walk away. When my paternal grandparents were older it was a fight to take the keys to the car away (grandma had Alzheimer's and in her last couple of years she was getting into minor car accidents, granddad had cataracts), but the loss of the car meant they would be trapped at home, everything was far away and required a drive. You couldn't even go to the convenience store across the street since the highway was 45mph and there was not a crosswalk anywhere on this highway (at least the 35 mile portion we regularly drove).
You don't have to make things super dense to make them walkable or bikeable. It just takes better planning.
No, it takes municipal governments and towns with defined retail core. You know, the "small towns" so many, especially the new urbanists, treat with disdain. Those small towns will not necessarily have public transit or many things that so many say are "required".
What everybody seems to forget is that the suburbs were demand driven. All the talk about subsidies, and governmental policy and all those other conspiracy pieces are just retroactive bull****. Governments running private transit out of business is in the same category, governments got into the mass transit business because the private companies were going bankrupt. They had to cover the cost of service through fares and couldn't, hence government takeover and the system we have today where transit systems are subsidized to the tune of around 70%. A subsidy paid for by the hated car drivers through their gas taxes.
I'm sure you all noticed that the bulk, in fact about 99%, of the story was concerning incorporated towns or small cities. You know, urbanized areas and not a classic suburb.
The road pieces were interesting, I'd like to know who those towns' Bond Counsels were because the ones I've dealt with for 20 of the last 30 years as a local elected official would never have given the green light to bond issues with those kind of numbers.
Yes, well, they all seemed to be in MN, which is kind of "socialist". So they probably have a different take on it.
In NE Ohio, people were already living somewhere in the 50s-60s. Yet, even though the population of NE Ohio has since declined, the "footprint" of developed area increased.
That is not the case everywhere; in fact, it's the exception rather than the rule outside of some pockets of the rust belt. If Pittsburgh's MSA population had kept up with the US rate of increase since 1970, it would be about 4 million by now, instead of 2 1/4 mil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
That is true, people have to live somewhere, but why is it wrong to promote areas, suburban and urban that promote walking, biking, and alternative forms of transportation besides car use? No one wants to get rid of the car, just provide more options than just the car.
Sure you may need to drive to work, but what about when you are on a day off and want to get out of the house, why can't suburbs have things that you can walk to just like urban areas, or better yet, why can't suburban neighborhoods be more like streetcar suburbs where it is suburban, walkable, bikeable, can provide bus or rail transit as well as being a place one can own and drive a car easily?
Who said it was wrong? That article was the craziest thing I have read on this forum, and that's saying a lot with people posting these "pop urbanist" Atlantic Cities articles. It said nothing about any of the above, just told us we're all going to hell in a handbasket, and no, I do not regret my choice of words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
Ponzi scheme was a harsh choice of words, but the infrastructure funding gap is no joke. The trends are that the furthest flug suburbs and exurbs won't get built out. We have one in the Bay Area called Mountain House. They promised schools shopping etc and then people didn't want to deal with that annoying commute, and the homes stopped selling. Same thing happened to Stockton with the foreclosure crisis, Stockton has no jobs and isn't close to job centers.
Ponzi scheme is more than harsh choice of words, it's BS. That article doesn't address any Ponzi scheme that I've ever heard of. Cities have infrastructure problems too. Things do wear out in "the city" as well, maybe faster b/c they get harder use. (I'll leave that to someone with more expertise than me to discuss, though).
Your example of Mountain House proves what NBP said above. It's demand driven. People don't wanna drive that far, they're not gonna buy. Stockton is not a suburb, either. Poor example, if you're trying to prove that suburbia will be the ruination of us all.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-22-2014 at 12:39 PM..
No, it takes municipal governments and towns with defined retail core. You know, the "small towns" so many, especially the new urbanists, treat with disdain. Those small towns will not necessarily have public transit or many things that so many say are "required".
What everybody seems to forget is that the suburbs were demand driven. All the talk about subsidies, and governmental policy and all those other conspiracy pieces are just retroactive bull****. Governments running private transit out of business is in the same category, governments got into the mass transit business because the private companies were going bankrupt. They had to cover the cost of service through fares and couldn't, hence government takeover and the system we have today where transit systems are subsidized to the tune of around 70%. A subsidy paid for by the hated car drivers through their gas taxes.
QFT! Agreed.
Young people forget (or maybe never knew) that the Great Depression started in October, 1929. From about 1930 until WW II ended in September 1945, virtually no home building was happening. jade408 talked about her grandparents. I'll tell you about mine. My paternal gf was a carpenter in Beaver Falls. He was in his early 50s when the depression started, was almost 70 by the end of WW II. He basically never worked again after the start of depression, his work being dependent on home building.
Basically, there were 16 years (till early 1946) of virtually NO home building; 1/2 a generation. When the war ended, there was a HUGE amount of pent-up demand for housing. People had been living with their parents; the marriage and birth rates were both down during the Depression; they started getting married and having babies again, just as the returning GIs did, just as the Russians did as we saw in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. PEOPLE HAD TO LIVE SOMEWHERE! Not all the home building was in the "suburbs", either. DH and I lived in a house in Urbana, IL that was in a post-war development, in the city! The returning GIs flocked to college towns such as Urbana to go to school, and sometimes to never leave again. This may sound shocking to some of you on this board young enough to be my kids (most of you), but homes had to be built on VACANT LAND. This usually meant the edges of cities, as well as the suburbs. When DH was a little boy, his home was on the edge of Omaha, now it's considered in Old Omaha, even though it's in the same place.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-22-2014 at 12:37 PM..
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.
