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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-27-2014, 11:40 AM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,729,874 times
Reputation: 9029

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
If people live close to urban centers, and I'm not even saying push everyone to major cities but to push people close to metros with at least 125,000-150,000 population. Then people have access to social services, more socialization options, better healthcare, and public transportation and heck even the possible of biking to work.
What does "push people" mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-27-2014, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Cold Frozen North
1,928 posts, read 4,634,544 times
Reputation: 1274
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
What does "push people" mean?
That was my question exactly. Does this mean ordering people off their own land at the point of a gun, forced eviction, confiscation of property or something less?

What about people who live rural like me and have a good secure job and want to stay and seeked out living in a rural area away from large urban areas. The OPs idea are a little extremist to say the least. Our society is polarized enough between rich/poor, young/old, black/white and city/rural. This sounds to me like the OP has some ax to grind.

I think the only group of people this would appeal to are extremist environmentalists who want everybody crammed together into the smallest footprint possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 12:54 PM
 
Location: International Falls, Minnesota
98 posts, read 152,954 times
Reputation: 370
Well, here's what's happening up here (bit of background...International Falls is 165 north of Duluth and 310 miles north of Minneapolis; we are literally at the end of the line, as the border crossing to Canada is three blocks from my home).

In the upper Midwest, many of the mid-to-large cities such as Duluth, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Madison and Chicago have priced out low income renters. As well, those cities have no Section 8 housing left - 10 to 12 years' wait is what I've heard, and social services have nothing left to give as far as food stamps, food shelves, shelters, everything. Urban centers have nothing for people with no money, no masters degree, and too many kids. So what's happening is they're all coming up to towns like ours, where there are no waiting lists, people generally don't use food banks or shelters since most have extended families to help out...I have no problem helping out residents who pay taxes and contribute but I have no interest in taking care of the urban poor who are only here because the free stuff in their city is gone, so they've come up here to get ours, and will probably never leave. What's resulted is a huge uptick in an otherwise low crime area, which ruins our property values and increases our taxes because of the emergency personnel that has to deal with the fights, robberies, accidents, etc. I'd say the problem isn't with the individual who comes up here from Chicago, it's the 12-15 relatives who, six months later, pack everything in hefty bags and move up here, of course with no plan and no money, to live off of county and state services. Many are two time convicted felons who don't qualify for anything, so they end up living with these people but aren't on any lease.

What I'm seeing is especially troubling: we have lost half our towns population to job loss and layoffs - they moved. The only people still here are those who had other jobs not connected to the paper mill, or, more often, those who are so poor they can't even afford to move away. So now you have the new ghettos - the next Cabrini Greens...small towns with a combined big city homeless and rural locals, both with no money, both with little education, both with little to no desire to work, and both with costly poor choices (too many kids). The big cities have the most exposure to great universities, corporations and is where money will be spent and earned. Downtowns will be for the ultra rich and outlying areas will house university students. Small towns, which no longer have anything to do with farming, have become prison towns. Or places like International Falls, where the working population has left, and the non working and non educated population has exploded.

It just doesn't look good for the future. When you look at the economics of it, why not put the urban poor in small towns where there's tons of cheap land and since many can't or won't work, it's a non-issue if the community has any jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 01:19 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
1,764 posts, read 2,335,377 times
Reputation: 1871
How does pushing people out of rural areas resolve the problem of chronic poverty? They will just be poor somewhere else, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 02:48 PM
 
374 posts, read 406,773 times
Reputation: 890
.

Last edited by AngelWingDesigns; 04-27-2014 at 03:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 04:07 PM
 
4,832 posts, read 10,899,029 times
Reputation: 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Actually, large urban populations are harder for governments to control than small rural populations. And "the city" isn't talking about crowding people into big cities--he is an advocate of suburban living.
Think of urban, suburban, and rural as a circle. You first have a small circle in the middle which is your urban. Then you have your suburban circle surrounding the urban circle. Then you have the last circle which is the rural where your farms and farmers should be and some others. But then there is the outliers and these outliers are some of the very rural areas where some decided they wanted to live there while others moved there, so in hopes of affordable living would make their lives better. In the heart of circle, the urban is where social services is. Social services is pretty close to the suburban circle. But when you get too far away from social services in the middle, then you lose close access to places to use your food stamps and Community Health Centers and homeless shelters and people's kitchen.

And when I mean "push" I don't mean force, but create incentives (could be harsh incentives and some gentle incentives) for people to leave where they are renting or own land in a rural area to come live closer to center.

And btw, rather you live in a rural area or a city, the government has authority in that area. You are rather controlled by the county or city government.

I feel at least in cities you have some power to get more individualized representation. At least, more so for smaller cities. Probably not that different for rural areas since a board of supervisors, here in CA, makes the decision for all the people living in the county boundaries.

I don't advocate for forcing people to live in soviet-style high rise apartments. I believe we can increase density in suburban and urban without making everything all urban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,338,037 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPlainsDrifter73 View Post
That was my question exactly. Does this mean ordering people off their own land at the point of a gun, forced eviction, confiscation of property or something less?

What about people who live rural like me and have a good secure job and want to stay and seeked out living in a rural area away from large urban areas. The OPs idea are a little extremist to say the least. Our society is polarized enough between rich/poor, young/old, black/white and city/rural. This sounds to me like the OP has some ax to grind.

I think the only group of people this would appeal to are extremist environmentalists who want everybody crammed together into the smallest footprint possible.
Exactly! I could have made a whole lot more money -- probably at least 50% more than I do today -- if I had stayed in the mid-sized city I was working in in 1998. The thing is, I wouldn't have been happy there. I'm a small town/farm woman at heart and always will be. I "fit" in this economic backwater of a county with its 130,000 people spread out over 1300 square miles and it's largest "city" having all of about 30,000 souls. Even though I have a string of academic degrees, I'm proud of my redneck roots, and I freely admit that I like the rhythms of small town life, its sociableness, its pitch-in-to-help-somebody-out ethic; its laid back attitude where 4 cars at a 4 way stop sign constitutes a traffic jam because everybody waves the other guy through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,338,037 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
Think of urban, suburban, and rural as a circle. You first have a small circle in the middle which is your urban. Then you have your suburban circle surrounding the urban circle. Then you have the last circle which is the rural where your farms and farmers should be and some others. But then there is the outliers and these outliers are some of the very rural areas where some decided they wanted to live there while others moved there, so in hopes of affordable living would make their lives better. In the heart of circle, the urban is where social services is. Social services is pretty close to the suburban circle. But when you get too far away from social services in the middle, then you lose close access to places to use your food stamps and Community Health Centers and homeless shelters and people's kitchen.

And when I mean "push" I don't mean force, but create incentives (could be harsh incentives and some gentle incentives) for people to leave where they are renting or own land in a rural area to come live closer to center.

And btw, rather you live in a rural area or a city, the government has authority in that area. You are rather controlled by the county or city government.

I feel at least in cities you have some power to get more individualized representation. At least, more so for smaller cities. Probably not that different for rural areas since a board of supervisors, here in CA, makes the decision for all the people living in the county boundaries.

I don't advocate for forcing people to live in soviet-style high rise apartments. I believe we can increase density in suburban and urban without making everything all urban.
Really? Yet you're willing to use "harsh incentives" to force people to move into bigger urbanized areas. For what purpose? So that poor people will be made homeless, and people with modest incomes will be forced to rent in slums because housing in mid and large metros is always more expensive than in truly rural areas? So you can turn rural home/land owners into renters? So you can force your lifestyle on people who have no interest or desire to live like you?

We get it, you don't like small towns or rural areas. That's your problem. We aren't forcing you to live our lifestyle, so you keep your nose out of ours!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 07:10 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
1,764 posts, read 2,335,377 times
Reputation: 1871
OP, I must admit that I really don't understand. I usually can see both sides of a situation and find some "happy medium" somewhere in the mix. Unless you are suggesting the government becomes something other than a democracy, I don't see how or why anybody would agree to this regardless of the incentives. People live where they want to live and they move when those needs change for whatever reason. Forcing, pushing, using harsh incentives, and anything long those lines is some form of dictatorship no matter how you slice it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
1,034 posts, read 1,039,150 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Really? Yet you're willing to use "harsh incentives" to force people to move into bigger urbanized areas. For what purpose? So that poor people will be made homeless, and people with modest incomes will be forced to rent in slums because housing in mid and large metros is always more expensive than in truly rural areas? So you can turn rural home/land owners into renters? So you can force your lifestyle on people who have no interest or desire to live like you?

We get it, you don't like small towns or rural areas. That's your problem. We aren't forcing you to live our lifestyle, so you keep your nose out of ours!

I wish I could rep you twice but I couldn't!




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