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 04-28-2014, 07:55 AM
 
45 posts, read 34,927 times
Reputation: 56

Advertisements

This whole idea reeks of government overreach. Why do we need that? Let people live where they want. If people desire to live in rural regions, why not let them? Why not try minding your own business? I would prefer to be less dependent on government and more independent and self sustaining myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2014, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,432 posts, read 37,963,313 times
Reputation: 22635
I know of a few rural communities that are growing (and some that are booming, as in growing from about 1200 to about 15,000 between 2,000 and 2010). I also know several people personally who telecommute to their jobs from rural areas - more of them all the time as technology allows this. This is something that rural communities should focus on in their education, I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 08:12 AM
 
15,782 posts, read 13,676,596 times
Reputation: 21706
Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
Not to bash on the South, but look at how many prisons and Wal-Mart in rural and small towns you have with one of those nearby.
These prisons are built there because the land is cheap, and to house all the criminals from the city. Assist in the citities from producing so many criminals, then you will not need so many prisons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
Then you have many factories that closed due to greedy corporations and & hungry consumers outsourcing jobs of the USA.
Yep, no agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
Not to mention, it costs more to get resources out to the rural areas.

Yep, no agenda.

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.
Yep, no agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
Living in the rural town was the worse.
Yep, no agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
The town people were not used to anything other than Caucasian similar minded people.
Yep, no agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
The area slowly started going downhill and now it's rapidly going downhill.
Kind of like Detroit and other grand cities? So much for your theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
There are empty shopping centers, rising crime rates, and deteriorating roads. Cities are asking for tax sales increases and water is now a problem.
Yes, 100% unique only to rural areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
The only reason my town was middle class and some upper middle class was the presence of a hospital, the lack of allowing more people to move there, and a good school district.
Of course, your town was special, every other is the worse place on Earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
More people in the rural area are commuting to the county seat where the urban center is for jobs. The south side of one of the towns is all sprawl for commuters to live there and be able to commute to the county seat for jobs.
Versus what, commuting for half an hour to over an hour in a city. It is not like taking mass transit when I lived in the DC area was some quick affair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
Anyways, enough of my rant. My kids are going are not going to live in the same rural experience I lived in.
I am sure it is not enough of your "rant", which is you pushing an agenda. I am also glad you have decided to dictate to your kids what they should do, it seems this is a trait in which you not only want to dictate to your kids, but to everyone.

As a note, I live right in the middle of the city here in Miami, I do not even like rural living at all, but I would never sit here and contrive some BS agenda to push people from living how they want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,509 posts, read 12,034,908 times
Reputation: 10610
Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
I doubt that when poor people come to the cities or suburbs, that they will become more poor. Even anything they will get better access to social services, public transportation, and healthcare and free food. They will have more help to get out of poverty. They will also have close access to large community colleges.
The problem is, however, just moving a poor jobless person from one area to another doesn't create any additional jobs. I mean, it would be one thing if they relocate to a metro with a good job market, but not that many have that now, particularly for lower-wage work. But adding more poor people to an urban labor market will if anything hurt the labor market, as it will mean more applicants, leading to downward wage pressure. Coupled with how, as I mentioned, being on public support doesn't net you any more money in an urban area, it's hard to see how this makes economic sense.

I do think a few things could/should be done. If the Post Office was allowed to close down little-used rural stations, it would hurry things along (and help stop the Post Office from sliding into bankruptcy). I also think states have a reason to forcibly merge some small local governments if they end up providing substantial aid to them - for example, in the case of school districts. But I'd leave it at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 08:24 AM
 
15,782 posts, read 13,676,596 times
Reputation: 21706
Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
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.
Of course, because everyone is interested in herding into your community centers. And yes, there would be more homeless people do to the stupid amount of money required for living in an urban area, sounds just great, heck yea, I do not see why everyone is not running for the urban areas now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
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.
Yep, no agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
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.
And?

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
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.
Not even close, quite the opposite, rural areas are over respresented, while urban areas are under represented. In the small town where I grew up, about everyone was on a personal relaitonship with the mayor (who also got paid $1 a year, and was a house painter by profession), I doubt that exists in any urban environment. Also for the per person ratio of representing, from local all the way to federal, rural people have way mreo representation than those in urban environments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
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.
Of course you do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 08:28 AM
 
15,782 posts, read 13,676,596 times
Reputation: 21706
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
The problem is, however, just moving a poor jobless person from one area to another doesn't create any additional jobs. I mean, it would be one thing if they relocate to a metro with a good job market, but not that many have that now, particularly for lower-wage work. But adding more poor people to an urban labor market will if anything hurt the labor market, as it will mean more applicants, leading to downward wage pressure. Coupled with how, as I mentioned, being on public support doesn't net you any more money in an urban area, it's hard to see how this makes economic sense.

I do think a few things could/should be done. If the Post Office was allowed to close down little-used rural stations, it would hurry things along (and help stop the Post Office from sliding into bankruptcy). I also think states have a reason to forcibly merge some small local governments if they end up providing substantial aid to them - for example, in the case of school districts. But I'd leave it at that.
The USPS has financial issues not due to low cost post offices being open, but due to the huge funding above and beyond anyone else they must give to their pension fund, and they cannot just raise rates on a whim like the private sector can, and the standardized prices they must have instead of zone pricing.

Operating a post office is one of the lowest cost things they do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 09:04 AM
 
8,201 posts, read 6,170,447 times
Reputation: 11744
Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
I remember in one of my sociology classes seeing statistics that most of the poverty in America was actually in rural areas and small towns.

I just see allowing communities in rural areas as bad. To some extent, you have to some rural living for the farmers. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
So there it is. "Urban planners" aren't content with high density living for themselves - they need to herd others into it.
I recommend these "urban planners" and "new urbanists" go out into the rural areas and start knocking on some doors and "discouraging" the people from continuing to live there. Then I'll laugh and laugh when they get shot in the face.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,509 posts, read 12,034,908 times
Reputation: 10610
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
The USPS has financial issues not due to low cost post offices being open, but due to the huge funding above and beyond anyone else they must give to their pension fund, and they cannot just raise rates on a whim like the private sector can, and the standardized prices they must have instead of zone pricing.

Operating a post office is one of the lowest cost things they do.
I am well aware of the outrageous pension funding rules which they have to live under (much worse than any requirements in the private sector). However, the USPS is currently in a weird catch-22 according to federal law. They're simultaneously expected to not get any federal subsidies, and told to operate like a business, but every time they consider doing things which would actually save them money (such as reducing service to isolated rural areas which are money losing already) Congress bars them from doing so.

Regardless, the fact remains rural postal service is as it stands a direct subsidy to very underpopulated areas. I wish we'd recognize the postal service as a public good that should get direct government funding, but it's very unlikely to change for at least the next decade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,374,922 times
Reputation: 13779
One big problem with the OP's idea is that if it were implemented, it would also kill off agriculture in the US.
  • While agriculture employment has declined, it hasn't disappeared, and farmers and ranchers still need help planting, cultivating, and harvesting crops and tending livestock. Where do they get this labor if everybody who's not classified as a "farmer" or a "rancher" is forced to move out of the area?
  • Livestock raisers also need veterinarians, particularly large animal practitioners. These types of vets are already in short supply in most rural areas, and they would become even scarcer if they were forced to live 50-60 miles from their practices. They certainly wouldn't be able to help a lot in emergency situations. They would also become rarer because even fewer people would keep be able to keep riding horses, which are a major part of many large animal practitioners' practice. They would also suffer from a labor shortage as they would have no vet techs.
  • Farmers and ranchers also need towns with businesses and services where they can buy groceries, tractor parts, livestock feeds, mail a letter, send their kids to school, go to church if they're inclined, get prescriptions filled, get emergency medical care at an urgent care center, and even get a beer and listen to some music on a Saturday night. As these businesses and services disappear, more farmers and ranchers abandon their livelihoods for something else and move away. This has happened out on the Great Plains to a much greater extent than in the East, South or the Far West, but it happens there, too, especially in the areas that aren't within commuting distance of bigger places.
  • Finally, if everybody other than those designated as "farmers" or "ranchers" is forced to move to urban metros, what happens to the properties these people owned? Does the government take them over? Are they sold off to the very wealthy as private estates? Who pays the taxes and provides services like road maintenance, snow plowing, and 60 mile one-way school bus rides? How do farmers and ranches get electricity? Or propane? Or gasoline? Or even fire and/or emergency services? And at what cost?
A lot of these things are happening in parts of rural American already. As others have said, rural areas and small towns have been losing population for decades, probably beginning within a couple decades of the Civil War actually, although it became a flood in the 20th century. It's likely that the OP may get his/her wish before 2100 ... albeit without coercion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,144 posts, read 103,022,234 times
Reputation: 33186
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I am well aware of the outrageous pension funding rules which they have to live under (much worse than any requirements in the private sector). However, the USPS is currently in a weird catch-22 according to federal law. They're simultaneously expected to not get any federal subsidies, and told to operate like a business, but every time they consider doing things which would actually save them money (such as reducing service to isolated rural areas which are money losing already) Congress bars them from doing so.

Regardless, the fact remains rural postal service is as it stands a direct subsidy to very underpopulated areas. I wish we'd recognize the postal service as a public good that should get direct government funding, but it's very unlikely to change for at least the next decade.
IIRC, the last time reductions in service were proposed, it was the rural towns themselves that objected. Then the congressmen/women step in and tell them they can't do that.
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