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 04-29-2014, 08:58 PM
Status: "What's 100 minus 48 plus 5?" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Posting from my space yacht.
8,034 posts, read 3,150,925 times
Reputation: 14510

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
You don't get it. You advocated forcing people to move off their land, land that may have been in their families for a couple hundred years or more, for some social engineering goal, and that's what people are objecting to. You never did answer my question up thread about what happens to people's homes and land when they're forced off. Is the government going to buy up Chautauqua County and make it a park or is it going to be auctioned off to people who have to prove they had enough money to support their rural life styles? What happens to the little cities and big small towns like Jamestown (pop 30k), Dunkirk (pop 10k) and Fredonia (pop 10k)? Will they be allowed to continue to exist for a while?
Well if they live in Nevada Harry Reid can have one of his sons sell it to the Chinese to build solar power plants on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2014, 09:31 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,827,437 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
No ;but as Clinton points out instead of 80% of government funding going to urban areas with 20% of poverty we should change the politics of poverty funding.
Subsidize something, you get more of it. Goes for poverty just like anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Planet Earth
2,782 posts, read 2,441,061 times
Reputation: 4982
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. Then again, here in CA many of the wealthy farmers now have second homes in more urban and more desirable settings. The others left behind in the farming communities like the field workers live in areas with high crime and poverty. These communities are then gullible for Wal-Mart, prisons, and other institutions to come in just to get the jobs. 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. What happens if we decide we can get field work done without field workers or a drought happens? With the push for sustainable farming, more people are getting pushed out of a job in rural America. Then you have many factories that closed due to greedy corporations and & hungry consumers outsourcing jobs of the USA. Not to mention, it costs more to get resources out to the rural areas. I remember stories of a lady who lost her job and had no car to get to the city and lived in a trailer out in the country and was forced to walk a long distance to a job at Burger King. How does that even exist in America???

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.

I have lived in suburban part of a major city, a rural town, and have visited urban centers of many downtowns.

Living in the rural town was the worse. Except for my town, the region was mostly middle and working class people. The town people were not used to anything other than Caucasian similar minded people. The area slowly started going downhill and now it's rapidly going downhill. There are empty shopping centers, rising crime rates, and deteriorating roads. Cities are asking for tax sales increases and water is now a problem. 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. 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.

Anyways, enough of my rant. My kids are going are not going to live in the same rural experience I lived in.

What gives you the right to tell people how to live?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,419 posts, read 11,923,391 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Taxes are higher in the city to pay for public employee pensions, social service programs, and because the local government is addicted to spending money.

As far as fire and social services, such are local in nature - not typically federal. You won't find much in the way of "social services" in the rural areas to begin with. Your argument here isn't consistent. The lack of such services was one of your excuses for rationalizing the herding of people into cities. With respect to fire, you'll find that rural areas tend to have volunteer fire departments and the residents pay taxes to support such services.

The "city" isn't subsidizing the services provided in the rural areas. Frankly, I doubt you are contributing much to any "subsidy" whether it's in the city or elsewhere.
Urban areas, do still have concentrated disproportionate poverty, but the majority of poor are in the suburbs. Cities also have highly concentrated wealth, particularly wealth generated by employers, since most cities have disproportionately more jobs than employed residents. As a result, the majority of cities are not tax sinks, at least on the federal level. On some local issues, like public education, it may be a different case however.

Really though, we should not generalize about urban or rural areas. For example, rural Vermont is relatively wealthy. Rural North Dakota (even pre oil boom) was not incredibly wealthy, but had high educational attainment and some of the best health outcomes in the country. Rural Kentucky is a mess on just about every social metric imaginable. There are successful and struggling rural areas, just as there are successful and struggling cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meyerland View Post
There isn't enough room in the cities to "relocate" all the country people.
Actually not true. IIRC, if everyone in the U.S. lived in one city the population density of Brooklyn, they could all fit in a land area the size of New Hampshire, and leave the rest of the U.S. as wild land.

I wouldn't advocate for this personally, but given according to the census less than 1/5th of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, there's plenty of room for them in the cities and suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 08:07 AM
 
12,705 posts, read 9,970,523 times
Reputation: 9515
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. Then again, here in CA many of the wealthy farmers now have second homes in more urban and more desirable settings. The others left behind in the farming communities like the field workers live in areas with high crime and poverty. These communities are then gullible for Wal-Mart, prisons, and other institutions to come in just to get the jobs. 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. What happens if we decide we can get field work done without field workers or a drought happens? With the push for sustainable farming, more people are getting pushed out of a job in rural America. Then you have many factories that closed due to greedy corporations and & hungry consumers outsourcing jobs of the USA. Not to mention, it costs more to get resources out to the rural areas. I remember stories of a lady who lost her job and had no car to get to the city and lived in a trailer out in the country and was forced to walk a long distance to a job at Burger King. How does that even exist in America???

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.

I have lived in suburban part of a major city, a rural town, and have visited urban centers of many downtowns.

Living in the rural town was the worse. Except for my town, the region was mostly middle and working class people. The town people were not used to anything other than Caucasian similar minded people. The area slowly started going downhill and now it's rapidly going downhill. There are empty shopping centers, rising crime rates, and deteriorating roads. Cities are asking for tax sales increases and water is now a problem. 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. 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.

Anyways, enough of my rant. My kids are going are not going to live in the same rural experience I lived in.
Well, I can see making people pay fully for the distribution costs (goods, services, and utilities) associated with their location decisions, but an outright ban is a breach of our freedoms the Founding Fathers would frown upon from their graves!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 09:25 AM
 
6,461 posts, read 6,480,001 times
Reputation: 9799
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Urban areas, do still have concentrated disproportionate poverty, but the majority of poor are in the suburbs. Cities also have highly concentrated wealth, particularly wealth generated by employers, since most cities have disproportionately more jobs than employed residents. As a result, the majority of cities are not tax sinks, at least on the federal level. On some local issues, like public education, it may be a different case however.

Really though, we should not generalize about urban or rural areas. For example, rural Vermont is relatively wealthy. Rural North Dakota (even pre oil boom) was not incredibly wealthy, but had high educational attainment and some of the best health outcomes in the country. Rural Kentucky is a mess on just about every social metric imaginable. There are successful and struggling rural areas, just as there are successful and struggling cities.



Actually not true. IIRC, if everyone in the U.S. lived in one city the population density of Brooklyn, they could all fit in a land area the size of New Hampshire, and leave the rest of the U.S. as wild land.

I wouldn't advocate for this personally, but given according to the census less than 1/5th of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, there's plenty of room for them in the cities and suburbs.
Yes, physically it's possible to squeeze people inside one place. But economically it's not. Can you imagine the cost of living and the price of real estate there? I guess if the government built soviet era style high rises and gave each person an apartment and paid for food, electricity, transportation, etc... It is possible in theory. But, where would the food come from? Where would industry like chemical plants exist?

I'm imagining some type of ghetto like the ones the Jews were forced into during WWII. People on top of people with very poor living conditions.

I think they tried these mass subsidized urban estates in the UK, and they are very unpopular.

Last edited by Meyerland; 04-30-2014 at 09:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 09:38 AM
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
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Not in California. It drives Cal Fire nuts since there's so many new houses in fire risk areas.
I talked a guy (18 years old) who said growing up in a rural area in the foothills of the southern Sierra (near Sequoia National Park) was great. My response: "you live in a tinderbox".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,419 posts, read 11,923,391 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meyerland View Post
Yes, physically it's possible to squeeze people inside one place. But economically it's not. Can you imagine the cost of living and the price of real estate there? I guess if the government built soviet era style high rises and gave each person an apartment and paid for food, electricity, transportation, etc... It is possible in theory. But, where would the food come from? Where would industry like chemical plants exist?

I'm imagining some type of ghetto like the ones the Jews were forced into during WWII. People on top of people with very poor living conditions.
Brooklyn is dense, but it's not Manhattan. The densest neighborhoods look like this and the least dense look like this. Basically it varies from mid-rise to outright suburban. The majority of the land area is taken up by some form of attached or semi-attached single-family housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 09:41 AM
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
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meyerland View Post
Yes, physically it's possible to squeeze people inside one place. But economically it's not. Can you imagine the cost of living and the price of real estate there? I guess if the government built soviet era style high rises and gave each person an apartment and paid for food, electricity, transportation, etc... It is possible in theory. But, where would the food come from? Where would industry like chemical plants exist?
Most people live in metropolitan areas that import their food. It doesn't matter whether all the residents are packed in a high density area of high rise or spread out in large lot detached homes, food is still coming from outside and the residents still consume electricity and need transportation. Something like 2% of Americans are involved in jobs producing food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 09:47 AM
 
6,461 posts, read 6,480,001 times
Reputation: 9799
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Most people live in metropolitan areas that import their food. It doesn't matter whether all the residents are packed in a high density area of high rise or spread out in large lot detached homes, food is still coming from outside and the residents still consume electricity and need transportation.
If you relocate all the farmers and workers, where would you get food from? People are needed to work farms. No machines take care of everything. Harvesting, planting, and tending crops is hard work.

I guess if the cost of food increased enough, then the farm workers would make enough to not be forced into the cities according to the OP. He is talking about relocating poor people and creating a more urban society. We could also rely more on imported food from other countries.

I understand very well how the people in cities get food, as I live in a large city. I also understand rural living as I grew up in a rural part of Texas.
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