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 05-14-2015, 09:16 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Except that, when more money is kept in the local economy, more people are better off. And, in the same places that we saw lower spending on transportation--suggesting less vehicle use--we saw lower foreclosure rates. Where we saw the highest spending on transportation, the suburbs, we saw the highest foreclosure rates. So it is very much more resilient from the individual's perspective.
Is the level or quality of home ownership the same in both scenarios? Lower foreclosure rate would not be surprising when home ownership drops and owners in one environment are mere renters in another. I wouldn't equate condo "unit" ownership with home ownership.

Also the "local economy" argument is a bit silly given you don't consider the "suburbs" to be local. Apparently it's okay to spend the money at the shop if it's "downtown" but not in whatever you are defining a "suburb" to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
How, exactly, does promoting moderately higher densities and lower car dependency (and thus lower transportation costs) equal higher priced living? If anything, I'm promoting the opposite, cheaper living.
I think you are just promoting that they spend money (and more of it) on something other than their car or their own home. Maybe they prefer having their own space instead of the "convenience" and "shared space" of buses, transit, and trains running on someone else's schedule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
How does higher densities, given unchanged property and sales taxation rates, equal promoting higher taxes? I've not actually promoted higher taxes, just having more residents and consumers in a smaller area, thereby promoting, per acre, higher business sales, higher tax intakes, and lower cost per capita per acre of providing services.
I suspect you end up with higher costs and then higher taxes. Look at any of the areas you refer to. Sounds more like a "place to visit" than a place to live. I'm sure others would enjoy living there - for a while any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
And if the government is well funded by having better tax receipts per acre, and thus able to keep services operating at full instead of at reduced rates, how is that not promoting a high QoL? Aren't libraries open every day, infrastructure in good repair, and fully staffed police forces are good things for QoL?
Well if you are from the camp that believes government will take care of you then perhaps your position is consistent with that logic. There is plenty of evidence around the country that when money does come in it tends to get spent on the current regime erecting monuments to itself, perhaps more infrastructure - not repairing infrastructure, and police forces that have turned into military forces against the citizens of the area. If it was all that easy then why is it that these higher density cities today have an image of higher crime and problematic police forces compared to the less dense suburbs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Before I ask my next question, we have to establish that you used "consumerism" like it was a bad thing, like it isn't the basis for most of our economy. Now, how does promoting keeping more money in the local economy (by doing two things, shifting spending from transportation to retail consumption, and by sending less money out of the local area) a bad thing?
Yes I used the term in the "bad" sense. Purchasing goods and services is not inherently a bad thing. Preoccupation with acquisition and consumption of goods/services solely to acquire/consume is not a meritorious objective. Plenty of religions recognize greed and gluttony as "bad things" and have done so for centuries. You don't have to be religious to recognize consumption for the sake of consumption is not a good thing. It might be "great for taxes" for local government but increased taxes for local government is not exactly on the top ten list of most of the citizenry.

You and the "sustainable" crowd promote density. The "sustainable"/smart growth crowd claims density means "more sustainable". You claim higher consumerism. It would seem the objectives are incompatible yet you both promote the same means (higher density) for achieving your respective objectives. Hmm.

Maybe you can point to an actual example of a city with the density attributes you promote so that a comparison of other attributes may be made with those of another area for which the population is not as dense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2015, 08:36 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
I suspect you end up with higher costs and then higher taxes. Look at any of the areas you refer to. Sounds more like a "place to visit" than a place to live. I'm sure others would enjoy living there - for a while any way.

[snip]

If it was all that easy then why is it that these higher density cities today have an image of higher crime and problematic police forces compared to the less dense suburbs?
Correlation does not equal causation. Higher density areas tend to be older and in particular regions of the country, with long-term costs that have spiraled upwards, much of it with little to do with density. Police issues problems have occurred in cities and less dense suburbs [for example, both Baltimore and Ferguson*]. Not all suburbs have low taxes. The less dense parts of the NYC metro don't really have lower taxes or lower costs, for example.

Last edited by nei; 05-15-2015 at 11:30 AM.. Reason: unneeded
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2015, 10:09 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
...
Look, as you're not going to counter-argue, as you're only going to argue against positions you find more convenient rather than what I've actually said, as you're going to put words in my mouth, I'm not going to present a point-by-point response. Obviously, you believe, incorrectly, I'm some elitist, anti-suburban, anti-home ownership urban snob. Clearly, you don't care what I've explicitly stated as my position, so, clearly, no counter-argument from me would ever get us to see eye-to-eye on this.

This is only to show that, yes, I read what you had to say, considered it on its merits, and found that no counter-argument would ever matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2015, 10:20 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Like those other posters from "way back", you don't seem to get it. Real research, as opposed to some of the junk that passes for research on this forum, IS very specific.
Not to be snobby, but I posted a link to meta research by AZ academics of 200 articles vs. your link to one article. Meta research is useful because, as we both know from our respective fields, individual studies have limits which may or may not be obvious or have an obvious effect on the outcome. It is very rude to suggest that I don't "get it," that I don't understand what "real research" is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2015, 11:22 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Correlation does not equal causation. Higher density areas tend to be older and in particular regions of the country, with long-term costs that have spiraled upwards, much of it with little to do with density. Police issues problems have occurred in cities and less dense suburbs [for example, both Baltimore and Ferguson*]. Not all suburbs have low taxes. The less dense parts of the NYC metro don't really have lower taxes or lower costs, for example.
Now you want to get defensive about correlation vs causation. Did I use these in my post? Do you intend to prop these areas up as exemplary models of higher density to be emulated by others? If so expect the negative attributes to be identified. What is this, pre-emptive defense?

Regarding the police issue - point is having "more money" for police is not inherently good when the police are bad. Indeed it often is the source of systemic corruption. You've glossed over fundamental issues with presumptions that aren't shared.

In response to your claim that the "less dense parts of the NYC metro don't really have lower taxes or lower costs, for example", I rebut with the following: The "less dense parts" of "NYC metro" don't pay "New York City" taxes for starters. Next?

Last edited by nei; 05-15-2015 at 11:29 AM.. Reason: off topic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2015, 11:33 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Look, as you're not going to counter-argue, as you're only going to argue against positions you find more convenient rather than what I've actually said, as you're going to put words in my mouth, I'm not going to present a point-by-point response. Obviously, you believe, incorrectly, I'm some elitist, anti-suburban, anti-home ownership urban snob. Clearly, you don't care what I've explicitly stated as my position, so, clearly, no counter-argument from me would ever get us to see eye-to-eye on this.

This is only to show that, yes, I read what you had to say, considered it on its merits, and found that no counter-argument would ever matter.
Counter-argue against what? You support your arguments with warm, fuzzy perceived societal goods.

Have you shown that the indicated result actually occurs or is the continued pursuit of the non-existent utopia? I can't "counter-argue" when your "argument" [paraphrased] is "density leads to good things".

The immediate questions are "Good things for who?" and "Where is this shown to be true?" and "says who?". I asked for example areas - I did not "pick" on any specific geographic area or location. Surely you can't be offended when someone disagrees with your general premise that "higher density is good". I'm not disagreeing with your statement that you are a supporter of higher density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2015, 11:33 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Now you want to get defensive about correlation vs causation. Did I use these in my post?
Yes. Sounds like causation here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
I suspect you end up with higher costs and then higher taxes. Look at any of the areas you refer to. Sounds more like a "place to visit" than a place to live. I'm sure others would enjoy living there - for a while any way.
Another part might have been

Quote:
Do you intend to prop these areas up as exemplary models of higher density to be emulated by others? If so expect the negative attributes to be identified. What is this, pre-emptive defense?
No, at least not in this conversation. I'm not interested in going there.

Quote:
Regarding the police issue - point is having "more money" for police is not inherently good when the police are bad. Indeed it often is the source of systemic corruption. You've glossed over fundamental issues with presumptions that aren't shared.
I glossed it over because I'm not addressing that point.

Quote:
In response to your claim that the "less dense parts of the NYC metro don't really have lower taxes or lower costs, for example", I rebut with the following: The "less dense parts" of "NYC metro" don't pay "New York City" taxes for starters. Next?
Of course they don't pay New York City taxes, but they pay other taxes to the county and town they are in. Which is sometimes high. I don't get the point of your rebuttal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2015, 11:38 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Not to be snobby, but I posted a link to meta research by AZ academics of 200 articles vs. your link to one article. Meta research is useful because, as we both know from our respective fields, individual studies have limits which may or may not be obvious or have an obvious effect on the outcome. It is very rude to suggest that I don't "get it," that I don't understand what "real research" is.
I apologize for saying that.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-15-2015 at 12:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 08:00 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Of course they don't pay New York City taxes, but they pay other taxes — to the county and town they are in. Which is sometimes high. I don't get the point of your rebuttal.
The point of the rebuttal was pretty simple.
You stated: "The less dense parts of the NYC metro don't really have lower taxes or lower costs, for example."

New York City income tax: ~ 3% - 3.87%
Yonkers also imposes an income tax. Any other "county" or "town" in New York impose an income tax?

New York City sales tax: 8 7/8 (this includes the state sales tax). This is the highest sales tax in the state.
http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/publications/sales/pub718.pdf

Any other taxes you want to add to the discussion?

Your groceries, housing, utilities, health care, and transportation costs are all higher in NYC than most places in the country and even throughout the rest of the state. Despite all the taxes paid, they are not sufficient to support this very costly "dense living" environment. The taxes/fares collected for MTA are not sufficient to support MTA. MTA is looking for more subsidies from NYC.

A better financial future is not in the cards any time soon. New York City's debt has exploded the last several years. More debt also means higher cost of further borrowing. Yet NYC is trying to borrow even more money. The city will likely have to increase its already high taxes further in order to service existing debt and its insatiable appetite for more debt in forthcoming years.

NYC is routinely the vaunted idol for density proponents. Yet density proponents wholly ignore the costs and "liability" side of the equation. It is not a place others need to emulate.

Last edited by nei; 05-16-2015 at 08:02 AM.. Reason: off topic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 08:21 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The point of the rebuttal was pretty simple.
You stated: "The less dense parts of the NYC metro don't really have lower taxes or lower costs, for example."
I should have just said lower taxes.

Quote:
New York City income tax: ~ 3% - 3.87%
Yonkers also imposes an income tax. Any other "county" or "town" in New York impose an income tax?

New York City sales tax: 8 7/8 (this includes the state sales tax). This is the highest sales tax in the state.
http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/publications/sales/pub718.pdf

Any other taxes you want to add to the discussion?
Property taxes. Property taxes for homes are higher in the surrounding suburbs than the city. A similar house just outside the city may have nearly double the property. Sales Tax on Long Island near NYC is 8.625%, 0.25% lower than New York City, minor difference.

Quote:
A better financial future is not in the cards any time soon. New York City's debt has exploded the last several years. More debt also means higher cost of further borrowing. Yet NYC is trying to borrow even more money. The city will likely have to increase its already high taxes further in order to service existing debt and its insatiable appetite for more debt in forthcoming years.
And is it worse than its less dense neighbors? Neighboring Nassau has had budget troubles enough the state has taken over its finances. New York City isn't as bad. Another county, Suffolk, has had problem as well:

On Tuesday, Suffolk County, one of the largest counties outside New York City, projected a $530 million deficit over a three-year period and declared a financial emergency. Its Long Island neighbor, Nassau County, is already so troubled that a state oversight board seized control of its finances last year.

Quote:
NYC is routinely the vaunted idol for density proponents. Yet density proponents wholly ignore the costs and "liability" side of the equation. It is not a place others need to emulate.
However, it is unclear how much of the extra costs, if any, are caused by density rather than unrelated factors.
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
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