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 12-28-2014, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Not sure where you get this information. I would LOVE to see supporting documentation as every study I've ever seen shows that the suburbs generally operate a huge losses and are heavily subsidized by the core cities.
And I would love to see your documentation.

I'm completely unaware of it, generally, happening anywhere. Minneapolis/Twin Cities is one example where the suburbs directly subsidize the cities, otherwise it's just not really happening in most of the country.

The usual we're subsidizing suburbs stuff is basically people pissing over federal subsidies. And it's true. "Suburban" road subsidies do far outweigh "urban" transit subsidies. Of course, if you look at it by usage then the federal subsidies to transit are 40 times higher than the subsidies to roads. FHA loans mostly go to suburbs. Of course most people also live in the suburbs. FHA allocates only 15% of its budget to multi-family properties while about 23% of people live in multi-family properties (21% renters, 2% condo owners).

State level really depends. When California killed off Redevelopment, Redevelopment agencies were raking in 12% of property taxes in the entire state. That money was being backfilled by general fund dollars, most of which came from the suburbs since most people live in suburbs. Bay Area is 7 million, 1.2 million in Oakland and San Francisco. Greater Los Angeles is 18 million, less than 4 million in Los Angeles (which most people call mostly suburban anyway). Now, Redevelopment certainly existed in the suburbs too but was heavily biased in urban areas. Again, that's not really the suburbs subsidizing cities, however. That's the state subsidizing cities. Schools are probably the biggest. Most states directly fund schools at the state level through various schemes that generally subsidize poor areas. Insofar as the old "inner-city/white middle-class suburb" model still exists, that's certainly a case of the tax revenue of suburbs subsidizing cities. It's still true to an extent but growing less so. But again, that's really the state's money. In most places actual local money is pretty limited these days. Generally the state gets all the money and then lets local governments have some of it back if they dance to the strings.

Last edited by Malloric; 12-28-2014 at 09:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2014, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,418,221 times
Reputation: 3483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post

The usual we're subsidizing suburbs stuff is basically people pissing over federal subsidies. And it's true. "Suburban" road subsidies do far outweigh "urban" transit subsidies.
Suburban road subsidies benefit people in the city, as well.

Many folks in the city go regularly to the suburbs to shop or to work, the city government needs the roads so that businesses in the city have a way to bring their workforce from their homes to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
4,243 posts, read 2,084,896 times
Reputation: 2654
This post has a sensationalist title that doesn't accurately represent your message. Did you plan it that way?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 10:10 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
The examples in the OP's vox link refer to places (downtowns of San Francisco, Seattle and Philadelphia) where plenty of people do walk and don't need a car to get around. There is also good transit to the area from the rest of the city and from the suburbs; downtown freeways aren't as necessary and the downsides larger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
4,243 posts, read 2,084,896 times
Reputation: 2654
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelizard860 View Post
No I meant tearing them down is a horrible idea. How are people supposed to get into/out of the city. You'd completely gridlock every city doing that and make transportation of goods a nightmare. AWFUL idea.
We are a car based society. These nuts that are proposing stuff like this are ANTI-AUTOMOBILE. Period.
ANTI-AUTOMOBILE? OMG! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The idea is to reroute traffic elsewhere, not through the urban core. There are many ways to deal with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 10:15 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,490 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelizard860 View Post
No I meant tearing them down is a horrible idea. How are people supposed to get into/out of the city. You'd completely gridlock every city doing that and make transportation of goods a nightmare. AWFUL idea.
We are a car based society. These nuts that are proposing stuff like this are ANTI-AUTOMOBILE. Period.
Actually - not anti-automobile at all. I'm absolutely opposed to auto dependency. Same way I enjoy an occasional beer but abhor alcoholism.

Also remember, this auto-depedency is a relatively recent affliction - for millennia cities functioned fine without being auto-based and cities all over the world function just fine without being being auto-dependent.

What was done can be undone. And remember, the first step in combating any dependency issues is admitting that you have a problem.

Keep fighting the good fight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
Suburban road subsidies benefit people in the city, as well.

Many folks in the city go regularly to the suburbs to shop or to work, the city government needs the roads so that businesses in the city have a way to bring their workforce from their homes to work.
Sure. Urban transit subsidies often benefit people in the suburbs as well. Primary beneficiary, however, is someone that lives there. San Francisco has gotten $947 million for the Central Subway light rail extension from the federal government.

STIP (the bucket where 44% of gasoline taxes go) is required by state law to spend 15% of its money on intercity (non-commuter) rail. 20% of Prop 1B ($20 billion bond) money was earmarked for public transportation spending. That's rather high since even in the Bay Area only 10% of trips to work are made via transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 10:17 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,490 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by AguaDulce View Post
This post has a sensationalist title that doesn't accurately represent your message. Did you plan it that way?
Uh, it's the title of the article I posted. So, I beg to differ with your assessment there Columbo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by AguaDulce View Post
ANTI-AUTOMOBILE? OMG! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The idea is to reroute traffic elsewhere, not through the urban core. There are many ways to deal with it.
Which is fine. Unfortunately cities in this country don't house their daytime population. They're reliant on people coming from the surrounding area to populate their offices. Shunting off the people that aren't GOING to the urban core would make sense. That's kind of the idea with ring freeways. But when the highways were being constructed, cities advocated for the urban freeways. They used the federal money because they wanted easy highway access to the core. If they now want to disrupt the national highway system because they flip-flopped on wanting the freeway to provide easy access to the urban core, they'll need to pay for the replacement cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 10:23 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Which is fine. Unfortunately cities in this country don't house their daytime population. They're reliant on people coming from the surrounding area to populate their offices.
Yes, but the people don't need to drive to get to their offices. If I could magically plan Boston I wouldn't have built most of the downtown expressway, expand the ring expressway, and improve the rail system (make the commuter rail system through running, improve frequencies to at or near rapid transit levels so the inner suburbs would have a system a bit BART-like in frequency).
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