The Rise of the New Baltimoreans (unemployed, casino, taxi)

[Infinite_heights77]

Interesting article I found. Tell me what you think?

The Rise of the New Baltimoreans

By Nancy Scola

Part three of the three-part series, “Emerging Innovations from the Front Lines of Urban Development”, explores how cities are developing innovative models for tackling complex urban issues and strengthening their local economies. This series is produced in partnership with Next American City.

Baltimore has steadily lost population since the end of World War II. With 620,000 residents, the city has just two residents for every three it had at its peak in the 1950s. The decline has recently begun to slow, but that isn’t enough for the city’s sitting mayor, Democrat Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Since day one, the former city council president has been made it her goal to halt the city’s contraction. A city that loses its tax base is unable to secure the funding required to provide services and maintain its infrastructure, she argued in her 2011 inaugural address. “A shrinking city is a place unable to meet even the most basic needs of its people — basic rights that everyone should expect,” she said. “A shrinking city simply cannot stand.”

[choccity]

If something is not done soon, Baltimore will be the Detroit on the east coast. Taxing it's residents to death is not going to solve the problem, are we waiting on casino money?

[mrboltonman]

I don't think it's the solution to having Baltimore grow.

Reduce the property tax rate and remove the projects then you will see the population grow.

[MrRational]

The only advantage to increasing the population is that it provides greater statistical coverage
(and tax funds) for the portion of the citizenry who are not willing/able to pay their own way.

otoh, consciously reducing the total population, by that group in particular, would be a double benefit:
make space for job holding tax payers and reduce the need for taxes to pay for the others.

[KodeBlue]

Originally Posted by MrRational

The only advantage to increasing the population is that it provides greater statistical coverage
(and tax funds) for the portion of the citizenry who are not willing/able to pay their own way.

otoh, consciously reducing the total population, by that group in particular, would be a double benefit:
make space for job holding tax payers and reduce the need for taxes to pay for the others.

Exactly!!

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by KodeBlue

Exactly!!

This has always been my interest when people say the City is losing population.. I aways think to myself.. WHO is leaving the City? If its people who are unemployed seeking a better life.. God Bless them.. but its not necessarily a bad thing for the City if they are offset by younger tax paying citizens who demand less services, buy/rent property, engage in civic activities, and/or eat out and patronize city businesses. Baltimore population can decline to 500k if this is what is occurring. The other side of that arguement is the City is still 'staffed up' as if it has 800k plus residents.. which is one reason why the tax burden is so high. Now, I am not saying fire everyone working for the City.. but we need to take a hard look at the City's Bureaucracy and see what we have.. do we really need Sanitiation Worker I, Sanitation Worker II, Sanitation Worker III and a Supervisor and similiar classifications all the way up to Management or do we need to have a Sanitation Worker and pay them a respectable wage based on a performance expectation of X that doesnt include gambling at the yard.. Of course I am picking on Sanitation Workers in this example but this would be for all levels of City Staff....

[Mahatma X]

Originally Posted by MrRational

The only advantage to increasing the population is that it provides greater statistical coverage
(and tax funds) for the portion of the citizenry who are not willing/able to pay their own way.

otoh, consciously reducing the total population, by that group in particular, would be a double benefit:
make space for job holding tax payers and reduce the need for taxes to pay for the others.

This is just ignorant. If people in this city really think this way I can understand why IndefineHeightz77 posts the stuff he posts.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by Mahatma X

This is just ignorant.

You think? It seems like very basic math from here.

I'll grant the hyperbole of "only advantage" is a bit leading...
but surely you're bright enough to see past that sort of forum rhetoric.

In any case... perhaps you can help us all by identifying any substantial benefits beyond more
income and property tax resources and lower consumption of services that I mentioned?

[jonjj]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

Interesting article I found. Tell me what you think?

The Rise of the New Baltimoreans

By Nancy Scola

Part three of the three-part series, “Emerging Innovations from the Front Lines of Urban Development”, explores how cities are developing innovative models for tackling complex urban issues and strengthening their local economies. This series is produced in partnership with Next American City.

Baltimore has steadily lost population since the end of World War II. With 620,000 residents, the city has just two residents for every three it had at its peak in the 1950s. The decline has recently begun to slow, but that isn’t enough for the city’s sitting mayor, Democrat Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Since day one, the former city council president has been made it her goal to halt the city’s contraction. A city that loses its tax base is unable to secure the funding required to provide services and maintain its infrastructure, she argued in her 2011 inaugural address. “A shrinking city is a place unable to meet even the most basic needs of its people — basic rights that everyone should expect,” she said. “A shrinking city simply cannot stand.”

Let's not forget that the last census showed a slight increase in population. Perhaps a trend or not. The future will tell.

[cdmoore125]

Originally Posted by jonjj

Let's not forget that the last census showed a slight increase in population. Perhaps a trend or not. The future will tell.

Wasn't it actually interim estimates and not the official, every decade census, which was last performed in 2010? I thought the last census showed a continued loss?