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.
I think I could tolerate Madison winters more than Austin summers. Also, I could probably tolerate Madison summers, when most of the college kids head home, but the old retiree types with their PRIUSes and Subarus are still in town, shopping at Whole Foods.
It's a disgrace to compare clean Midwestern college towns with the cesspool that is Berkeley, California.
Ann Arbor is shiny clean compared to Berkeley!
When I'm reading my George Will columns and listening to REO Speedwagon, I'm thinking ... I need a Ferd truck.
Sigh, stuff happens in Madison and Evanston in the summer. Champaign, Illinois: free parking! bring yer dogs.
That's the irony. The most liberal cities in America are the most expensive. Go figure.
I think that may be due to:
1.The abundance of cultural and social amenities. While many conservative towns like to tout themselves as being "family-oriented", the flipside of that is that the nightlife and other socializing opportunities (outside of church, synagogue, etc.) are often lacking. A good number of people - even those with kids, like the idea of living in or very near to a bustling city where there are multiple options of things to do.
2. The density and/or restrictions of housing. Most older progressive cities - Boston, NY and Philly, for example - were built naturally dense for walkability. As other cities become more popular, townhomes and condos fill in the gap for demand of convenient housing. San Diego might be a relatively conservative anomaly to this particular theory.
3. Ease of commuting. This kind of goes hand in hand with #2. While those daily commuters priced out into the 'burbs may still have a reason to complain (I am sometimes one of them), those who are able to afford a larger progressive city enjoy the convenience of getting from point A to point B, whether by foot or by transit. While the (stereo)typical American still prefers to get behind the wheel, there are a growing amount of people who would just as soon minimize if not even eliminate their driving. Another California city, Los Angeles, would be an exception to this "rule" as well.
4.Civic Innovation. While this could go on anywhere, it seems to me that larger progressive cities are quicker to act on ways to retain or grow their population base. Or else you'll end up with a place like Cincinnati, a conservative city with a lot of potential whose government has been dragging its feet on projects to draw people. Meanwhile, Cincy's loss is Northern Kentucky's gain as they position themselves as their successful projects have helped position them as the "liberal" alternative to the city across the river. It costs money to make money.
Sure, it's become more popular for many people to desire a move to a conservative if not also smaller city. However, I believe there are tradeoffs.
This city should have the least amount of oppressive laws
Sorry...but I couldn't help but comment.
This is a huge oxymoron. You are essentially equating liberalism with those favoring the Democratic Party or such. Yet, political experts - on both sides of the spectrum - would agree that liberals / Democrats, etc., are those favoring "big government" [eg: higher taxes, more spending, more legislation/laws, etc.]. Transversely, conservatives (those favoring the Republican or Libertarian parties) typically favor much smaller government, less legislation/laws, lower taxes, etc.
For instance, while President Bush has been a loathed figure to liberals since Day 1 of his presidency, the reason he generally gets criticized by conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians is that he is too big government / big spending by far for a traditional conservative. Similarly, the reason largely that conservatives were not ademently behind GOPers in the 2006 midterms was because they felt they had been betrayed in that their GOP elected officials had strayed from core conservative principles - eg: smaller government / less spending / less taxes.
So whether you are looking for a more liberal city, etc., that is your taste and preference, and surely that is your perogative. However, at least be aware that if you are looking for "less oppresive laws" that goes in the face directly of what liberalism stands for - for better or worse.
(Another example: Libertarians are the most conservative group of folks out there in general politically, and if they had there way, an enormous amout of laws and legislation would be thrown out the window).
It really isn't that complicated as to why liberal cities tend to be by far the most expensive in the U.S. It is simple economics, whether folks wish to acknowledge it or not.
Liberals are the group that push for higher government spending/programs, higher and more taxes to fund those programs, government subsidies and economic regulations into industries that ensure those programs are not driven lower economically by standard practices of supply and demand in a free market, etc.
Ane example - I am not saying whether that is right or wrong - that is up to the individual and is what it is. However, people just need to realize that the more government programs, spending, etc., means the more expensive it will be to live in because that "government spending" is really your spending. Maybe you like that - you want superb libraries, services, government programs, etc. That is your perogative. However, those economics are what drives prices.
Universal (socialized) healthcare is a big push-button topic amongst liberal presidential candidates currently. The appeal to emotion "doesn't every person, child, etc., deserve healthcare?" is made. The high costs of healthcare currently are brought up. However, what is ignored is that of course, in our economic climate, if a federal healthcare system would be implemented, healthcare costs would rise significantly. Sure, maybe on the "healthcare end" of it, one might pay less, but on the initial funding end (eg: taxes) of course they would rise dramatically...the government doesn't have money; any government money is yours, mine, and everyone else's money.
Again, I am not arguing pro / con, etc., I am sure some folks feel strongly that indeed, just for this example, universal (socialized) healthcare would be a great thing. The only thing folks need to realize is that in such programs, the price tag is large.
Another example of reasons for high prices with liberal initiatives is again in accordance to healthcare, but in this instance a current healthcare situation. Sen. Hilary Clinton pushed hard on the east coast for legislation that made it almost impossible in some states for private insurers to deny healthcare to applicants. Liberals in general loved this, ensuring that "anyone who wanted healthcare would not be denied." However...healthcare costs in these states then as a result skyrocketed. Since private insurers were not able to deny healthcare coverage to even high risk applicants, they had to then spread the costs over the whole pool - eg: huge premiums, etc. - to make up for the astronomic costs they were going to incur.
Folks...any time legislation for government programs or spending is instituted...whether it be federally, on a state-level, or locally...expenses to live in the affected area rise. It is just simple economics.
So it isn't really that confusing to know why the San Frans, the Bostons, heck - the east coast, etc., of the world are so pricey. When you take a big dose of government programs / spending, add a huge spike of not letting the free market dictate prices, costs just go through the roof.
Again...not arguing against liberalism / conservatism or vice/versa, however, just explaining why liberal cities tend to be the pricey ones.
"It really isn't that complicated as to why liberal cities tend to be by far the most expensive in the U.S. It is simple economics, whether folks wish to acknowledge it or not."
This should be good...
"iberals are the group that push for higher government spending/programs, higher and more taxes to fund those programs, government subsidies and economic regulations into industries that ensure those programs are not driven lower economically>>"
Sorry. It's actually a reflection of supply and demand. San Francisco has great weather, great culture, a highly educated populace, HIGH wages b/c of the highly educated populace and VERY LIMITED space. Same with Boston, new York, etc. The more people and less space, the more expensive it is. These cities are liberal b/c cultural meccas draw people with more liberal attitudes. It has nothing to do with government policy driving prices. Good old free market. Houston/Dallas are cheap b/c no one wants to pay a premium to live in hot flat place where there is plenty of space.
What about Traverse City, MI or Ann Arbor, MI. I've never been to Ann Arbor, but hear it's pretty liberal. Michigan is a "blue state", with a very low cost of living, thanks in part to the poor economy. Petoskey, MI is really neat too. You got to love snow though to live up here in the upper midwest.
Well, if you're going to live in the Midwest I'd say Chicago would be your best bet. It's really a beautiful "all around" city but you have to be able to cope with a few months of cold/wind. Still...I passionately love Chicago.
Michigan-Depends on where you live! For the most part it's moderate, slightly leaning conservative. Economy is not doing that well and there has been considerable decline in the "automobile industry" that the state's known for.
However, it's home to many people, so god bless them.
You guys have very interesting insight and I see where you're coming from as to why "liberal communities" tend to be so expensive. When I'm talking about "liberal" I'm talking more about the leftist "social end" as opposed to the political/economic end.
Example: A community that's ethnically diverse and doesn't promote "hate" against gays/lesbians, pro-choice advocates, minorities as scapegoat for social/economic problems, war, increasing/funding more prisons, taking away funds from education, sexual oppression and the means by which it is expressed, censorship of Art, literature and books and not going mad with applying biblical scripture as a threat to instill political/social change...etc.,
My social views tend to lean more liberal but I do identify with Republicans on several issues. Would I consider myself moderate? NO. I'm passionately liberal about certain matters and side with republicans on others. I'm NOT for a bigger government and increasing taxes that are going to be used for war and destruction. In essence, I believe that we as Americans are all entitled to have a quality life and we must work with each other in order to rid our nations of suffering.
Liberal cities..Too me a "liberal city" is one that reflects such values and promotes free expression, tolerance, job security, affordable housing, health care for all, quality education. This is not a city that would cater these benefits to only liberals but to EVERYONE. It's been very hard to find a liberal city in the (21st century)...San Francisco is nothing like it used to be back in the 1960's-1970's. Venice Beach, CA is nothing like it used to be.
I like to look at how a city treats its population, the poor, low income, homeless, young people, elderly and how local laws affect the community.
Republicans and Liberals actually see eye to eye on many things. The real difference is between those that are conservative and those that are far left.
I'd like a community that's far left w/ a share of moderate republicans.
That would be a good liberal city.
Wouldn't it be shocking if Austin was it? Portland seems that way but it appears more like a white suburb of the middle class. I wonder why people see Madison and Austin as liberal cities? I described liberal above and really not sure if these cities have that, or do they?
Jake- Good post. I wish our community hasn't changed so much. But yes, Cali draws people because of superb weather, ethnic diversity, tolerance, beach community, hunger for education, people from all walks of life and yes, you can still get Chinese food at a local joint for $3-4 instead of being stranded in a suburban mall complex with one restaurant in site....forcing you to SPEND$$$ It's the VARIETY and the feel that is hard to put in to words...
California is no longer what it was in the 1960's which is a real shame. It has changed immensely but the state is still moderately balanced and there are RESOURCES that come with any big city. If you have disposable income and money is not an issue than you can live anywhere but that's not the case with most people. If Cali wasn't so expensive I would never leave. It's like taking Chicago and NY and eliminating the cold weather.
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.
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.
), those who are able to afford a larger progressive city enjoy the convenience of getting from point A to point B, whether by foot or by transit. While the (stereo)typical American still prefers to get behind the wheel, there are a growing amount of people who would just as soon minimize if not even eliminate their driving. Another California city, Los Angeles, would be an exception to this "rule" as well.
Why liberal cities are the most expensive
