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.
Well, what about large urban municipalities that have given away ridiculous tax breaks and incentives for jobs to move to their area, yet then hire a large % of suburban commuters? My suburban muni can't match the tax break that the large urban muni offers, though can't sustain really, and then you folks complain because you land the jobs and/or construction, yet suburban workers are needed.
The fact remains that urban cheerleaders would die if they had a world with no skyscrapers, yet skyscrapers for jobs cause problems when you don't have a similar sized building for housing. Then you look at all the "new" housing and developers have to promise so many units will be "lower income." There is too high of a % of lower income people who live like animals: Dirty, can't speak, always loud in their living-music, yelling, etc.. In fact, my guess is that if a certain % of the population wouldn't live like idiots, you wouldn't have had the white flight that happened over the decades. Go over to worldstarhiphop.com (NSFW) and see what happens on any given street in a lower income area: Fights, stabbings, vandalism...all caught on the almighty camera phone. WSHH is the reason folks don't want to live urban, because it usually means living in too close of proximity to the fools.
You've got it backwards, I'm afraid. Fuel subsidies and suburban bond issuance for infrastructure is what got the ball rolling on suburbanization. Without these two things, there would never have even been any of the subsidies for employer relocation you speak of, because people couldn't have left the city en masse in the first place. Employer relocation subsidies in cities are dwarfed by fuel and outlying infastructure subsidies that allowed people to migrate away from the center.
Over the last 50 years, undeveloped areas secure infrastructure for new development. The problem is that by the time these bonds are paid off, the initial infrastructure is already in bad need of repair. The density in these areas is such that the burden for repairing the infrastructure is too great. This is why you see 30-50 year old low density areas full of middle and working class residents with crumbling streets, sidewalks, etc, and property tax spikes to cover these issues (and inadequately as well). 90% of neighborhoods built out in the 60s and 70s have roads that probably look no better or even worse than middle class areas of higher density in the city.
The residents didn't bear the full cost of new development when they moved in, but they pay for it on the back end. In a sense, local governments subsidized the exodus of people from the central cities. The central city is also then stuck with repairing infrastructure with fewer people around to cover the cost. The physical problems you see in cities never would have happened if residents moving to outyling areas didn't get these services gifted to them to entice them to relocate in the first place.
EDIT: when I say fuel subsidies, what I'm referring to is not the fact that fuel is subsidized but rather that the full burden of road maintenance is not covered by gas taxes that would hit low density households harder. Infrastructure subsidies for suburbanites covers electric, phone, sewer, gas, sidewalks, schools, and the whole gamut of what had to built from scratch.
Last edited by Chicago76; 10-06-2011 at 04:27 PM..
You've got it backwards, I'm afraid. Fuel subsidies and suburban bond issuance for infrastructure is what got the ball rolling on suburbanization. Without these two things, there would never have even been any of the subsidies for employer relocation you speak of, because people couldn't have left the city en masse in the first place. Employer relocation subsidies in cities are dwarfed by fuel and outlying infastructure subsidies that allowed people to migrate away from the center.
Over the last 50 years, undeveloped areas secure infrastructure for new development. The problem is that by the time these bonds are paid off, the initial infrastructure is already in bad need of repair. The density in these areas is such that the burden for repairing the infrastructure is too great. This is why you see 30-50 year old low density areas full of middle and working class residents with crumbling streets, sidewalks, etc, and property tax spikes to cover these issues (and inadequately as well). 90% of neighborhoods built out in the 60s and 70s have roads that probably look no better or even worse than middle class areas of higher density in the city.
The residents didn't bear the full cost of new development when they moved in, but they pay for it on the back end. In a sense, local governments subsidized the exodus of people from the central cities. The central city is also then stuck with repairing infrastructure with fewer people around to cover the cost. The physical problems you see in cities never would have happened if residents moving to outyling areas didn't get these services gifted to them to entice them to relocate in the first place.
NA-UHHHHNNNN it's bacauz black ppl and minotries live is urbann areass and do bad things such as steal and such dats the only and only reason urban areas are soooo baddddd.
And for the trigger happy mods that infest these boards that was scarcaism.
Back to Topic. Well find out if Indianapolis needs mass transit during Super Bowl 46 here in the great city of Indianapolis! Febuary 5th, 2012 the Day that showed the world the emergence of a New World Class City.
Well first we don't have the major traffic congestion you see in Chicago/Washington D.C or Even Charlotte for that matter. When your Idling away gas 15-30 minutes a day instead of moving like here in Indy where traffic is on the move even during Rush Hour. that does make a huge difference. Idling in the streets is nothing more than throwing money out the window.
If Indianapolis had the millions of people commuting into the city on a daily basis, I bet traffic would just sit for a while as well.
But here are a few things I find interesting:
"The interchange at I-465, I-69 and Binford Boulevard is one of the most frequently traveled in central Indiana. More than 150,000 vehicles travel in this area every day. During the peak evening travel period, every segment in the project area operates at a level of service (LOS) of D or E. (LOS is the level at which a roadway allows the flow of vehicles and is rated by grades. A represents the least amount of congestion and F represents the most. LOS D is the lowest accepted level for an urban environment.) If nothing is done, six of the seven segments will operate at LOS F by the year 2031.
The primary purpose of the project is to reduce expected traffic congestion and enhance mobility in the area by utilizing safe, efficient and cost-effective design elements. In addition, this project complements many plans of other local municipalities - including the City of Carmel, Town of Fishers and the Indianapolis Department of Public Works - to improve and expand local roads that cross over and under I-465 and I-69...
Within the project limits on I-465, the annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts range from 142,915 to 150,640. On I-69 from I-465 to 96th Street, the AADT ranges from 152,195 to 173,495."
The busiest stretch of interstate in Indy runs at the lowest acceptable level every rush hour. And guess what? There is no way to avoid it, other than to move to an area where you don't have to contend with any interstate traffic.
When people who bought bigger homes, because they could afford to throw the extra money that way, further from the city have to pay $4, $5, and eventually $6 a gallon, what are people going to give up?
The big house they enjoy and love, or the inevitable headache that is the morning commute with the outlandish price to fill up a tank?
indianapolis is not a world class city. that term gets handed out like candy. im from minneapolis and many call this city world class. minneapolis is far from that label. why does indianapolis need rail? i also wonder about salt lake city.
To conclude, white flight did not occur because of bad language dirty city folk. In many instances the neighborhoods individuals left are coveted as urban gems today.
I find this highly questionable. In my experience, many of these "urban gems" you speak of are still mostly habited by white people, albeit not necessarily white people with families.
The notion that urban dwellers are subsidizing the suburbs is dubious as well. Roughly 50 percent of U.S. wage earners don't pay income taxes. Of those who do, where do they largely reside? Yep, the suburbs. And because folks in the suburbs generally have higher incomes, they generally spend more, which means more in sales taxes and fuel taxes. Higher assessed values generally means more paid in property taxes. So, who's really subsidizing whom?
A better argument is that the low-density sprawl development of the past few decades will eventually lead to some harsh costs to replace/maintain the infrastructure built around that development. Carmel's mayor has spoken a lot about this, and that's driving a lot of the development decisions made in that community now.
I find this highly questionable. In my experience, many of these "urban gems" you speak of are still mostly habited by white people, albeit not necessarily white people with families.
The notion that urban dwellers are subsidizing the suburbs is dubious as well. Roughly 50 percent of U.S. wage earners don't pay income taxes. Of those who do, where do they largely reside? Yep, the suburbs. And because folks in the suburbs generally have higher incomes, they generally spend more, which means more in sales taxes and fuel taxes. Higher assessed values generally means more paid in property taxes. So, who's really subsidizing whom?
A better argument is that the low-density sprawl development of the past few decades will eventually lead to some harsh costs to replace/maintain the infrastructure built around that development. Carmel's mayor has spoken a lot about this, and that's driving a lot of the development decisions made in that community now.
As urban cores become more affluent, they are in fact subsidizing the suburban dweller. Additionally even individuals that do not pay income tax or pay a low percentage subsidize the suburbs. This premise is built on the fact that most costs incurred by building in untouched areas is not fully born by the individual moving there. One must remember that a previous stretch of farmland that is developed for suburban usage needs road expansion, complete road build outs, sewage, electricity, and services (police, school, fire). A great deal of these costs are eventually pushed to the state level and every tax payer (consumer) pays for this in one way or another. When I lived in Maryland, I know I subsidized new developments in Howard, Frederick, and Anne Arundel counties. Additionally as you outlined as these infrastructure improvements age replacement becomes prohibitively expensive for both the urban development and suburbs. Why? A general weakening of the tax base as individuals are spread over greater distances.
DC as wealthy as it is, still suffers from sewers that were placed during the presidency of Lincoln. It’s funny that while the population of DC city proper has begun to recover it is still nearly half of what it was during the fifties. Half the population equals reduced tax base and less ability to deal with infrastructure. You can look at countless other examples around the country where this is the case. Pittsburgh (which has deplorable infrastructure currently), St. Louis, and the list goes on. MY point here is why do we allow individuals to make decisions that affect the collective well being of our country? Why pour money at developing anew at tax payer expense while older infrastructure improvements whither? This situation affects all of us, from the condition of our interstate system, public bridges, sewage, and on to the failure of our electricity grid. For the past sixty years we as a nation have built without attention to what was previously built. And voila, what do we get? A nation at a critical point of infrastructure collapse. And again, I’m not attempting to dictate any ones actions here. I am merely stating that if you want to build a house on a previous stretch of farmland, then the costs associated with said development should be born by you. Let the free market truly dictate individual decisions. With a purely free market system mass transit could become profitable again, and guess what, you may get private companies willing to enter said market. Our cities would be healthier (more dynamic), and we as a people would be healthier, as we get individuals out of their cars onto the street walking again (as opposed to driving two blocks to the local fast food joint, and then another two to a super market).
Oh and to conclude, these urban gems that you criticized me for, were white owned originally. The fact that they are becoming white owned once again is kind of like a circle correct? These properties have returned from whence they came. I never argued that gentrification within most cities was anything other than white. However despite such, redevelopment is a good thing. Previously underutilized properties (or abandoned in some instances) are once again proudly owned, retail is returning, and we again are becoming a walking nation (albeit at small steps).
As urban cores become more affluent, they are in fact subsidizing the suburban dweller. Additionally even individuals that do not pay income tax or pay a low percentage subsidize the suburbs. This premise is built on the fact that most costs incurred by building in untouched areas is not fully born by the individual moving there. One must remember that a previous stretch of farmland that is developed for suburban usage needs road expansion, complete road build outs, sewage, electricity, and services (police, school, fire). A great deal of these costs are eventually pushed to the state level and every tax payer (consumer) pays for this in one way or another.
By that rationale, suburban dwellers also subsidize the low-income dwellers in the urban areas.
But I must challenge your statement that a great deal of the costs get pushed to the state. That would certainly be true of state roads, but most roads in these areas are still local roads for which local governments must pay for expansion/repair. Sewers and schools are local issues as well, generally speaking.
I will say that the impact fees charged to dwellers in this area, and I suspect other areas -- which are, of course, passed on to buyers -- are way too low and not reflective of the infrastructure cost required to support new development. I'm all for raising those. Will that push people back into the cities and/or promote greater density? Maybe/maybe not. I think it might prompt more to consider exisiting housing stock or maybe smaller homes/lots.
The notion that urban dwellers are subsidizing the suburbs is dubious as well. Roughly 50 percent of U.S. wage earners don't pay income taxes. Of those who do, where do they largely reside? Yep, the suburbs. And because folks in the suburbs generally have higher incomes, they generally spend more, which means more in sales taxes and fuel taxes. Higher assessed values generally means more paid in property taxes. So, who's really subsidizing whom?
In addition to what WDC said, the argument shouldn't be income in suburbs subsidizing poor in the city. Moving to the suburbs didn't make suburbanites relatively wealthy. They moved to the suburbs because of that wealth.
Instead look at identical households making the same money:
One lives in a neighborhood with a density of 2-4 homes per acre with two kids that go to school X. Mom and Dad drive on highways 40 minutes downtown to work that are paid for out of state and federal funds. They drive 10 minutes to large stores with large parking lots to do most of their shopping. They enjoy low property taxes because the infrastructure to their neighborhoods was built 5 years ago via bonds. 75% of their leisure time is spent in their local area, but 25% is spent somewhere in the city supporting restaurants, public spaces, shopping, and at regional attractions.
The other family lives in a neighborhood with a density of 12-15 homes per acre in the central city and their kids go to the Center for Inquiry. They drive, walk, bicycle, or take public transit 5 minutes to work. They normally walk to do their shopping or take shorter drives. They have higher property taxes (even though their home is worth the same amount as the suburban couple) as they need to support city amenities that are enjoyed by city dweller and suburbanite alike. They spend almost 100% of their leisure time in the city.
But I must challenge your statement that a great deal of the costs get pushed to the state. That would certainly be true of state roads, but most roads in these areas are still local roads for which local governments must pay for expansion/repair. Sewers and schools are local issues as well, generally speaking.
I will say that the impact fees charged to dwellers in this area, and I suspect other areas -- which are, of course, passed on to buyers -- are way too low and not reflective of the infrastructure cost required to support new development. I'm all for raising those. Will that push people back into the cities and/or promote greater density? Maybe/maybe not. I think it might prompt more to consider exisiting housing stock or maybe smaller homes/lots.
They don't necessarily get pushed to the state, but the wealthy who desired these amenities generally don't ever bear the full cost because they're already off to the next low cost thing by the time the infrastructure must be replaced:
1-New developments cater to the wealthy to middle class in outlying areas. This population moves out to new schools, roads, sewers, etc paying property taxes that don't reflect the true cost of borrowing to build and to maintain these items in the future. From the 1950s to 70s, these would be the townships.
2-20 years down the road, the infrastructure is degraded to the point where property taxes creep up, the level of service or bang for buck is questioned, and people move to the next big thing (Center Grove, HSE, Carmel, Brownsburg, Avon, etc.) from the late 70s to today. In the townships, school costs per student are higher thanks to lower student enrollment, older buildings now in need of repair, etc. Often these are families who aren't as well off as their predecessors, which typically means that kids really need more attention to maintain similar school outcomes.
3-You'll see another wave if people can't manage these costs when repairs come up in the current "hot areas". We're already seeing it to some extent with places like Whiteland blowing up.
The pattern suggests that a well-off household can always move on to the next big thing before they ever bear the cost of the development their wealth encouraged in the first place. That's the pattern of subsidization in a nutshell.
If impact fees where adjusted accordingly 40 years ago, this pattern wouldn't have been as aggressive. The problem now is that adjusting these fees isn't enough, because it doesn't cover the damage done to the places where outmigration occured that was driven as a result of these policies since the 60s.
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.
