Places in MS where you don't need a car? (Jackson: real estate, 2015)

[emily24601]

Hi. Among the many reasons why I want to move to Mississippi when I'm older, one is because it's one of the cheapest states in the U.S., and living cheaply is one of my priorities for after high school. And in my ideal frugality, I'd like to alleviate the necessity of owning a car. So, is there any city or area in MS where I could get by solely by walking, public transit, biking, etc.? Thanks in advance.♡

[agradywills]

I'd say smack dab in the middle of the MS delta (alluvial plain actually). Just stand beside the road and wait for the horse drawn wagon. They come by every few hours or so.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by emily24601

Hi. Among the many reasons why I want to move to Mississippi when I'm older, one is because it's one of the cheapest states in the U.S., and living cheaply is one of my priorities for after high school. And in my ideal frugality, I'd like to alleviate the necessity of owning a car. So, is there any city or area in MS where I could get by solely by walking, public transit, biking, etc.? Thanks in advance.♡

No, Emily.

Mississippi is a poor state but that's only a relative term. We work just as hard as the people in your state do. We make less and the cost of living is less, but we still need cars and need to work.

Sometimes that works for us, and sometimes it works against us. For instance, when I drove a truck I made as much as people in your state do; but it went further.
On the other hand, if I worked at a factory in Mississippi I would make less than the national average, but my house would cost less. So it all comes out the same.

Public transportation is Mississippi is so poor that it is almost non-existent.

If 24601 is your zip code, your area is not a lot different from Mississippi. If you chose 24601 because it was Jean Valjean's prison number, you have an intellect that would be wasted by not furthering your education.

[An Einnseanair]

Expenditures on such socialist luxuries as public transportation are frowned upon in extreme conservative states like Mississippi. All good conservatives are supposed to support the capitalist system by spending money on a new car every two years and buying lots of gas that was pumped and refined in 'Merica.

In this state, if you can afford it, you get a car. Period.

That said, there are rudimentary public transporation systems in Jackson (JATA) and along the coast (CTA). I do not believe Memphis's bus system (MATA) extends down into Southhaven.

But those are the most expensive parts of the state in which to live.

There are a few towns that are "bike-friendly", but that term may be subjective. The fact that Jackson had a press day this summer to reveal a single new bike rack shows a movement in the right direction, but it's kinda sad.

[brickpatio]

I wondered about Europe and why exactly they are able to have all those trains. When exploring European cities on google maps, I was struck at how dense they are.

With some exceptions, most people live in high-rise apartment buildings (roughly 10 stories) built in recent decades, and you can drive for miles and see block after block after block of modern apartment high-rises and street-level stores.

I wouldn't call it charming except in the historic city centers. However, some cities looked nice to me even in the modern parts, such as Madrid as an example, with nice-looking buildings, streets, parks, etc.

I mention Madrid because I heard somewhere that Madrid has the best train system in the world. I can see why it would work, because a single apartment building on a quarter-acre lot probably has at least 100 apartments, or say 250 residents...compared to a single residence in the US, on a quarter-acre with two or three people.

That would translate to 1,000 people per acre in a Madrid versus 10 people per acre in American cities. Obviously that's the reason why can't have trains by and large in the US. By comparison European cities have 100 times as many people per acre, which means they can put a train stop every few blocks and have plenty of people to be able to walk to the train and use it.

The other question I had is why our cities have hardly any high-rise apartments. I think it may be because members of Congress, specifically Democrats, are probably bought and paid for by Real Estate industry and the Banking industry, which are invested in building single family homes with home mortgages, and therefore Congress allows a huge tax deduction for mortgages (for single family homes) but allows no such tax deduction for those who are renting an apartment.

Why else would Democrats in Congress discriminate against renters in favor of homeowners?

The other problem that prevents dense housing in the US is that middle class families who need public schools are forced to move to the furthest-out location in the metro area in order to access a relatively safe (free) government school. Consequently, moving downtown (into a high rise apartment) isn't viable for these middle class families.

So liberals who complain about America's "sprawl" and lack of trains and other public transit should look in the mirror.

Their liberal policies (no scholarships for children to the private school of their choice, which would enable a family to live anywhere they want including downtown...and no tax deduction for renters, instead only tax deductions for people with a single family home) are the main cause of people being forced to continuously move further and further out into single family homes in safer government school districts on the farthest edges of the sprawl.

My prescriptions:
- Tax deduction for renters, equal to or better than the tax deduction for home mortgages, thereby incentivizing people to live in apartments
- Scholarships for all children, to the private or parochial school of their choice, allowing middle class families to move back into the city, including downtown
- With these two interventions, millions of Americans will begin moving back downtown into luxury high-rise apartments, thereby allowing us to build European-style train systems (see Madrid), parks, walkable retail areas and all the other amenities that make European cities so beautiful compared to American cities.

Why are liberal politicians so insistent on causing all this urban sprawl?

- They are presumably bought and paid for by government worker unions, i.e. in the government-owned schools, which would lose income (union dues) if more children attended private rather than government schools. And fewer union dues means less money donated to liberal politicians. And therefore liberal politicians must do whatever it takes to lock children into government owned schools, no matter how dangerous they are and no matter how illiterate children are were forced to attend these schools.

- Secondly, liberal (Democrat) politicians do not support tax cuts ever, which means they don't support tax deductions for renters. They do support continuing the special tax deductions for home mortgages, only because the Banking Industry and Real Estate industries donate millions to liberal politicians to keep those special tax favors (for mortgages) in place.

Liberal politicians are causing all this sprawl by making it too unattractive cost-wise to live in an apartment and too unattractive to live downtown because they insist on handcuffing middle class families to government-schools only.

If we want thriving, beautiful downtowns and cool train systems (like Madrid or say Copenhagen), all we have to do is equalize tax deductions (for renters, as currently with homeowners with mortgages) and let kids go to any school of their choice, including private and parochial....and thus... middle and upper middle class Americans will abandon those depressing subdivisions out in the hideous suburban sprawl ... in favor of gorgeous, well-policed, green, thriving downtown areas.

Bottom line: Solve sprawl with:
- Tax deductions for renters
- Scholarships (aka vouchers) to any private or public school

Plus:
- Use new tax revenues from all the new downtown residents to create excellent police forces to protect downtowns
- Cool train systems and other transit to transport all the new downtown residents
- Incredible park systems for all the new downtowners

And voila...no more sprawl...

[FLW1938]

It would be difficult without a car, but I have lived in Hernando for 42 years & even though many of the younger, "well to do" folks are moving in it is still good for us old timers. We have a mayor that is always pushing for more bike trails & walking parks as well as parks.
Car tags are high for new cars but my car is a 2001 & I pay $32.00 @ year for tags. Homestead exemption is a good plus.
A modest home with Homestead Exemption amounts to almost zero in taxes.

I am well satisfied here, even though I have lived in several states before I moved her.

[golden eagles fan]

@brickpatio: let me get this straight...all the suburban sprawl, which are largely conservative, was caused by liberals? I don't get your logic, but I'll agree to disagree.

[Phil75230]

Start building the suburbs more densely - target density of at least 10,000/sq mile. Good news: we don't need to gobble up non-developed land - simply start rezoning the older suburban areas (where housing quality is already starting to decline) into denser mixed use area. That will be at least be a core around which later higher-density development can take place - eventually leading to an area with much less need for a car. Of course all that is at least two generations away, if it happens at all. But hey, less probable things have happened.

[brickpatio]

Yes, I do think the main reason that US cities are so much less dense than other places is because Congress rewards homes over apartments (due to tax deduction for mortgage interest payments on home loans but offering no such deduction for renters)...and... forces middle class families to continuously move the furthest edges of metro areas for safe schools (due to government requiring children to attend schools based on the neighborhood they live in, rather than selecting any school they choose, anywhere in the city).

I take your point that maybe it's not only Democrat politicans that support these rules on mortgage tax deductions and the government school monopoly, but also some Republicans.

Yes, my understanding is there is some constituency of Republicans who oppose school choice for children, particularly in wealthy states with lots of wealthy suburbs with highly rated schools (which the residents don't want to change once they have moved in). But most opponents, probably 90%, of choice in education are Democrat politicians.

And regarding the mortgage tax deduction for homes (but not for renters), I would also imagine there is a Republican politician constituency that would oppose tax deductions for renters (as homeowners already get), but when it comes to tax cuts 90% of the time the opponents are the Democrat politicians.

I'm sure there are plenty of individual politicians in both parties who receive major donations from the homebuilder lobby and would oppose tax deductions for renters. However, it's rare for Republicans to want to go on record as opposing tax cuts for the middle class; that is Democrat politicians who block tax cuts almost all the time.

You could probably also argue that the American sprawl phenomenon is triggered by America's wealth, i.e. wealthy people want big houses with big yards, not apartments, especially if they have children. I'm sure that's definitely true.

However, I would bet that if renters received the same big tax deductions as homeowners, overnight there would be a huge flip in the affordability of renting, with renters suddenly being able to afford much more luxurious apartments than before (due to the effect of tax cuts). That's apparently true in Germany where many wealthy people live in apartments, but the apartments also tend to be very high-end due to Germany's tax structure.

And if you added to that that renters could not only now live in luxurious aparments (that were previously unaffordable), but also they could live anywhere in the city and their child receive a scholarship to any private or parochial school in the city...I would bet that overnight wealthy people would be moving rapidly back into cities and living in luxuriant apartments, with their children attending top private schools on scholarship (i.e. vouchers), thereby creating the charming, vibrant walkable neighborhoods that everyone desires.

[FLW1938]

In my town I would think that anyone that could afford rent could buy & come out better. Of course you then add insurance & upkeep The street I am on is in the older, more modest part of town. Out of 11 house we now have 4 rentals, two owned by the same guy owns many houses around town. He doesn't keep them up well,so they change hands often.
I do think the rental house are part of the decline in housing worth, yet people pay $1,000.00 @ month rent. When I was making payments on my house I was paying about 1/3 of that.
Most newer houses, last 10 years, are in the $200K to 250K & above, so I suspect folks like me could not pay for that much house. Still to rent one of those is about $1,400 @ month.
I think the tax breaks for home owners in Mississippi is an incentive to own your own.