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.
Minnesota certainly has fewer dinosaur-denyers and Santorum voters. That can't hurt. To which demographics do you refer?
As to STL amenities:
The big one is that in the Twin Cities, you can get by very nicely without a car if you live in MPLS, St. Paul, the inner ring, or a few of the more distant burbs connected by the outlying trails. This is a reflection of much stronger regional cooperation (as opposed to balkanized fiefdoms) in planning and zoning and transit, which extends to pedestrial infrastructure. The result is greater business and residential density, a more even distribution of shopping/necessities (little if any TIF abuse) even at the neighborhood level, and in general more time for the people to build social capital, less time sitting in traffic. I think this has a big impact on the health and well-being of the region, and I think the social interactions facilitated by this kind of planning make the business climate better. The whole region is oriented toward pedestrians and cyclists - you need to be there to experience it, but everyone rides bikes - which results in much more humane building practices and much greater use of natural amenities - for example, Minnehaha Creek is treated as a centerpiece, unlike River Des Peres, which is almost willfully gross. This all comes back to having a strong sense of the public good - that what is good for the many ought to be top priority. Similarly, schools aren't a delicate landmine scenario. The districts are big, inclusive, and well financed, and practically obliterate any benefit that one might achieve by sending their kids to private school. This means there is relatively even housing prices and relatively strong school options in most parts of the metro, so choosing where to live is driven more by neighborhood preferences than schools.
I don't want to diss on STL because that isn't the intent - but I want to present an accurate view of the differences. After six months of exploring neighborhoods, we never found one in STL or its suburbs that felt as cohesive, well-maintained, dense, filled with functional businesses, navigable, safe, family-oriented, and funky as typical twin cities neighborhoods. There are pockets here and there, and the Tower Grove zone, as well as the Delmar loop, come pretty close to the vibe that is common up there. But it isn't widespread. Even Kirkwood and Webster, as nice as they are, felt relatively shabby. If you took St. Charles Frontier Park, Tower Grove neighborhood, U-City Loop, Creve Coeur Lake, Kirkwood schools, and Clayton/mid U-City/Kwood housing would all need to converge and repeat 5-10 times for STL to have a similar dynamic vibe to what is common in the Twin Cities. You commented about houses being painted in KWood, but as an outsider, the homes and the infrastructure - including streets and sidewalks - felt shabby by comparison.
I think another big difference is the sheer number of colleges in the metro. There are many student districts, and that constant churn of young people keeps the culture fresh and changing, and it creates such a huge number of opportunities for people of all ages to experience great culture literally blocks from their homes, and often free, as much of it is associated with the many colleges and universities. There is always a lot to do, cheaply, and within walking distance of home, even in winter. The presence of these universities also means a lot of dynamic young people spend their formative years in the cities, stay there, and keep building them. As a result, the population is very well educated and generally gets the idea of civics.
I could keep going on - a lot of these things are "intangibles" but they create a distinctly different lifestyle than what seems to be the norm here. But again, there is generous tax funding and/or civic investment in all of the above, and overall, that culture does make a huge difference. It may not be easy to explain, but go there for a few months and you'll understand.
We've kind of drifted off-topic to a more general city versus city comparison, when my specific question is what amenities I lack here due to Missouri's lower taxes. I've not really heard much in specifics to answer the question, other than bike trails and mass transit, primarily just general comments on how much you like the TC and you attribute that I guess to the higher taxes. And, to be fair, I've heard great things about the twin cities. In fact, the only bad thing I've heard about the twin cities is weather related. But I happen to really like STL and feel like I have everything I need here. I don't feel I'm lacking any amenities at all. And if Kirkwood and Webster are too shabby for you, you must have very high standards indeed.
But taxes are also higher in Illinois, another progressive "blue" state with which I'm much more familiar than Minnesota. I love Chicago, but Chicago and the entire state of Illinois have a lot of issues. I see no amenity that Illinois would offer me for the higher taxes than I currently have in Missouri. What advantages does Minnesota offer over Illinois? Or put another way, what has Minnesota done right compared to Illinois?
And while I would likely concede that the Twin Cities mass transit is more accessible for more people than what we have in STL, it sounds like it only reaches about 30% of the jobs in the Twin Cities, so there must be a lot of folks still in their cars, especially in winter:
There is essentially nothing that you'd really lack in St. Louis (or in my case, Sioux Falls, SD) despite paying less in taxes compared to the high Minnesota taxes, assuming you are employed in a private sector job. The big difference is that there is a lot more welfare and government bureaucracy in Minnesota than in Missouri. That's what your tax dollars are paying for. They will come back and say "well, but we spend so much more on government services than you do so they must be much better than yours." Not necessarily- you can massively overpay for government services just like you can for everything else. You don't get much of a return on flushing money down the toilet in giving it to buddies of the lawmakers for pet projects, to the welfare dependency class to ensure they remain comfortably seated on the couch watching Days of Our Lives instead of working, and in inflated salary and benefits to lazy union government employees. High tax states are taking it on the chin financially as the productive citizens and businesses leave to lower-tax states, so the dependency class and elitists in the high-tax states try to "level the playing field" by trying to get the low-tax states to jack up taxes rather than give up their free stuff and power. That's about the only explanation I can come up with for why folks in states like MN and WI seem to keep coming onto our boards and lecturing us on how Missouri sucks because it has lower taxes.
Well, since you HAVEN'T responded to my prior posts I will try again. If Missouri has such low taxes and such a great workforce than why has the state continued to lose more jobs as a total percentage over the last 10 years than most of its neighboring states, excluding Illinois? Why hasn't more initiative been taken by the big university city in the state, Columbia, to create a great business startup environment to grow local businesses considering the talented and skilled workforce that it has available? Why hasn't the state invested anything at all in the more rural northern 1/3 and southern 1/3 of the state for the past several decades? Pretty inexcusable overall given the current level of poverty in most of those rural counties compared to just about all of the Midwest core and northward. What has Jefferson City done to stem the huge losses of jobs from Kansas City, MO over to Johnson County, KS- a trend that has only accelerated and gotten much worse. These are just a few points you need to respond to minus the typical talking points that I can address later.
We've kind of drifted off-topic to a more general city versus city comparison, when my specific question is what amenities I lack here due to Missouri's lower taxes. I've not really heard much in specifics to answer the question, other than bike trails and mass transit, primarily just general comments on how much you like the TC and you attribute that I guess to the higher taxes. And, to be fair, I've heard great things about the twin cities. In fact, the only bad thing I've heard about the twin cities is weather related. But I happen to really like STL and feel like I have everything I need here. I don't feel I'm lacking any amenities at all. And if Kirkwood and Webster are too shabby for you, you must have very high standards indeed.
But taxes are also higher in Illinois, another progressive "blue" state with which I'm much more familiar than Minnesota. I love Chicago, but Chicago and the entire state of Illinois have a lot of issues. I see no amenity that Illinois would offer me for the higher taxes than I currently have in Missouri. What advantages does Minnesota offer over Illinois? Or put another way, what has Minnesota done right compared to Illinois?
The Twin Cities have a strong and stable economy with many large and small corporations and companies. Like nearly every single large metro county in the US, Hennepin county lost jobs in perentage terms between 2000-2010. However, its economy has recovered from the Great Recession in much better shape compared to the rest of the Midwest. The Minnesota unemployment rate is around 5.5% which is quite a good number compared to other unrelated rural states with low unemployment rates that tend to have a larger extractive energy sector. The major item that differentiates Minnesota compared to Illinois is the overal cohesiveness in the planning of its largest cities and how they flow together with the suburbs. The Twin Cities metropolitan counties tend to work well together and educational attainment and mediian household income is above average across the board with only a few exceptions. Minnesota has also done a much better job at retaining jobs at the state level compared to Illinois. Minnesota spends more on education than most states so you are getting a populace that is educated above average compared to most states in the country, and with a large quantity of jobs and businesses in the Twin Cities that translates to higher paying jobs. This is basically the biggest overall difference when you compare the Twin Cities to St. Louis or Kansas City. The Twin Cities are a much more dynamic metro area with the best overall economy in the Midwest in terms of median household income as well as overall educational attainment. The populace is healthier and it has a good future to advance as a metro area because it has invested in its human capital.
Well, since you HAVEN'T responded to my prior posts I will try again. If Missouri has such low taxes and such a great workforce than why has the state continued to lose more jobs as a total percentage over the last 10 years than most of its neighboring states, excluding Illinois? Why hasn't more initiative been taken by the big university city in the state, Columbia, to create a great business startup environment to grow local businesses considering the talented and skilled workforce that it has available? Why hasn't the state invested anything at all in the more rural northern 1/3 and southern 1/3 of the state for the past several decades? Pretty inexcusable overall given the current level of poverty in most of those rural counties compared to just about all of the Midwest core and northward. What has Jefferson City done to stem the huge losses of jobs from Kansas City, MO over to Johnson County, KS- a trend that has only accelerated and gotten much worse. These are just a few points you need to respond to minus the typical talking points that I can address later.
"• Sixty-five of Minnesota's 87 counties are losing residents to other places, including such once robust but now aging population growth centers as Dakota and Anoka counties. Almost all of the counties are getting some new blood through immigration, though that is fully offsetting losses in only three of those counties"
^That's the concentration of land in rural areas for ya. States will, as a result, increasingly be judged by their cities.
My point in describing the Twin Cities is not to compare cities but rather to illustrate qualitatively that complaints about high taxes are completely off base in a well run region like the TC, as the higher taxes also translate to much better amenities and standard of living. Missouri can have nice things, too, but it takes public will to get there. Unfortunately, the rural Republicans seem content to let the poverty of the Ozarks fester, and to blame the poverty in STL and KC on the moral shortcomings of blacks rather than actually doing something about it. In the process we get methland in the sticks and urban blight crackland in the cities. That is inexcusable. We have an obligation to be the change we want to see in the world, and that means actively working to alter the current state of things to a more desired state. This extends to everything. But we do a poor job in Missouri. And our obsession with revenue neutrality, balanced budgets, low taxes, and cutting spending all work in opposition of the kind of civic investment this state needs to make if it wants to avoid being another Alabama. That is a fact.
^That's the concentration of land in rural areas for ya. States will, as a result, increasingly be judged by their cities.
My point in describing the Twin Cities is not to compare cities but rather to illustrate qualitatively that complaints about high taxes are completely off base in a well run region like the TC, as the higher taxes also translate to much better amenities and standard of living. Missouri can have nice things, too, but it takes public will to get there. Unfortunately, the rural Republicans seem content to let the poverty of the Ozarks fester, and to blame the poverty in STL and KC on the moral shortcomings of blacks rather than actually doing something about it. In the process we get methland in the sticks and urban blight crackland in the cities. That is inexcusable. We have an obligation to be the change we want to see in the world, and that means actively working to alter the current state of things to a more desired state. This extends to everything. But we do a poor job in Missouri. And our obsession with revenue neutrality, balanced budgets, low taxes, and cutting spending all work in opposition of the kind of civic investment this state needs to make if it wants to avoid being another Alabama. That is a fact.
True but Granitestater likes to paint rural Missouri as uniquely struggling when pretty much all rural areas are losing population and lack job growth unless they happen to be part of an energy boom or some rather unique circumstance.
Of course, nationally we've got 8.5 million fewer people in the workforce than we had in January 2009. So there has not been much job growth nationally. In fact the opposite.
It sounds though like the TC's is doing great compared to a lot of midwestern cities. I don't believe there are any amenities there that I don't have here, but I'm lucky perhaps with my career situation and the relatively low cost of living here compared to many other metros and ease of living (20 minute commute), great school district, access to quality healthcare, arts, museums, great zoo, it all makes St. Louis very attractive for me. Now perhaps if I was a new graduate looking for a job it would not be such a good place. And my kids don't lack for anything here than they would have there.
I'm not sure you've proven your point when there are so many other midwestern cities in "progressive", high tax states struggling as much, and in some cases more, than St. Louis or Kansas City? You know, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinatti, MIilwaukee, the south side of Chicago? And why are a lot of low tax states like Texas thriving?
Well, since you HAVEN'T responded to my prior posts I will try again. If Missouri has such low taxes and such a great workforce than why has the state continued to lose more jobs as a total percentage over the last 10 years than most of its neighboring states, excluding Illinois? Why hasn't more initiative been taken by the big university city in the state, Columbia, to create a great business startup environment to grow local businesses considering the talented and skilled workforce that it has available? Why hasn't the state invested anything at all in the more rural northern 1/3 and southern 1/3 of the state for the past several decades? Pretty inexcusable overall given the current level of poverty in most of those rural counties compared to just about all of the Midwest core and northward. What has Jefferson City done to stem the huge losses of jobs from Kansas City, MO over to Johnson County, KS- a trend that has only accelerated and gotten much worse. These are just a few points you need to respond to minus the typical talking points that I can address later.
Columbia is a college town full of folks with the "the government can just give us money from other people, we don't need any evil money grubbing businesses" mindset. Starting actual viable businesses isn't really something they care much about. They want their boutiques and such on Broadway, that's about it.
There has been plenty of investment in southern MO in the past several decades. Springfield is the fastest growing area in the state and last time I checked it is certainly in the southern part of the state. Northern MO is much more rural croplands than urbanized areas so there isn't as many dollars, but there has been investment. The big one is in roads, which greatly helps the local economy due to all of the 20 years ago Highway 61, 63, 24, and 36 were largely two-lane windy roads, much like parts of Highway 50 east of Jeff City are right now. Today they are largely nice four-lane roads and pleasant to drive on.
I think you answered why jobs are going from KCMO to KCK- taxes. Kansas has lowered its tax rates and the jobs followed. That is just like how East River SD has benefited from MN being a high-tax hole. I also wish Jeff City would do something to stop the tide of jobs going over to Kansas, and the answer is to lower taxes to make MO more competitive.
"• Sixty-five of Minnesota's 87 counties are losing residents to other places, including such once robust but now aging population growth centers as Dakota and Anoka counties. Almost all of the counties are getting some new blood through immigration, though that is fully offsetting losses in only three of those counties"
I'm well aware of the rural demographics as I have analyzed data for years and have spent plenty of time on the ground in a large number of rural counties. Immigration is going to be a factor in any dynamic metropolitan area that is growing at a decent rate. I do think that the differences between metropolitan cities and rural areas will only become much more magnified over time. Micropolitan cities will have to work to fill in the gap between the two categories as not everyone wants to live in a large city, but they sure would like to have a decent paying job. It isn't always about the age structure of the population either. You have some counties in the rural southern and south-central Great Plains with population declines that have very very high birth rates. Out-migration continues to be very high in many of these places.
Columbia is a college town full of folks with the "the government can just give us money from other people, we don't need any evil money grubbing businesses" mindset. Starting actual viable businesses isn't really something they care much about. They want their boutiques and such on Broadway, that's about it.
There has been plenty of investment in southern MO in the past several decades. Springfield is the fastest growing area in the state and last time I checked it is certainly in the southern part of the state. Northern MO is much more rural croplands than urbanized areas so there isn't as many dollars, but there has been investment. The big one is in roads, which greatly helps the local economy due to all of the 20 years ago Highway 61, 63, 24, and 36 were largely two-lane windy roads, much like parts of Highway 50 east of Jeff City are right now. Today they are largely nice four-lane roads and pleasant to drive on.
I think you answered why jobs are going from KCMO to KCK- taxes. Kansas has lowered its tax rates and the jobs followed. That is just like how East River SD has benefited from MN being a high-tax hole. I also wish Jeff City would do something to stop the tide of jobs going over to Kansas, and the answer is to lower taxes to make MO more competitive.
I was referring to rural areas of southern Missouri. Springfield and the surrounding areas have definitely benefited from solid investments and job growth over the past few decades. I do think the area has become too dependent on retiree in-migration as an economic driver, and I think Springfield needs to focus on growing more technology driven businesses. Rural southern Missouri has generally become much older in population with little new job growth as well as most of northern Missouri. I think the impact of corporate agriculture and CAFOs has done significant harm to the state because it has led to a big decline in family farms just like numerous other states.
I think Jefferson City does need to rexamine the tax structure as well as the entire "incentives" given out to businesses. Kansas basically engages in corporate welfare becuase it funnels nearly all its dollars into Johnson County, KS to entice businesses to move over the state line. The poster kcmo has shown plenty of evidence that this continues to happen on a widespread scale. Missouri is a much larger state in terms of population so the "incentives war" might be hard to match what the state of Kansas pushes into Johnson County for available corporate green field developments..
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.
