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.
It must be because suburbs can't survive without an anchoring city (Newark provides the anchor as a NY extension). Suburbs are the result of wealth, but they generally don't create their own wealth, I guess minimizing the concerns of adjacent suburbs.
What? Nobody in the northern burbs even ventures to Newark besides visiting the PAC or the Rock. 3/4 of the city is a depressing ghetto.
What? Nobody in the northern burbs even ventures to Newark besides visiting the PAC or the Rock. 3/4 of the city is a depressing ghetto.
Yeah well, that's 'tourism' (so to speak), which has nothing to do with my point which is simply: metro area economics. Newark is a job-center, whether it's depressing or not is irrelevant. Most of the office jobs downtown are filled by folks that wouldn't live in Newark but do live in surrounding suburbs.
Suburbs usually exist in a ring around a larger city, and don't create their own wealth (they are the result of job-bases in larger nearby cities). In our metro area's case the major anchor is obviously NY. But JC and Newark are secondary downtowns with very large employment bases. By extension, NY's sphere into Northern NJ isn't as wide without Newark assets/infrastructure (and helped by the fact that Newark was already its own entity in the past anyway).
Funny thing about "job centers" -- Livingston and Millburn both are net employment centers, whereas Jersey City is not. Secaucus and Kearny are, and so is Morristown.
I suspect the main reason Newark remains as much of an employment center as it does is the state keeps giving tax breaks to stay there.
The problem with taxing till there is no tomorrow is that some people can CHOOSE where they want to live, work, and play. Granted there is alot of traffic in towns life Newark, Secaucus, etc, but cutting into a companies bottom line will cause others to look for another place.
Funny thing about "job centers" -- Livingston and Millburn both are net employment centers, whereas Jersey City is not. Secaucus and Kearny are, and so is Morristown.
I suspect the main reason Newark remains as much of an employment center as it does is the state keeps giving tax breaks to stay there.
Tax breaks are an American standard, but much more so in our region. NYC (financial capital) ALWAYS gives tax incentives for companies to either relocate or stay.
How is JC not a net employment center? Curious as to your definition of such.
Tax breaks are an American standard, but much more so in our region. NYC (financial capital) ALWAYS gives tax incentives for companies to either relocate or stay.
Such tax breaks, however, undermine the claim that the suburbs are sponging off the wealth of the cities. Maybe without the tax breaks, Prudential moves to Florham Park... or Alabama.
Quote:
How is JC not a net employment center? Curious as to your definition of such.
Negative net increase of population due to commuting means it is not a net employment center; more people commute out of JC than commute in.
Such tax breaks, however, undermine the claim that the suburbs are sponging off the wealth of the cities. Maybe without the tax breaks, Prudential moves to Florham Park... or Alabama.
Negative net increase of population due to commuting means it is not a net employment center; more people commute out of JC than commute in.
Perhaps, but not necessarily. A lot of businesses want to be 'close' to a city for access to its assets, and may not consider it otherwise. These can include: seaports, airports, heavy regional rail networks, etc. Things that usually won't exist in a suburb by itself, or simply cannot accommodate on their own, but definitely use. Factors that make financial sense to a company doesn't always have to be about how little they may pay in taxes.
Suburbs can, and often do, offer their own tax incentives and can still receive tax incentives from the state. Corzine's transit tax credit was recently expanded to include areas beyond the original nine designated transit hubs. This helps the state be competitive (since it's usually the most business-unfriendly states; and Prudential could've left a long time ago).
Are you certain more JC residents commute out of the city for work? It is true that the waterfront has a sizable commuter presence. However, it still is a very large financial center with office space easily rivaling cities much larger than it.
------
PS I don't mean to say that suburbs exist only to mooch off of a larger nearby city. Many suburbs can grow to a point where they're not as dependent on a larger city. However, what I am saying is that the said suburb may not exist without the larger city, and still needs it as an anchor. A city can survive without a suburb, but the reverse isn't true (since, in essence, without a city a suburb can't even be classified as such).
Um, who cares? Even if Newark was a big important American city, why is it better to be an upscale neighborhood of it (a.k.a. piggy bank for the city government) than to be an independent suburb?
How about civic pride for what could be one of America's great cities? Everyone in NYC, from the poorest areas to the richest areas, has great pride in that city. The city's various problems don't take away from that pride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
People in the suburbs wised up and put roadblocks in place to prevent cities from absorbing them without their permission.
Or could Newark's decline be because of the opposite reason? There is a strong amount of evidence showing that Baltimore, for example, starting stagnating very soon after the MD legislature stopped letting it annex any more land. By being part of the city limits, residents of suburban areas take an active interest in making sure the center city (eg present day Newark) is doing well, and they have a direct say in working to improve it. It's a numbers game, but it's possible there could even be more suburban residents than downtown residents. On the other hand, we have the current situation, where because the suburbs are separate, they don't care how the center city (Newark) does, which in turn leads to further decline in Newark, in a never ending cycle, causing the suburbs to want even more separation.
How about civic pride for what could be one of America's great cities? Everyone in NYC, from the poorest areas to the richest areas, has great pride in that city. The city's various problems don't take away from that pride.
How about civic pride for my town instead? If I want a larger entity, how about pride for Essex County? I bet Joe DiVincenzo would get behind that one, especially if his picture was on the posters.
Quote:
Or could Newark's decline be because of the opposite reason?
Newark's decline can be traced straight back to the 1967 riots.
Quote:
There is a strong amount of evidence showing that Baltimore, for example, starting stagnating very soon after the MD legislature stopped letting it annex any more land. By being part of the city limits, residents of suburban areas take an active interest in making sure the center city (eg present day Newark) is doing well, and they have a direct say in working to improve it.
You're talking about a city growing like a cancer. Again, I understand why it helps Newark that the residents of suburban areas "take an active interest" (that is, open their checkbooks), but I'm not seeing how it helps the suburban areas. They really wouldn't have much of a SAY in it; take a look at the population numbers.
Quote:
It's a numbers game, but it's possible there could even be more suburban residents than downtown residents.
Add them up. Newark has 277,140. East Orange has 64,270. Orange has 30,134. West Orange has 46,207. And South Orange has 16,964. All the Oranges together have 157,575. When you consider that East Orange and Orange are in as bad shape as Newark itself, it looks even worse. Basically the wealthier areas end up being dominated by the poor ones, and there's only one way that can go -- tax the rich / feed the poor / 'til there are / rich no more.
No idea, often wondered the same thing. Best guess would be lack of opportunity investment. Seems like the craze still continues to be gold coast -- Jersey City, Union City, and Hoboken mainly. It would be nice to see other areas get the same preferable treatment. Even Jersey City Heights is lagging behind the other areas surrounding it for gentrification. They are trying to do something with Harrison, but personally I think it's a ridiculous move since most of the new lofts are built on demolished factory grounds. Newark for the most part is just sad lost cause.
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.
