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.
The right to have a family is non existent in the Constitution. Even if procreating was a right, it still doesn't translate to everybody else being obligated to subsidize this personal choice. Procreation isn't necessarily a "terrible thing", but the financial burden should always be on the procreators ... and those of us who choose to be childless shouldn't be forced into paying for public schools or other things which are of no benefit to us, and have no return on investment.
Yes, and that's a big part of the so called "progressive" mentality: tax more & spend more regardless if it's really needed.
I'm not a fan of City of Phoenix I think AZ central did some research on employee pay and found Mayors secretary was making like 80k a year. I have known 3 people who worked in different IT departments there and the pay scale was far beyond what the private sector was paid. Frankly I never understood why City's have unions there is no labor going on there it's not factory work they end up with situations where employee performance is not taken into count and it's impossible to get rid of someone who is a poor performing employee. The retirement programs for city workers is over the top compared to private sector. While most tax payers are left with 401k's to retire on City employees can hide out for 20 years to get that nice pay day at the end. You and I tax payers are forced to pay for their old school style retirement program.
City manager makes 314k a year Seems excessive to me. Some will try to justify that by comparing that job to a private company CEO. The issue is private company's are just that private and for profit. City's are tax payer and I'm forced to take the service of they city forced to pay taxes so the city manager can make $314k a year. I really don't see why anyone working for the city needs to make anything over $150k a year.
Location: The edge of the world and all of Western civilization
984 posts, read 1,194,949 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Being fiscally conservative is actually beneficial to a city because lower taxes and a lower cost of living make it more business friendly. I sure wouldn't want Phoenix to be one of the more liberal cities. Observe the list of the most liberal cities in the U.S., and what they represent:
1. San Francisco: culturally enriched but highly expensive to do anything there. The median price for a home is over $1 million, and most of them aren't mansions by any means.
2. Washington, DC: long known as America's murder capital, and not exactly inexpensive to live there either.
3. Seattle: a nice city but very expensive (and very gloomy during much of the year).
4. Oakland: the arm pit of the Bay Area. I never felt very safe there, and for good reason. It's one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S.
5. Boston: lots of culture and history, but very expensive. Winters aren't exactly anything to brag about.
6. Minneapolis: probably one of the better cities on the list, admittedly.
7. Detroit: Ugh! This place has become a crime ridden ghetto, and ranked as THE most dangerous city in the U.S. If that isn't bad enough, the city filed for bankruptcy just three years ago.
8. New York: Expensive as hell! Need I say more?
9. Buffalo: Stagnant rust belt town with not much happening. Cold, snowy, and depressing.
10. Baltimore: Another crime infested city that is among the most dangerous in the U.S.
To add a few things to Phoenix that aren't taxes to balance out your list: high electricity costs a good portion of the year for cooling, high transportation costs due to sprawl, lower-than-average salaries/wages, high automobile insurance, higher-than-average crime (including more or less reversing the national downward trend of violent crime rates), and... I could go on.
All a matter of perspective, dear. You look for worst elements to liberal cities without mentioning any of the many, many, many problems Phoenix faces. Why is that? Oh yeah: to suit your agenda and reaffirm your political stance. You save a few bucks in taxes here, but spend much more out of your own pocket on something else.
Some of your reasons are flat out asinine too. Weather? Really? Like the upcoming hell-heat is something to crow about? Or that, believe it or not, there really are people who have things more important to them than sun and warm weather, like culture, education, entertainment, substance, etc. Expense is another one, especially if the City of New York alone has more people than all of Arizona. Obviously, people are making it work, and I could even transfer my job to that city and *gasp* be better off financially than I am here... and I have looked through my company. Detroit and Buffalo went downhill in large part because they focused their investments on limited industries, unlike Phoenix which has a solid base in housing and tourism, which are in no way prone to fluctuation, high/low demand, changing trends, etc.
The right to have a family is non existent in the Constitution. Even if procreating was a right, it still doesn't translate to everybody else being obligated to subsidize this personal choice. Procreation isn't necessarily a "terrible thing", but the financial burden should always be on the procreators ... and those of us who choose to be childless shouldn't be forced into paying for public schools or other things which are of no benefit to us, and have no return on investment.
It seems to be universally accepted by Constitutional scholars and legal experts that the right to procreate is a fundamental right, and the Supreme Court has enforced or validated this view many times, particularly in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), in which the right to procreate was called, "a basic liberty" protected by the Equal Protection Clause. You may not like it, but the law of the land says it IS a right.
Here is a small selection of the most relevant cases I found relating to this topic with some quotes from them; there are plenty of others.
Meyer vs. Nebraska (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner vs. Oklahoma: Marriage and procreation “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Cleveland Board of Education vs. LaFleur (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Carey vs. Population Services International (1977): “[i]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
M.L.B. vs. S.L.J., (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
An additional point, if I may. If there was no Constitutionally protected right for anyone to procreate, America could freely institute a one-child policy like China, or a no-child policy, or any other reproductive restriction its legislature wished to impose, and there would be no Constitutional problem with that. That doesn't seem very American to me, and seems like quite a deprivation of liberty.
I'm not a fan of City of Phoenix I think AZ central did some research on employee pay and found Mayors secretary was making like 80k a year. I have known 3 people who worked in different IT departments there and the pay scale was far beyond what the private sector was paid. Frankly I never understood why City's have unions there is no labor going on there it's not factory work they end up with situations where employee performance is not taken into count and it's impossible to get rid of someone who is a poor performing employee. The retirement programs for city workers is over the top compared to private sector. While most tax payers are left with 401k's to retire on City employees can hide out for 20 years to get that nice pay day at the end. You and I tax payers are forced to pay for their old school style retirement program.
Just an FYI, for those who might not be aware, the city's retirement program is only for full-time employees. Those who are part-time do not receive any of these "lofty benefits" which get talked about.
To add a few things to Phoenix that aren't taxes to balance out your list: high electricity costs a good portion of the year for cooling, high transportation costs due to sprawl, lower-than-average salaries/wages, high automobile insurance, higher-than-average crime (including more or less reversing the national downward trend of violent crime rates), and... I could go on.
All a matter of perspective, dear. You look for worst elements to liberal cities without mentioning any of the many, many, many problems Phoenix faces. Why is that? Oh yeah: to suit your agenda and reaffirm your political stance. You save a few bucks in taxes here, but spend much more out of your own pocket on something else.
Some of your reasons are flat out asinine too. Weather? Really? Like the upcoming hell-heat is something to crow about? Or that, believe it or not, there really are people who have things more important to them than sun and warm weather, like culture, education, entertainment, substance, etc. Expense is another one, especially if the City of New York alone has more people than all of Arizona. Obviously, people are making it work, and I could even transfer my job to that city and *gasp* be better off financially than I am here... and I have looked through my company. Detroit and Buffalo went downhill in large part because they focused their investments on limited industries, unlike Phoenix which has a solid base in housing and tourism, which are in no way prone to fluctuation, high/low demand, changing trends, etc.
If you had read many of my other posts, you would probably see that I agree with you on many of these points. I don't regard Phoenix as the most perfect place in the U.S. by any means, especially regarding the climate. To me, it's silly to move to a large city just because it's sunny & warm most of the year, and not for important reasons like jobs. Our hot, dry climate has many drawbacks, one of them being high electric bills in the summer months ... and our constant heat for four months straight just isn't very pleasant to deal with no matter how hard a person tries.
Also, while Phoenix isn't really a conservative city (and I'm fine with that), I don't want it to become one of the more liberal cities because of the higher taxes and higher cost of living involved ... and at the same time, I don't want it to become dilapidated or crime ridden like Detroit or Baltimore. Also, I've said many times that weather/climate shouldn't be THE reason to move to a certain city, but the funny thing is that many of the more liberal cities do tend to have dreary, cold, or downright hazardous weather conditions compared to Phoenix or many other sunbelt cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsdaleMark
It seems to be universally accepted by Constitutional scholars and legal experts that the right to procreate is a fundamental right, and the Supreme Court has enforced or validated this view many times, particularly in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), in which the right to procreate was called, "a basic liberty" protected by the Equal Protection Clause. You may not like it, but the law of the land says it IS a right.
Here is a small selection of the most relevant cases I found relating to this topic with some quotes from them; there are plenty of others.
Meyer vs. Nebraska (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner vs. Oklahoma: Marriage and procreation “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Cleveland Board of Education vs. LaFleur (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Carey vs. Population Services International (1977): “[i]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
M.L.B. vs. S.L.J., (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
An additional point, if I may. If there was no Constitutionally protected right for anyone to procreate, America could freely institute a one-child policy like China, or a no-child policy, or any other reproductive restriction its legislature wished to impose, and there would be no Constitutional problem with that. That doesn't seem very American to me, and seems like quite a deprivation of liberty.
The decisions in the above cases were flawed because there is nothing specific in the U.S. Constitution defining procreation as a right. Unfortunately, the Constitution is interpreted too often to reflect a certain agenda or political position. There is a right to keep & bear arms, but not one to keep & bear children. If you disagree, then please find in the Constitution where it specifically says there is a right to procreation. Until I see it, I'll keep my belief that it's merely a privilege and not a right.
Also, even if there is a right to have children, that certainly doesn't mean it's a right to have as many as one desires without the financial means to do so. With rights come responsibilities, and it's not responsible to have kids & expect the public to fund education, health care, and other things which the parents should be doing themselves. I have taken responsibility by not having children, but the system is seriously unbalanced in my disfavor because I'm still stuck with paying taxes to support everyone else's reproductive habits, and abiding by the fair housing laws which make it illegal to discriminate against families with children. For somebody who absolutely doesn't want to be around children, the only real option is to live in the Sun Cities, which were grandfathered (no pun intended) when the fair housing laws were passed.
Location: The edge of the world and all of Western civilization
984 posts, read 1,194,949 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
If you had read many of my other posts, you would probably see that I agree with you on many of these points. I don't regard Phoenix as the most perfect place in the U.S. by any means, especially regarding the climate. To me, it's silly to move to a large city just because it's sunny & warm most of the year, and not for important reasons like jobs. Our hot, dry climate has many drawbacks, one of them being high electric bills in the summer months ... and our constant heat for four months straight just isn't very pleasant to deal with no matter how hard a person tries.
Also, while Phoenix isn't really a conservative city (and I'm fine with that), I don't want it to become one of the more liberal cities because of the higher taxes and higher cost of living involved ... and at the same time, I don't want it to become dilapidated or crime ridden like Detroit or Baltimore. Also, I've said many times that weather/climate shouldn't be THE reason to move to a certain city, but the funny thing is that many of the more liberal cities do tend to have dreary, cold, or downright hazardous weather conditions compared to Phoenix or many other sunbelt cities.
Liberal doesn't always equate to high taxes though, and pretty much all of the country's primary economic centers are liberal. Personally, I think Phoenix (and Arizona) could stand a tax raise just for improvements in multiple areas. Many of the more liberal cities are expensive for various reasons, including high demand to live there and limited supply of housing/land, including New York, Boston and San Francisco. There are plenty of more conservative/less liberal cities that are just outright nasty. I had to move to Oklahoma City for a few years, which is without question one of the most conservative cities in the country, and Phoenix is paradise in comparison. I lived in a neighborhood that people thought was cool and up-and-coming, and this was in a city that was getting really arrogant about its economy in light of the recession. In reality, I would walk to a few places to run errands and more than half of the buildings in my neighborhood were empty, the roads and buildings were ramshackle and deteriorating, and by about 7 or 8 PM the neighborhood became a morgue. Transplants were generally unhappy living there and all I encountered wanted to leave the first chance they got; gas was cheaper but I spent more on it there than I do here because I had to drive more and longer distances due to extreme sprawl/low density; the state capitol was barricaded because it was literally crumbling and too much of a safety hazard for people to approach; as an established conservative stronghold it attracts mostly conservatives, which means it tends to keep people out who feel unwelcome there, as well as people who generally are more liberal, including artists, creative types, etc. (as you can imagine, not only does that make an ugly city, but it also has a tremendous effect on amenities and events). Conservatism generally means either attempting to undo progress, or trying to maintain things the way they are... which is never good. Mesa is much more conservative than Phoenix and Tempe, and it's an armpit that just isn't developing as well as the latter two. On a larger scale, this city has a lot of competition across the country and it needs to progress if it's going to keep up with them. Assuming people and businesses will come for the "low costs" and warm weather isn't going to make this city competitive.
Liberal doesn't always equate to high taxes though, and pretty much all of the country's primary economic centers are liberal. Personally, I think Phoenix (and Arizona) could stand a tax raise just for improvements in multiple areas.
Or we could become more business friendly by eliminating some unnecessary taxes like the state income tax, reduce corporate taxes, and give incentives to businesses to locate their HQs in Phoenix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvxhd
There are plenty of more conservative/less liberal cities that are just outright nasty. I had to move to Oklahoma City for a few years, which is without question one of the most conservative cities in the country, and Phoenix is paradise in comparison. I lived in a neighborhood that people thought was cool and up-and-coming, and this was in a city that was getting really arrogant about its economy in light of the recession. In reality, I would walk to a few places to run errands and more than half of the buildings in my neighborhood were empty, the roads and buildings were ramshackle and deteriorating, and by about 7 or 8 PM the neighborhood became a morgue. Transplants were generally unhappy living there and all I encountered wanted to leave the first chance they got; gas was cheaper but I spent more on it there than I do here because I had to drive more and longer distances due to extreme sprawl/low density; the state capitol was barricaded because it was literally crumbling and too much of a safety hazard for people to approach; as an established conservative stronghold it attracts mostly conservatives, which means it tends to keep people out who feel unwelcome there, as well as people who generally are more liberal, including artists, creative types, etc. (as you can imagine, not only does that make an ugly city, but it also has a tremendous effect on amenities and events).
Can't argue with you there. Oklahoma City is definitely not anything to brag about for many reasons. But with that said, they do have a small handful of Fortune 500/Fortune 1,000 firms based there, as well as a recently built 800 foot skyscraper, which isn't too shabby for a city of 600,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvxhd
Conservatism generally means either attempting to undo progress, or trying to maintain things the way they are... which is never good. Mesa is much more conservative than Phoenix and Tempe, and it's an armpit that just isn't developing as well as the latter two. On a larger scale, this city has a lot of competition across the country and it needs to progress if it's going to keep up with them. Assuming people and businesses will come for the "low costs" and warm weather isn't going to make this city competitive.
Mesa is quite sketchy, but it's long been regarded as a large bedroom community & not much more. Phoenix does need to be more nationally & globally competitive if we want to grow in a more positive way, attract the higher paying jobs, and become more of a world class city ... not just a place that's attractive for retirees, snowbirds, and sun lovers.
Location: The edge of the world and all of Western civilization
984 posts, read 1,194,949 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Or we could become more business friendly by eliminating some unnecessary taxes like the state income tax, reduce corporate taxes, and give incentives to businesses to locate their HQs in Phoenix.
Can't argue with you there. Oklahoma City is definitely not anything to brag about for many reasons. But with that said, they do have a small handful of Fortune 500/Fortune 1,000 firms based there, as well as a recently built 800 foot skyscraper, which isn't too shabby for a city of 600,000.
Mesa is quite sketchy, but it's long been regarded as a large bedroom community & not much more. Phoenix does need to be more nationally & globally competitive if we want to grow in a more positive way, attract the higher paying jobs, and become more of a world class city ... not just a place that's attractive for retirees, snowbirds, and sun lovers.
We've been over this before. Kansas eliminated such taxes and it's feeling the pinch now, because taxes aren't everything. If Arizona follows suit it will shoulder the same burden because there aren't enough other reasons to get businesses to move here. After I eventually move out of Arizona, it can eliminate taxes to its heart's content, because I don't want to suffer the fallout from that decision. On that note, there's a question the anti-tax crowd can never seem to answer: why is it at a time that higher-ups have seen explosive growth in their own salaries and average workers have seen anemic growth, the answer is lower taxes? It seems to me the former will just line their own pockets more.
I'm not going to say more about OKC because I could write an essay about the horrors of that town. That 800-foot building also houses a corporation that just laid off a sizable chunk of its workforce. That's also a city that's even more car-reliant than Phoenix and spent $5.8 million on a pedestrian bridge connecting downtown to a place relatively few people live, and also is about to build a tram that connects the capitol to downtown... which for those not familiar with OKC geography, means it connects one major employment center to another, and doesn't get people from home to work. On top of that, it's a one-way circuit. It's an utterly useless system they want to build just to say they have. Nothing about that town should be an example for Phoenix (or most any city) to follow. Phoenix also "has" some Fortune 500/1000 companies which, as I've said before, aren't technically Arizona companies because they're registered in Delaware, which, again, is like an offshore account for many corporations who want to dodge taxes. They filter money to Delaware, cheat Arizona out of taxes, and keep the profits. But they still deserve more tax cuts?
It doesn't matter what Mesa has long been regarded as. When I was growing up, New York was considered an extremely dangerous, tough, filthy city. It has since developed beyond that and has been able to slowly shed that image. Mesa isn't really trying though. And I agree with you on what Phoenix needs to do, but it's going to need to work with the state or put pressure on it to start making changes, because what happens in the legislature is akin to Bible Belt states in that it doesn't have its priorities straight. I personally think the latest Census data has shown that Arizona may be about to lose its luster as Texas cities start to bypass Phoenix in population and likely economy. Also as I pointed out in another thread, historically it means that city will gradually get left behind while other cities excel.
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.
