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.
You don't make sense - the city is going to lose that tax base whether they make their own town or move to the suburbs. If the place is that bad - who'd want to buy there? They now have their own city - their own rules and their own police to deal with the issues the other city obviously wasn't.
The city would lose the current residents, not the taxable properties. I don't see all the country clubs closing up because the members are in the next town, do you. In the old day it was called red lining is this the new way break off pieces to create race, economic appropriate communities? Everywhere else you move out of the city and find suburb that fulfills what you place a priority on, you can look at most cities a see all kinds of places to choose from.
That's already happening in much of the Black community where the government incentivizes them to have multiple children to get paid and continue to live in relative poverty with no motive to improve themselves, nor be self sufficient.
It's actually worse than that. In certain circumstances, such a person might earn $100 through honest work but lose $150 of handouts, leaving them worse off.
People are poor by the opportunities they don't have or can strive for, your pull yourself up by the bootstraps doesn't always apply. I guess large amounts of West Virginia, kentucky, Appalachia and the Delta are just poor because of how they act according to you....
And if you can't realize that those who are born with opportunities in their lives have a greater (not absolute) chance of succeeding in school and life then that's on you. There will always be examples on both sides of the economic spectrum that perform opposite of what you would expect but their the exceptions not the rule.
Why should a city lose part of its tax base, if the people don't like how the city is run move to a suburb. It's how people do it everywhere else but this bunch wants to take their country clubs with them....
I don't know about country clubs. However, I suspect residents were fed-up the neverending bullshi.t and I don't blame them.
I excpet we'll see more of this in the coming years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
So if rich folks in a neighborhood will and can split off away from those who aren't on their same behavioral wavelength...good for them.
[quote=Ohiogirl81;66692260]Kinda missed the point, didn't you? The person I was responding to was waxing poetic about Southerners wanting to help their neighbors. These Southerners apparently do not.
Maybe you shouldn't make comments like this without having the facts. I live in a city of 33,500. Next ...
You need to smack your self - I moved from a town with 71,724 which was a suburb - and my current town has 37,000 - these are called suburbs darling.
Well, I can’t blame them since they were not being heard by their former city officials.
In reality, I think this should happen more since this may force many liberal leaning cities from implementing their failed “reimagining” crime control fake policies.
The city would lose the current residents, not the taxable properties. I don't see all the country clubs closing up because the members are in the next town, do you. In the old day it was called red lining is this the new way break off pieces to create race, economic appropriate communities? Everywhere else you move out of the city and find suburb that fulfills what you place a priority on, you can look at most cities a see all kinds of places to choose from.
Taxable properties that aren't desirable - obviously if they remain within those city limits - best to stay in your home and make your own town with your own rules.
Taxable properties that aren't desirable - obviously if they remain within those city limits - best to stay in your home and make your own town with your own rules.
Where everyone is on the same page... or at least reading the same book
I am living in a 'wealthy' town on LI. I would say 85% white, 13% asian, 2% others. The town South of us has maybe 10% whites, and is mixed mostly black and hispanics (immigrants). The town has been run by blacks for decades and is absolutely in terrible shape. The growing hispanic community is trying to get people in power to turn things around, but somehow they can't get in. The leadership is corrupt, and I have no idea why residents aren't voting for better leadership. I'm guessing this is very similar in most similar communities. Corruption on top, residents who don't care/vote, bailouts by state/federal governments. Rinse and repeat.
Change need to come from within. I have no clue or explanation why this doesn't happen in minority neighborhoods all across the country. Would love to here some thoughts from people actually living there.
As the number of takers grow, the number of receivers shrink and eventually the receivers left revolt......
When 60% pay no taxes.....you cannot support a country with only 40% of the people contributing.
And pay for wars in other countries, and support immigrants and fund pork projects.....
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.
