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.
So, do you want subsidies or not? If not, we should eliminate grants for urban redevelopment. If the people living downtown want to renovate the footmall on Main St so they can have a pretty place to have their farmer's market they should pay for it themselves.
I'm fine with 'em, but the fact is that the suburbs are heavily subsidized, and if not for those subsidies they would have a vastly different appearance and form. People laboring under the delusion that the suburbs "pay for themselves" are dead wrong, and my aim is to puncture that delusion as often as possible. People seem to think that suburban form is a result of the unrestricted free market, which is another popular delusion and complete nonsense. The closest thing to an urban form produced by the unrestricted free market is the streetcar suburb of the early 20th century. Subsidies for roads, loans, gas, construction, depreciation, utilities, etcetera radically changed urban form (specifically suburban form) in the 20th century. Part of those changes included urban redevelopment (also subsidized) primarily to subsidize the idea that nobody should ever live downtown, it should be exclusively the realm of businesses and offices. Urban renewal and redevelopment basically wrecked downtowns and destroyed more homes than it built.
This popular delusion about suburbs leads so-called fiscal conservatives to call for increases in highway spending to serve suburbs instead of public transit, on the grounds that transit is a "subsidy" but spending tax money to help the suburbs doesn't count as taxation.
So, do you want subsidies or not? If not, we should eliminate grants for urban redevelopment. If the people living downtown want to renovate the footmall on Main St so they can have a pretty place to have their farmer's market they should pay for it themselves.
I'm fine with 'em, but the fact is that the suburbs are heavily subsidized, and if not for those subsidies they would have a vastly different appearance and form. People laboring under the delusion that the suburbs "pay for themselves" are dead wrong, and my aim is to puncture that delusion as often as possible. People seem to think that suburban form is a result of the unrestricted free market, which is another popular delusion and complete nonsense. The closest thing to an urban form produced by the unrestricted free market is the streetcar suburb of the early 20th century. Subsidies for roads, loans, gas, construction, depreciation, utilities, etcetera radically changed urban form (specifically suburban form) in the 20th century. Part of those changes included urban redevelopment (also subsidized) primarily to subsidize the idea that nobody should ever live downtown, it should be exclusively the realm of businesses and offices. Urban renewal and redevelopment basically wrecked downtowns and destroyed more homes than it built.
This popular delusion about suburbs leads so-called fiscal conservatives to call for increases in highway spending to serve suburbs instead of public transit, on the grounds that transit is a "subsidy" but spending tax money to help the suburbs doesn't count as taxation.
Again, taxes are heavily paid in the suburbs. Our system is based on paying taxes. Some of which go into a general fund and are dispersed accordingly. Everything is subsidized if you look at it that way. The difference is what is paid out and what is paid back in. Suburban European-americas and Asian-americans in these neighbourhoods you so despise are paying for their local schools and heavily subsidizing the schooling of Mexican-americans, African-americans and the children of illegal immigrants. They are heavily subsidizing social services for people in the inner-city who just can't seem to get their act together enough to put a roof over their heads. They pay extra assessment on their property taxes for services exclussively in their neighbourhoods because the property taxes they pay can't keep up with the financial burden for the services in both the suburban areas they live in and the problematic high-crime inner-city areas.
Again, taxes are heavily paid in the suburbs. Our system is based on paying taxes. Some of which go into a general fund and are dispersed accordingly. Everything is subsidized if you look at it that way. The difference is what is paid out and what is paid back in. Suburban European-americas and Asian-americans in these neighbourhoods you so despise are paying for their local schools and heavily subsidizing the schooling of Mexican-americans, African-americans and the children of illegal immigrants. They are heavily subsidizing social services for people in the inner-city who just can't seem to get their act together enough to put a roof over their heads. They pay extra assessment on their property taxes for services exclussively in their neighbourhoods because the property taxes they pay can't keep up with the financial burden for the services in both the suburban areas they live in and the problematic high-crime inner-city areas.
I thought the high suburban property taxes pay for local services (schools, police, etc.) and they don't go for funds for neighboring cities or counties. At least that was the perception I got from the suburb I lived in. How are they subsidizing non-suburbanites' schooling?
I thought the high suburban property taxes pay for local services (schools, police, etc.) and they don't go for funds for neighboring cities or counties. At least that was the perception I got from the suburb I lived in. How are they subsidizing non-suburbanites' schooling?
It depends on the state. In California, schools are paid for by the state, in order to make up for our very low property taxes. I think in most of the country, local school districts are paid for by local property taxes.
KC6ZLV: It sounds like your issue is with the race of the people in the neighborhood, not where they live. Are you defining a place as "city" or "suburb" strictly by the predominant race of the occupants? If so, take a look at the latest census map's racial/ethnic breakdown and note that the most heavily Black and Latino neighborhoods are primarily single-family homes and low-rise apartments--in other words, suburban neighborhoods.
I thought the high suburban property taxes pay for local services (schools, police, etc.) and they don't go for funds for neighboring cities or counties. At least that was the perception I got from the suburb I lived in. How are they subsidizing non-suburbanites' schooling?
Where do the taxes go, and where are they dispersed?
In California all property taxes stay within the county they are received. There is usually an agreement that the cities receive a portion. All school districts receive some of their funding from the county or city expenditures, regardless of it being urban, suburban, or rural.
Additionally, funding for education must be shared under California State law so school districts in low-income rural or urban areas have the ability to fund education. Someone in another thread stated the same thing is required at the Federal level.
Where do the taxes go, and where are they dispersed?
In California all property taxes stay within the county they are received. There is usually an agreement that the cities receive a portion. All school districts receive some of their funding from the county or city expenditures, regardless of it being urban, suburban, or rural.
Additionally, funding for education must be shared under California State law so school districts in low-income rural or urban areas have the ability to fund education. Someone in another thread stated the same thing is required at the Federal level.
The funding in the school district I grew up in I think came entirely from property taxes. I suppose a small fraction of education funds was shared, but I doubt much was. Since property taxes stay within county lines, none from my suburbs would get to the city.
I'm fine with 'em, but the fact is that the suburbs are heavily subsidized, and if not for those subsidies they would have a vastly different appearance and form. People laboring under the delusion that the suburbs "pay for themselves" are dead wrong, and my aim is to puncture that delusion as often as possible. People seem to think that suburban form is a result of the unrestricted free market, which is another popular delusion and complete nonsense. The closest thing to an urban form produced by the unrestricted free market is the streetcar suburb of the early 20th century. Subsidies for roads, loans, gas, construction, depreciation, utilities, etcetera radically changed urban form (specifically suburban form) in the 20th century. Part of those changes included urban redevelopment (also subsidized) primarily to subsidize the idea that nobody should ever live downtown, it should be exclusively the realm of businesses and offices. Urban renewal and redevelopment basically wrecked downtowns and destroyed more homes than it built.
This popular delusion about suburbs leads so-called fiscal conservatives to call for increases in highway spending to serve suburbs instead of public transit, on the grounds that transit is a "subsidy" but spending tax money to help the suburbs doesn't count as taxation.
Sorry, but your generalizations are not applicable to all suburbs all across the country.
Some states and cities have entirely different perceptions about the responsibilities and burdens of the developers and buyers of properties in suburban developments than you assert. In these areas, the cities are not paying or subsidizing any of the costs of development, but are capturing income from those developments as they are annexed or purchase municipal services ... and a local sales tax source as the suburban dwellers come to the city's commercial district for their shopping needs.
It depends on the state. In California, schools are paid for by the state, in order to make up for our very low property taxes. I think in most of the country, local school districts are paid for by local property taxes.
KC6ZLV: It sounds like your issue is with the race of the people in the neighborhood, not where they live. Are you defining a place as "city" or "suburb" strictly by the predominant race of the occupants? If so, take a look at the latest census map's racial/ethnic breakdown and note that the most heavily Black and Latino neighborhoods are primarily single-family homes and low-rise apartments--in other words, suburban neighborhoods.
Schools are paid for with both State and county taxes. In California, the schools were supposed to be funded locally through property taxes. And despite having a low RATE, we rank 10th in the country for the amount of property taxes paid. We've been through this argument before in other threads about Prop 13. How much more do you think people should pay? What makes you think property owners have the money? Most of the problem is school administration being paid too much and the cost of schooling illegal immigrants is destroying education in California. The cost for educating illegal immigrants in LA County is $600 million a year. $600 million a year for people who shouldn't be here. The counties can't afford it, the Federal government mandates that the states provide services to everyone regardless of legal immigrant status, so the State has to pay for
these services. At any rate, people in the suburbs pay the majority of the taxes to the State, and quite a few suburban developments have Mello-Roos fees or other assessments specifically for their schools. So, yes, the people in the suburbs are paying for schools in their neck of the woods, and elsewhere.
Also, I didn't bring up race as an issue. You did. I only mentioned who is paying the most taxes and where.
That's amazing! That's so different to what I'm used to.
Back in Youngstown's heyday, the city built water service for the suburbs. The same thing happened in Akron, Columbus, and Cleveland. (and probably many other places) I believe this is how Columbus was able to annex so much. In Akron, they are using their water lines to implement Joint Economic Development Districts (JEDDs) with the suburbs that use them. I don't know the whole story, but I guess Cleveland ended up giving their water lines to their respective suburbs. Back in Youngstown, we tried implementing a JEDD with the neighboring suburbs that use "Youngstown" water. But the suburbs wanted nothing to do with the city. (IMO, one of the biggest causes of Youngstown's decline, is that the people who left the city for the suburbs, turned their backs on the city.) The city could annex the suburbs that use Youngstown water, but there isn't enough political will. (and there is already enough animosity between city and suburbs, annexation would be very ugly)
The county and townships don't seem to have a problem building new roads, and widening existing roads, to encourage new construction/development. (and further sprawl)
Texas makes the developer build the roads, the sewage, the water, the electrical, then incorporate into a municipal utility district. At least one suburb in Texas (The Woodlands) sends the City of Houston a check every year so they don't get annexed. I'd call that a subsidy to the city.
Near you, in Pennsylvania, Cranberry Township requires the developer to pay for all improvements (including increased traffic) prior to approving plans.
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.
