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.
In California, older cities and suburbs don't subsidize new areas.
Instead, developers are charged large fees that probably run in the range of $30k - $50k per house to finance the construction of roads, schools, libraries, fire stations, parks, and water and sewer systems.
This was a consequence of Prop 13, which mandated a 2/3 vote of the people to raise taxes. However, fees required only a majority vote of the legislative body. Therefore, if the government can legally justify the leveling of a fee, they will do so.
The fact that the older cities/suburbs are sending their tax dollars for roads, schools, and other infastructure in the newer suburbs at the expense of the cities/older suburbs.
that depends upon state and local tax structure, which varies from place to place.
In California, older cities and suburbs don't subsidize new areas.
Instead, developers are charged large fees that probably run in the range of $30k - $50k per house to finance the construction of roads, schools, libraries, fire stations, parks, and water and sewer systems.
This was a consequence of Prop 13, which mandated a 2/3 vote of the people to raise taxes. However, fees required only a majority vote of the legislative body. Therefore, if the government can legally justify the leveling of a fee, they will do so.
Now that surely is a way to make it more difficult for people to build affordable homes.
Where I live some people just build down dirt roads if they want less expensive property.
No need for additional services supplied by a municipality.
Over a long period of time things like pavement may happen but more often than not it does not.
It depends on what happens at town meeting.
That's right,unlike cities the residents get to vote on things such as paving a road.
That is the democracy cities have eliminated.
Funny how places like Boston or LA tout democracy and don't have any.
Once suburbs were built, future generations were stuck with them. The more suburbs are subsidized, the more affordable they are relative to the (safe parts of) the city, and the more young people will be have to live in them. Give us a level playing field, then you'd see what people truly prefer.
We have been spending deacdfes and billion on urban renewal ;still people move tot eh burbs. Its really nothig new as it started after WWII and has continued. The only reason many oved to cities is the concentration of jobs from concentrated material transportatio and energy in prior times. People never moved to citiwes for the livig conditionsand the rich have always had their coutnry estates and still do.If you lok cities are still losing people compared to the burbs and even more rural areas. With boomers retirng the trand is likely to continue.With fedweral busget problems the federally subsidised urbna reneral and CDBG grants will be disappearing also.As compnaies move further out the subsidising of homes i urban areas by high taxes are also disappearing.Fort deacdes now the cities have anneexed to amintain their popualtions but that is also changing whch hurt their revenues on homeowners of higher value homes;but more and more that is being rejected by the burbs.
We have been spending deacdfes and billion on urban renewal ;still people move tot eh burbs. Its really nothig new as it started after WWII and has continued. The only reason many oved to cities is the concentration of jobs from concentrated material transportatio and energy in prior times. People never moved to citiwes for the livig conditionsand the rich have always had their coutnry estates and still do.If you lok cities are still losing people compared to the burbs and even more rural areas. With boomers retirng the trand is likely to continue.With fedweral busget problems the federally subsidised urbna reneral and CDBG grants will be disappearing also.As compnaies move further out the subsidising of homes i urban areas by high taxes are also disappearing.Fort deacdes now the cities have anneexed to amintain their popualtions but that is also changing whch hurt their revenues on homeowners of higher value homes;but more and more that is being rejected by the burbs.
If people stopped moving to the suburbs, cities wouldn't decay, and we wouldn't need urban renewal.
One thing that hasn't been brought up on this thread that I think ultimately might be the mark of Generation Y in this arena is bringing the suburbs to the city. Gen Y seems to feel the need to say they live in the city, but they also need Home Depot, Target, etc. at an arm's length. Hence, some of the development you're seeing in the portions of inner cities that have seen gentrification by young professionals.
See, the problem with statements like that is no one really knows enough people to make that kind of generalization and by the time enough data has been collected to know one way or another whatever was happening has already happened. If I went by my friends and work acquaintances I'd have to say that my generation (Gen-X) is in favor of abandoning the cities and the suburbs and choosing a more remote existence. I've got the common sense to know that isn't true but if you narrow the criteria to college educated Gen-X with degrees in natural sciences and work histories in natural resources management, environmental geology, wildlife biology, etc., etc. then it very well might be.
As to the original topic - seems to be a marketing thing by people trying to figure out the appropriate spin to apply to sell their product rather than an effort to make any drastic changes in the product. Y'know, like the "organic" section at wallmart.
One thing that hasn't been brought up on this thread that I think ultimately might be the mark of Generation Y in this arena is bringing the suburbs to the city. Gen Y seems to feel the need to say they live in the city, but they also need Home Depot, Target, etc. at an arm's length. Hence, some of the development you're seeing in the portions of inner cities that have seen gentrification by young professionals.
Are the stores coming there because there is something to Generation Y that needs them? Or is it because stores move where they think they will be good sales. Especially if a city has similar types of people as those that live in the burbs, why won't they share some shopping habits in common?
Now that surely is a way to make it more difficult for people to build affordable homes.
Where I live some people just build down dirt roads if they want less expensive property.
No need for additional services supplied by a municipality.
Over a long period of time things like pavement may happen but more often than not it does not.
It depends on what happens at town meeting.
That's right,unlike cities the residents get to vote on things such as paving a road.
That is the democracy cities have eliminated.
Funny how places like Boston or LA tout democracy and don't have any.
I assume that they don't do without electricity. Water or sewers, I suppose drilling a well and septic tanks/leachfields are practical in some places, but beyond a certain point people demand things like sewers and city water systems. Cities had dirt roads a century ago, but "dirt" would be a very, very, very generous term for the substances that actually made up the street. Paving, plumbing and sewers were essential to eliminate rampant disease. You can't just vote to not have a cholera outbreak.
One thing that hasn't been brought up on this thread that I think ultimately might be the mark of Generation Y in this arena is bringing the suburbs to the city. Gen Y seems to feel the need to say they live in the city, but they also need Home Depot, Target, etc. at an arm's length. Hence, some of the development you're seeing in the portions of inner cities that have seen gentrification by young professionals.
I guess I'm Generation Y. I choose to live in the city, but I'm not a rabid suburb-hater and I don't look down upon those who choose to live in the 'burbs, like many people on this thread seem to do. I actually like a lot of the amenities that suburbs have to offer as well as the newer construction as long as it's well done and energy efficient -- and I'm aware that not all suburban housing fits this criteria.
I don't mind places like Target, Home Depot, etc., coming to the city, especially when they try to fit in with the surrounding landscape. Quite honestly, I don't like to shop at a lot of the Mom & Pop stores because they gouge on many of the items I routinely buy. I understand that it's tough to keep up with Walmart and I don't mind paying slightly more to have the satisfaction of 'helping the little guy', but the price difference can be ridiculous on some items, like contact lens solution, for instance. The brand that I use is $10 ($9.99) at the Mom & Pop drug store when it's $6.50 at Target -- and a trip to Target does NOT require a drive out to the 'burbs. I can stop on my way home from work.
Also, in my city (Denver, CO), jobs are NOT concentrated in the downtown core and many of the people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs. I'm a fan of living near where one works. I don't think everyone should be forced to live in the city.
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.
My Generation Wants.......
