Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Many Cities Have No Money

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#21

Post by avn2109 »

milesskorpen wrote: post #16
ebbv wrote: post #12

What a crock. This is an extremely biased presentation meant to prime the reader for the awful right wing plan he's going to unveil in his next blog post. No doubt privatizing the infrastructure to "relieve" the taxpayer of the burden. Never mind that somehow it is still going to have to be paid for and if it's privatized we will have to pay more so the new owner can make a profit. The reality is cities are insolvent…

I don't read Strong Towns much, but I don't think you've read much of the stuff they put out. The blog definitely isn't in favor of mass privatization — that wouldn't help much, since the infrastructure is still crazy expensive and not worth paying for. The model of development that gets us out of this mess probably is one of much greater density + changes in accounting practices.

The model that gets us out of this predicament is trivially simple and literally fits on one line:

Really Narrow Streets

Unfortunately most North American local government has a savagely visceral hatred of that idea.

Full disclosure I stole this idea from [0].

[0] http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2006/032606.htm

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#22

Post by Something1234 »

vvpan wrote: post #18

I can't say much about mathematics of taxes described in the article, but I always thought that Soviet Union got a lot of it's city planning very much right. Even a small town is built as a relatively tight formation of high-rises, yet leaving plenty of public space and greenery in the middle. The quality of life in the town that I grew up in is super high, because everything one might need: school, hospital, store,…

Is it still the same way now?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#23

Post by aurizon »

City governments are parasitised by three groups. One is the body professional politicians that manage to get elected.The second is the construction companies they use to build/repair their infrastructure The other is the work force they employ. All three arrange matters so they get twice as much money on average as the voters that pay their wages/ The politicians do it by simple theft by vote. They vote themselves large salaries/ The civil serpents form unions and strike and strike and get 3-5 year contracts with cost of living allowances (COLAS) AND 1 to 3% wage increase, for that 3-5 years. The politicians pay it - to buy peace at the expense of the taxpayers. The construction companies are similarly unionised and do somewhat the same.

Compare the wages of the average city employee with the average non union tax payer.

Now you see why this insoluble problem has emerged over the past 30 years or so.

One year contracts. No signing bonus AT ALL (why reward strikers), so a one month strike costs ~~8% of your annual wage, 2 months ~~17% etc.

Why should these people get more than the tax payers? They are not more skilled.

They are in power or in the union.

Look at how much teachers wages have made books and equipment a vanishingly small % of their budget and how much they force the taxpayers to pay them.

These factors wrecked Detroit. They will wreck Chicago and all other cities as union wage and pension demands take so much money that people move away. Newark died this way years ago.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#24

Post by bsder »

ebbv wrote: post #12

What a crock. This is an extremely biased presentation meant to prime the reader for the awful right wing plan he's going to unveil in his next blog post. No doubt privatizing the infrastructure to "relieve" the taxpayer of the burden. Never mind that somehow it is still going to have to be paid for and if it's privatized we will have to pay more so the new owner can make a profit. The reality is cities are insolvent…

> This is an extremely biased presentation meant to prime the reader for the awful right wing plan he's going to unveil in his next blog post.

Maybe, but urban densification is a very left wing thing.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#25

Post by battlebot »

ebbv wrote: post #12

What a crock. This is an extremely biased presentation meant to prime the reader for the awful right wing plan he's going to unveil in his next blog post. No doubt privatizing the infrastructure to "relieve" the taxpayer of the burden. Never mind that somehow it is still going to have to be paid for and if it's privatized we will have to pay more so the new owner can make a profit. The reality is cities are insolvent…

I agree that it is extremely biased, but it doesn't seem to be "right wing" when it is the left wing that usually expounds about its utter hatred for suburban living. It's just too bourgeoisie.

Yes, wages are stagnant. Why is that? Taxes too high perhaps?

Real estate developers and real estate agents run most cities. They are always looking out for their own interests and damn the future consequences. The biggest problem with real estate people is their average IQ is so low.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#27

Post by badsock »

berry_sortoro wrote: post #2

I don't even need to read the article to know that the real reason is not mentioned in there. The real reason is the FIAT debt based money system. The criminal private enterprise called the FED. Thats the real reason, everything else is a distraction from the truth.

It's not the Federal Reserve. That's one of the few institutions left that are run by humans! The lizard people are spreading conspiracy theories about it because that's the last unimpeachable bulwark of human resistance. And you fell for it!

There is no complex situation that can't simply be explained by humanoid, human-skin-wearing alien creatures. For example:

* Bad economy: Lizard people siphoning off a secret "lizard tax" at the highest levels of government which they then spend on their giant underground lizard carnivals. Fun for them, but disasterous for our jobs.

* Crime: Lizard people sneak into toddler's bedrooms at night and tell them story after story of heroic muggers. They brainwash children to believe that people who take others money at gunpoint are in fact the ones who will end up saving civilization. From what? The very same problems that the lizard people create!

* Global warming: Doesn't exist! The lizards have been stealing mercury from thermometers for centuries.

See, it's obvious if you just think for yourself and do some searches on the internet for "simple theories that explain everything".

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#28

Post by patmcguire »

Something1234 wrote: post #22
vvpan wrote: post #18

I can't say much about mathematics of taxes described in the article, but I always thought that Soviet Union got a lot of it's city planning very much right. Even a small town is built as a relatively tight formation of high-rises, yet leaving plenty of public space and greenery in the middle. The quality of life in the town that I grew up in is super high, because everything one might need: school, hospital, store,…

Is it still the same way now?

They've got fewer people, so probably. Outside of the boomtowns and the capital, almost certainly.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#29

Post by battlebot »

jakewins wrote: post #4
berry_sortoro wrote: post #2

I don't even need to read the article to know that the real reason is not mentioned in there. The real reason is the FIAT debt based money system. The criminal private enterprise called the FED. Thats the real reason, everything else is a distraction from the truth.

Can you expand on this? I don't follow how fiat currency pertains to city budgets and the net cost/benefit of public infrastructure.

Simple: It creates misguided incentives in all kinds of directions. The simple idea that money is limitless has led to municipalities over-promising on pension benefits for just one example.

Who got these developments approved? The developers who made millions and extracted the wealth in partnership with the taxpayers. Same as it ever was.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#30

Post by vvpan »

Something1234 wrote: post #22
vvpan wrote: post #18

I can't say much about mathematics of taxes described in the article, but I always thought that Soviet Union got a lot of it's city planning very much right. Even a small town is built as a relatively tight formation of high-rises, yet leaving plenty of public space and greenery in the middle. The quality of life in the town that I grew up in is super high, because everything one might need: school, hospital, store,…

Is it still the same way now?

It has grown, and more sprawly type of development has been accumulating around it, sadly. This is Moscow region and the population has been growing very fast. Parking space has become an issue as well.
Post reply on HN