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

81–90 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#81

Post by dkuebric »

intrasight wrote: post #73
xenadu02 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite correct... fiscal discipline isn't going to make most suburb-heavy cities in America solvent. You can't cut your way to profitability in the long term, you can only stave off bankruptcy in the short term. The article is saying that mostly-suburb cities are not sustainable. They cost more to build and maintain over the long term than the majority of cities can recoup in taxes. That has little to do wi…

You are indeed supporting my assertion that towns have different economics. Mine is an old suburb (1920s) of a medium-sized city (Pittsburgh). And as I stated, our town is sustainable. We have "more" parks not "fewer parks". Parks require much less maintenance cost than does residential spaces(plus much is done by volunteers). I'll also assert again that how "spread out" things are doesn't matter. If anything, denser…

I don't think the schools example is parallel. There's a lot of factors that go into the success of a student, both in and outside of school. Equal funding doesn't translate to equal opportunity.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#82

Post by davidw »

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'm a member of Strong Towns, and it's an interesting mix of people from both left and right.

If I had to sum it up, it might be something like 'traditional development patterns', akin to what you saw in pre-WWII cities in the US, and much of Europe. More walking, and biking. There's a lot to like for a lefty like me.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#83

Post by namlem »

gohrt wrote: post #56
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,…

Why did that town exist? Why did a small number of people live in that isolated area, instead of closer in to population centers?

It's not isolated. In another comment someone from there mentioned that it's not far from Moscow.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#84

Post by jcoffland »

The median house in Lafayette costs roughly > $150,000. A family living in this house would currently pay about $1,500 per year in taxes to the local government of which 10%, approximately $150, goes to maintenance of infrastructure (more is paid to the schools and regional government).

I'm sorry but this kind of calculation is, I believe, the real reason infrastructure in America is suffering. If only 10% of my property tax is going to infrastructure then I don't need to pay 6 times as much, I just need my local government to cut the crap and spend 60% of my property tax on infrastructure. I understand that means less government jobs but we are already kidding ourselves if we think it's a good idea to grow government to reduce unemployment.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#85

Post by cylinder »

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,…

You should check out Stuyvesant Town in NYC. I really like its layout and the lack of cars. It's a good community. I've envisioned building an entire city as a chain of these self contained Stuyvesant Towns.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#86

Post by nullc »

gohrt wrote: post #59
driverdan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curing cancer with AIDS? No thanks.

You prefer that your local neighborhood be administered by a national bureau of neighborhood affairs?

I prefer it be administered by something subject to due process and reasonable legal protections.

In most places a town council member who dislikes you is very limited in how they can make your life difficult... This is far less true for HOAs.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#87

Post by davidw »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #79
davidw wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem in the US is too much planning, alongside too many subsidies for cars. Look at a zoning map of any city: there's an incredible level of detail about what's permitted where. The local zoning code here in Bend, until recently, had a section on how many parking spots per customer for barber shops. As if, in a competitive market, those businesses couldn't figure out for themselves the optimal amount o…

Oh, it was definitely "planned" in the modern era. You can see similar problems to the states in many European suburbs (though not as bad because a lot more planning).

Sure, there's planning there, but not quite as much as the US. I own a flat in a suburb of Padova, Italy. It's in a building with 5 other flats. Next to it are two single family homes, as well as another apartment building with 8 flats. Some of the flats are owned, some are rented.

In the US, things get separated out into giant apartment complexes where everyone rents, and single family home districts, where people lose their shit at the mere whiff of a duplex being built.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#88

Post by seanmcdirmid »

intrasight wrote: post #73
xenadu02 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite correct... fiscal discipline isn't going to make most suburb-heavy cities in America solvent. You can't cut your way to profitability in the long term, you can only stave off bankruptcy in the short term. The article is saying that mostly-suburb cities are not sustainable. They cost more to build and maintain over the long term than the majority of cities can recoup in taxes. That has little to do wi…

You are indeed supporting my assertion that towns have different economics. Mine is an old suburb (1920s) of a medium-sized city (Pittsburgh). And as I stated, our town is sustainable. We have "more" parks not "fewer parks". Parks require much less maintenance cost than does residential spaces(plus much is done by volunteers). I'll also assert again that how "spread out" things are doesn't matter. If anything, denser…

For your last point, if your student demographic is more impoverished, you will get worse results compared to a more well off demographic even with the same per pupil spending; the resources the kid has at home is important! (Charter schools get their results through selection bias, American suburbs with large lots that aren't suitable for low income housing likewise).

The white flight to the suburbs in the 60s is largely responsible for that, creating a negative feedback loop that we haven't been able to break even now. Anyways, it isn't always about fiscal discipline, often the answer is much more obvious than that. Suburbs basically outsourced poverty to the cities.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#89

Post by intrasight »

dkuebric wrote: post #81
intrasight wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are indeed supporting my assertion that towns have different economics. Mine is an old suburb (1920s) of a medium-sized city (Pittsburgh). And as I stated, our town is sustainable. We have "more" parks not "fewer parks". Parks require much less maintenance cost than does residential spaces(plus much is done by volunteers). I'll also assert again that how "spread out" things are doesn't matter. If anything, denser…

I don't think the schools example is parallel. There's a lot of factors that go into the success of a student, both in and outside of school. Equal funding doesn't translate to equal opportunity.

But I'm not talking about individual students. In my example, we'd be averaging the students individual situation over the 20-30K in their new fiscal neighborhood. Any "success factors" that did exist across such averages would be more than canceled out by the empowerment given to parent and child.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#90

Post by davidw »

h4nkoslo wrote: post #8

Summary: infrastructure costs to maintain spread out exurb style development end up being more than the incremental tax revenue, especially when you consider replacement costs and the potential for future higher borrowing costs. Property developers (along with car dealerships) are by far the strongest advocacy groups in many areas. It's not totally surprising that they've managed to capture the local government and p…

Developers will build whatever they're allowed to. They'll do dense if that's where the money is, or single family homes if that's all that zoning allows.

There's probably some bias to what they know, and all we've allowed (zoning) is single family homes, strip malls and that kind of thing, so there is that, but if more were allowed, it'd probably end up being built, sooner or later.

Post reply on HN