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

101–110 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#101

Post by brianwawok »

bbarn wrote: post #70
otoburb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article author Charles Marohn addresses this question in the comments section. His entire comment response: " They are the ones with a very dominant urban core, where the urban fabric overwhelms the horizontal, auto-oriented stuff. I'm not saying these places won't struggle for the same reasons Lafayette will, but I suspect their decline/contraction will be less pronounced, less a defining characteristic. NYC, Bo…

The Author should spend time in Chicago. We've got ridiculous taxes on everything, general sales tax itself is almost 11% now, and nothing in this city works. The trains barely function close to on time, the streets are riddled with potholes, and the police are afraid of PR problems so much crime is escalating. Also, the weather sucks.

Chicago is fantastic. You should try a few other cities and report back.

Source: Moved out and now want to go back.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#102

Post by Gustomaximus »

flukus wrote: post #41
Gustomaximus wrote: post #37

> When we added up the replacement cost of all of the city's infrastructure -- an expense we would anticipate them cumulatively experiencing roughly once a generation -- it came to $32 billion. A generation is what, 25 years? If you expect to replace all roads/electricity poles/sewers etc every 25 years you seriously need to look a quality. For this I feel this whole article is off. > Humans are predisposed to highly…

> Making asset sales/tenders/expenditure very public and show comparable cost ratios. E.g. cost per km of sewer I think this is one of the main drivers in favoring cheap and punishing quality. I agree with 2 and 3, though I'd argue that private jails are one of the things that should be bought back in house.

Fair point about this can push cheap. I guess this is said with the expectation people that know what they are doing have relevant quality requirements in said tender.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#103

Post by brianwawok »

jcoffland wrote: post #99
Daishiman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone still has to pay for education, law enforcement, and firefighter. There's not way around it; people are paying much less for infrastructure than they should be. Sorry to you but that's the price of civilization.

That's why I left 40%. Maybe 60% isn't the magic number but 10% is BS. We need to eliminate corruption and abuse of power. Contractors of all types regularly get away with over charging local governments. This has to stop.

Have you looked at where your town money actually goes? You think 30-40% is going to corruption?

These numbers are public. Dive in.

Sprawl is hard to sustain. We should let some paved roads turn to dirt, and encourage fewer dense places to live. (Or you can live far out, but no paved roads, and no fire trucks)

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#104

Post by hackuser »

davidw wrote: post #75
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,…

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…

> As if, in a competitive market, those businesses couldn't figure out for themselves the optimal amount of parking to pay for to keep their customers happy.

I don't know anything about Bend, but speaking generally ...

There are many ways that markets are inefficient and flawed; I wouldn't assume they would yield a good result. For example, the barbershops may be incentivized to push the parking costs onto others. It may be that every business has that incentive, nobody wants to pay for other people's parking, and thus nobody makes the first move. In situations like that, people succeed by coordinating their activities through democratic government and laws.

People living in cities, elbow-to-elbow and sharing large numbers of resources (such as parking), may need to coordinate more than people in rural areas.

Also, as they say, don't tear down a fence until you know the reason for which it was built. It's like that odd, useless-looking bit of code in that old application - maybe do some research before you delete it.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#105

Post by seanmcdirmid »

davidw wrote: post #87
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Eh, Swiss laws on zoning would make an American's head spin. There is a huge emphasis on mixed use, but that is planned as well!

There are plenty of condo buildings that are owner owned and also rented out! It's just that the USA has plenty of buildings designed for rentals, which is more about the American market than zoning (residential is residential).

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#106

Post by davidw »

hackuser wrote: post #104
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…

> As if, in a competitive market, those businesses couldn't figure out for themselves the optimal amount of parking to pay for to keep their customers happy. I don't know anything about Bend, but speaking generally ... There are many ways that markets are inefficient and flawed; I wouldn't assume they would yield a good result. For example, the barbershops may be incentivized to push the parking costs onto others. It…

"Externalities" is how economists describe those costs.

Realistically speaking, the barber shop could only really push people to park:

* On the street. And you know what? That's fine. If the street was built to have parking, and people are parking there, it's not a problem. It might be more of a PITA for the clients. If it's too much of a PITA, the business may suffer. But that's how markets work.

* In some other business' parking spots: that can easily be solved by other means, rather than having city-wide laws covering all barbers in the city, some of which may cater to hipsters riding fixies who do not need car parking, and others who have elderly patrons who will not tolerate being forced to walk more than they absolutely have to.

I'm not a "markets solve all the problems kind of guy" because externalities are real things. But I feel that our cities are way too regulated. Zoning didn't even exist in Bend until 1947. Some of the first zoning regulations didn't come about until the early 20th century in the rest of the US.

How would we react if there were a "planning commission" that dictated how much of each kind of restaurant (Vietnamese, Mexican, Burgers, etc..) at what kind of price point could exist in a city? Zoning should be to keep truly noxious things away from where people live, not to keep duplexes away from single family homes, or barber shops outside of residential areas.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#107

Post by davidw »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #105
davidw wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Eh, Swiss laws on zoning would make an American's head spin. There is a huge emphasis on mixed use, but that is planned as well! There are plenty of condo buildings that are owner owned and also rented out! It's just that the USA has plenty of buildings designed for rentals, which is more about the American market than zoning (residential is residential).

Europe is pretty diverse, I guess :-)

> It's just that the USA has plenty of buildings designed for rentals, which is more about the American market than zoning (residential is residential).

How things are done in the US tends to favor larger developers who can come along and make a bunch of apartments in an area where that has been approved (which tends to be a fairly small portion of the city), rather than a more incremental development style where things slowly transition building by building. This is in large part because of zoning laws that make it difficult to get apartments in many places, so having the means to face the legal challenges is only something those with deeper pockets can handle, rather than a smaller developer who may only wish to develop a few buildings.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#108

Post by arcticfox »

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?

If anybody's curious in looking further, the place appears to be Troitsk, Moscow.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#109

Post by hackuser »

davidw wrote: post #106
hackuser wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As if, in a competitive market, those businesses couldn't figure out for themselves the optimal amount of parking to pay for to keep their customers happy. I don't know anything about Bend, but speaking generally ... There are many ways that markets are inefficient and flawed; I wouldn't assume they would yield a good result. For example, the barbershops may be incentivized to push the parking costs onto others. It…

"Externalities" is how economists describe those costs. Realistically speaking, the barber shop could only really push people to park: * On the street. And you know what? That's fine. If the street was built to have parking, and people are parking there, it's not a problem. It might be more of a PITA for the clients. If it's too much of a PITA, the business may suffer. But that's how markets work. * In some other bus…

Yes, there are externalities and also other ways markets fail; that's why I didn't use the term.

Maybe there aren't enough street parking spots for all the businesses, and then the market fails: No business wants to spend on on-site parking in order to free up parking for everyone else. The way to move forward is to come together and pass a law.

> Zoning didn't even exist in Bend until 1947. Some of the first zoning regulations didn't come about until the early 20th century in the rest of the US.

I'm not sure that means anything either way. Baseball didn't become desegregated until 1947 either. Is there something suspect about advances or changes in society that are recent? Did humans live better before 1947?

> I feel that our cities are way too regulated.

With due respect, this is too easy to say without evidence, is too general to have much application, and it has become cliche to say it about everything. In what ways are they too regulated, and in what ways not regulated enough? Do you have anything to back it up? How much regulation is just right?

> How would we react if there were a "planning commission" that dictated how much of each kind of restaurant (Vietnamese, Mexican, Burgers, etc..) at what kind of price point could exist in a city?

Vote them out of office? Appear at the planning commission meeting? Organize restaurant owners and talk to elected representatives? Democracy is a proven, effective tool. Case in point: I haven't heard of your hypothetical extreme scenario happening.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#110

Post by sssilver »

taneq wrote: post #97
gedy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't this what public housing projects in the US did, and are now considered massive failures?

The reason for the US public housing projects' failure is wealth inequality. When your population has a mix of well-off people and very poor people, and you provide super-cheap housing, the very poor people gravitate to it, among them those who are desperate, have nothing to lose, involved in drugs and crime, etc. Once this happens the crime rate goes up, the area feels unsafe to 'normal' people, and anyone who can d…

It was the former.
Post reply on HN