Sorry if that hurts some American self-respect, but what's the difference between this and the Chinese housing bubble that American media always complain about? Sure some details are different, but the basic layout is the same from what I can see: Politicians had about 20 years long time of incentives to grow without really building self sustaining cities. Now the current generation is at a point were it nearly doesn't know any more what to do. Seems quite similar, doesn't it?
Why Many Cities Have No Money
111–120 of 424 posts
Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money
#112> 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…
> 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. Isn't that the typical depreciation schedule for infrastructural assets? I've seen some useful life tables used by accountants and 25 years seems to be a typical mark. Maybe 30 years, but rarely 50.
Depreciating it over 30 years is probably reasonable, but automatically counting replacement as an unfunded liability is way too conservative.
Heavily traffic roads will need replacing at least every 30 years. But in my college down, they had side streets made of brick that has lasted over 80 years.
Things like water mains and sewerage pipes have a lifetime of 100 years or more. A lot of the systems are now due up for replacement for the first time and it will cost a lot. But it won't have to be done again again in our lifetimes.
Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money
#113Extreme density is overrated. See http://tinyvillages.org
Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money
#114This article seems to focus overmuch on infrastructure maintenance costs. While those are certainly an important factor, most of the actual municipal bankruptcies in recent years were caused primarily by expensive union contracts and pension obligations. Declining populations and financial malfeasance were also factors in some cases.
Perhaps an explosion in infrastructure maintenance costs will cause a new wave of municipal bankruptcies within the next few years but so far it's just not happening.
Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
By enacting laws, you create a very rigid situation that's much more difficult to change than "there's not enough parking", which is something the neighborhood could adapt to without too much trouble.
When I was born, Bend was still a wood products industry town based around logging and the local mills. These days, it's trying to develop a high tech industry, and doing reasonably well at it for a small-ish town. Places need to adapt, and rigid zoning is probably detrimental to that adaptation. Markets take in everyone who lives, or wants to live in a place. Planning commissions, or even city councils, have just a few people with their own ideas of "how things should be".
In terms of how they're too regulated, sure:
http://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/06/shut-out-how-land-use-r...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/04/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-c...
And Exhibit A: the market for housing in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is completely batshit crazy because of the refusal to build housing.
Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money
#116Earlier 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…
> the barbershops may be incentivized to push the parking costs onto others
You mean others who post "Parking for McDonald's only" on their spots and have a towing service visible?
There are problems that are not pragmatic for markets to solve without a bit of legal rigidity, but the whole "who will build the roads?" seems to stem from a lack of creativity and just overall contrarianism. "Who will build the interstate highway system" is a much more fair question, but I think cities would enjoy a nice efficiency boost from the decentralized, organic growth of a less bureaucratically-planned city (plus fewer budget problems).
Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money
#117I 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 recommend a book for me to read? I ask because I completely agree and I'd love to be more educated about the issue.
"The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin
"End the FED" by Ron Paul.
Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Really? I mean, if you have money and can make sure you're in specific areas of the city enjoying specific things, I can see it being great.
But a blanket statement like that about Chicago is very surprising given all of the negative things about its situation (unbelievable gun violence, for one).
Also I can never get over the hilariously bad 75-year lease of its parking meters where they got $1B up front in exchange for eschewing massive amounts of ongoing revenue (the lessees have made $650M+ in revenue in 6 years while sapping the populace dry). Now Chicago actually has to lose money and pay Abu Dhabi any time they want to shut down a street for maintenance or public festivals. Fantastic!
Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Really? I mean, if you have money and can make sure you're in specific areas of the city enjoying specific things, I can see it being great.
But a blanket statement like that about Chicago is very surprising given all of the negative things about its situation (unbelievable gun violence, for one).
Also I can never get over the hilariously bad 75-year lease of its parking meters where they got $1B up front in exchange for eschewing massive amounts of ongoing revenue (the lessees have made $650M+ in revenue in 6 years while sapping the populace dry). Now Chicago actually has to lose money and pay Abu Dhabi any time they want to shut down a street for maintenance or public festivals. Fantastic!
Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money
#120Earlier 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.
Does law enforcement really need that military equipment though? And the training for that stuff can't be cheap.
They get it a very good discounts.
Salaries and buildings are expensive.