Live data from Hacker News

Why Many Cities Have No Money

strongtowns.org

121–130 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#121
Wait, what? He's saying that horizontal expansion is bad? Is he really advocating vertical expansion (concentrated tall buildings)?

Just compare London (horizontal) to any vertical city. London feels like so much better place to live. Low traffic (in comparison to vertical cities), parks everywhere etc. - you feel like you can breathe, not cramped in concrete walls.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#122
post #70
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.

What? I've lived in Chicago for about a year and its public transit is one thing it does right.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#123
post #42
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That calculation is for fully replacing all existing infrastructure on the basis that over the course of a single generation most infrastructure will need to be replaced at least once due to maintenance/upkeep. So basically it will cost something like $32b per generation just for the upkeep of the existing infrastructure.

That's still 10K per person per year (assuming a 25 years generation), which seems on the high side. I wonder how much of that is roads alone?

Doesn't business taxes come into play?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#124

Wait, what? He's saying that horizontal expansion is bad? Is he really advocating vertical expansion (concentrated tall buildings)? Just compare London (horizontal) to any vertical city. London feels like so much better place to live. Low traffic (in comparison to vertical cities), parks everywhere etc. - you feel like you can breathe, not cramped in concrete walls.

London is on the extreme side of "vertical" compared to the "bad" parts under discussion here. London is at least 5x more "vertical" (meaning dense) than the hugely expensive horizontal under discussion in the post.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#125
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here in Vilnius parking is an issue two. As I understand (I'm originally from the UK), in an apartment building of maybe 30 units there would be maybe 2 cars during Soviet times, where as now its more like 30 :D

The buildings here aren't that big (I went to Kiev a couple of years ago and was surprised how much taller they are) so there is usually just about enough space between the buildings to fit all the cars in. New buildings almost exclusively have underground parking, which is nice to recover the green space.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#126

The author, Chuck Marohn, has previously made this video that explains how a Land Value Tax would affect the fiscal situation of a city (for the better): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE

He says at the end that nobody switches from Property Tax to Land Tax, because people who own underdeveloped land would vote against it due to an immediate increase in their taxes.

Are there no ways to make it happen? Maybe propose to switch it gradually over a long period of time? Or would that end just as poorly?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#128
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houston actually has relatively lax zoning laws. This makes for some interesting stuff: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Weir...

Yeah, Houston gets trotted out a lot by the Market Urbanism folks: http://marketurbanism.com/2016/06/02/houston-beautiful-yet-p... But that city also has massive sprawl, so it's kind of tough to point at as an example for more coastal folks. Certain areas may showcase how things could be, but it's still a very car-centric city.

While it lacks many types of zoning, Houston still has minimum parking requirements, which push people towards driving. It also exists in a conservative state that favors highway expansion over transit expansion.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#129
post #57
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,…

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

Public housing in the US was poorly implemented. It was strictly low-income, rather than mixed-income, and the housing was largely soulless large complexes far from amenities. Other countries, like Austria, have public housing that works perfectly fine.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#130
post #38
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "l…

Christ, tell me about it. The presence of one fiat/debt conspiracy theorist in the comments is far less troubling than the collection of commenters seemingly amazed at his insight. Let's not even get into the the smug myopia of Murray "legal obligations to feed and clothe children are state oppression" Rothbard that is also getting trotted out. Fiat currency is, of course, an improvement over previous precious metal-…

I had never heard of Murray Rothbard before and looked him up thinking your description of him must be hyperbole.

I am appalled at almost everything I'm reading. Selling children, women's suffrage being a bad thing because it let "lesbian spinsters" vote, the Union being morally wrong to fight the south over slavery because it was the souths property rights?

If someone had told me these views were held by a major influence in the libertarian party I would have assumed they were some partisan with an agenda telling me lies about libertarians.

Thank you for showing me some new information

Post reply on HN