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

131–140 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#131

Post by flomo »

otoburb wrote: post #50
leodeid wrote: post #5

In the intro, it is stated that "literally five or less" cities do not have these monetary problems. I'm curious what those cities are, and why are they special. If the answer isn't "they've always used accrual accounting", I don't buy that most cities are doomed due to accounting problems.

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…

He is inserting his own bias without considering the obvious: Infrastructure doesn't vote.

It doesn't really matter where you are, politics state that money is going mostly to people and not into the ground.

San Francisco, where I live, has loads of revenue and a citizenry which approves every single bond measure on the ballot. And we certainly shouldn't be on his list. Infrastructure issues here are never addressed until they hit a crisis level.

Just the other day there was news about how our seawall which contains our entire financial district is in horrible condition[1], and there's "no funding" and the usual blarble about the Feds bailing us out. Is any other city program going to be cut a dime to fix the seawall? No. From a political standpoint it makes more sense to let the city flood than it does to cut off any short-term political gain.

[1]https://www.hoodline.com/2017/01/as-earthquake-threat-to-sea...

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#132

Post by sologoub »

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,…

Well, they got walkability mostly right, but living in those panel boxes was still not great. I'd never want to go back to that...

Personally, I find the 5-8 story setups of cities like Paris, Barcelona or Rome much more appealing - enough density to make all the good things like walkability and local cafes happen, but no blocked out sun (Like in NYC) or need to climb to 20th floor when the elevator gives out for the nth time.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#133

Post by TulliusCicero »

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…

In most parts of the country, zoning regulations force developers to build low density. Just look at the fights in the SF bay area where developers want to build tall and local NIMBYs fight them tooth and nail.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#135

Post by ap22213 »

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…

There are zoning and planning because, well, people actually live in those places, and it's natural for people to want some control over their environment. Is that really such a bad thing?

It's like drugs, and prostitution, and all of the many things that seem so trendy to want to 'free' from government these days. On paper, the ideas look fantastic and efficient. That is, until a 24-hour strip club / pot dispensary opens across from your kid's elementary school.

Government sucks because it is by nature design by committee. It's inefficient and ugly. Yet, what's the alternative? Maybe AI at some point, but until then we have either collaborative government or authoritative.

But back to the article. One thing overlooked is the pressure on city officials from developers to get rezoning rules waived. And, there's often a lot of corruption in that process, also. For instance, most cities know that residential units cost more in services than other units. And, usually the taxes are structured (too low) such that the residential tax is insufficient to pay for the supplied services. The city planners know this and they account for it in their zoning plans. But, the developers later pressure cities to allow rapid expansion of residential. And, ultimately the plans become broken by too many new units.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#136

Post by kazagistar »

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…

I was born in one of those cities where most housing is in the form of the old communist panelaks. But there is a clear distinction between the nice neighborhoods (5-10 floor buildings, trees and parks filling the sizable spaces) and the shitty ones (20+ floors, densely packed, near interstates, spaced with dirt). The former are a nice place to raise a middle class family, and the latter are crime filled slums.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#137

Post by windlep »

I've seen the infrastructure thing come up for awhile now, and it's definitely true. In my area, as in others I've read of, they're smashing paved roads into gravel roads as the paved are too expensive.

The thing that fascinates me is that it feels like a forgone conclusion that infrastructure costs cannot be made cheaper. Have we really hit the most cost effective, cheapest, most sustainable method of laying/replacing sewer/gas/water lines and roads?

There's no innovation left at all when it comes to making pipes that are more easily replaceable without digging the entire road up? There's no brilliant ideas left at all on how to 'pave' roads so they're smooth enough in a way that costs less money, or lasts way longer? Heck, while we're talking improvements maybe we should have a way to pave a road such that we don't have such massive runoff and its more resilient to minor settling underneath without opening large potholes.

I do wonder whether the shit really hitting the fan, and massive chunks of the population having their roads smashed back to gravel might shake a few new ideas out.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#138

Post by TulliusCicero »

bsder wrote: post #24
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.

I wish. Have you seen the fights over increased density in left wing areas like SF, Portland, and Seattle?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#139

Post by stmfreak »

This article embodies a lot of magic thinking and completely avoids asking the questions about _why_ things cost so much vs. when the infrastructure was first built.

Here is a clue: defined benefit pensions

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#140

Post by tn13 »

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…

All real estate related problems in American cities are about nonsensical level of regulation. It is really cool to find so much free parking in Sunnyvale but then we cant really complain about high rents can we ?

People fail to see the basic premise that you cant really have both, plenty of parking and lower rents. They go hand in hand.

Post reply on HN