Why Many Cities Have No Money • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#211

Post by ptaipale » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:11 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #155

taneq wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How would having fewer rich people prevent the poor from committing crimes against the middle class (or just publicly engaging in victimless crimes[1]) and engaging in other behaviors that make an area feel unsafe? As a counterpoint, consider India and most of Asia. Poor areas are dirty and have little infrastructure, but they don't feel unsafe. I occasionally shop in Dharavi and don't feel unsafe at all. [1] I belie…

When the middle class is only barely more wealthy than the destitute, there is no point for the poor to try to rob them. And then only the political elite is much richer (in practise even if not in theory), and they are protected well by the police and the military.

This can be the situation in places with centrally managed economies like North Korea today. Obviously, they are also very safe (from the regular criminal behaviour point of view).

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#212

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:12 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #47

twblalock wrote: post #14

There are some cities that get around this by requiring HOAs in new subdivisions, and requiring those HOAs to pay for maintenance of much of the infrastructure. The homeowners pay the same property tax they would pay anywhere else in the same city. There are a number of cities in the Sacramento area that have been doing this kind of thing for over a decade now. That approach brings in another set of problems, but it'…

I'd love to see a more local approach where say a couple hundred of my neighbors from the few blocks around me could vote to raise taxes for something specific, like repaving a street, or rehabbing a park. It's local money that you know stays local.

In some areas it might be possible to set up a local special tax district that does just that.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#213

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:14 PM UTC

windlep wrote: post #137

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/replaci…

I think you may be too used to the tech industry where factor-of-2 improvements frequently happen overnight, or at least over a few years.

> In my area, as in others I've read of, they're smashing paved roads into gravel roads as the paved are too expensive.

How much traffic do these roads get? How dense is the population in the area?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#214

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:16 PM UTC

caseysoftware wrote: post #150

erikb wrote: post #111

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…

Yes, and it's the same with public employee pensions. It's great to be able to spend (or at least commit) tomorrow's dollars today and then be long gone by the time the bill comes due.

No, public employee pensions are supposed to be paid with today's dollars into a separate entity which manages the money in the same way private pensions do. This is why CalPERS has $300bn assets. Those are yesterday's dollars saved for today.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#215

Post by majewsky » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:17 PM UTC

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…

> Most of Europe is pretty walkable and it doesn't have that 'planned' look either.

The pattern that I've observed in my area (East Germany) is that towns have grown by merging with the hamlets and villages around them. So you can have a rapid succession of relatively loose areas with small houses and businesses (the former village centers) interspersed with large prefab apartment blocks (like those that were built in large numbers in GDR times) in the gaps between the villages.

The only major pattern change after the reunification was the emergence of a lot of small shopping malls that bundle a portion of the shops in each district into one place (usually at an intersection of large streets and tram lines).

In contrast, American cities look more like one big blob that grew out into the vast, empty space surrounding it. Since there wasn't any structure to hold onto, everything turned out much more uniform.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#216

Post by yason » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:20 PM UTC

csydas wrote: post #144

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,…

I live in Russia at the moment and probably the most startling thing is how well planned many of the cities and towns are and how very clearly these cities were not made for cars. While it's a hassle for vehicle traffic because the roads were never designed to handle everyone owning a car, the benefit is that no matter where you live there is a shop nearby for essentials (groceries, clothing stores, repairs, cafe's,…

Any city planned and developed before cars is generally considered very friendly, walkable, and desirable. Europe is full of such cities and they're loved for it.

If only planners, politicians and citizens would realise what they have given up just to make it convenient to drive.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#217

Post by randomdata » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:28 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #207

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning controls single and multi unit housing, but the "apartment building" that consists of just rentals is an American thing unrelated to that. In fact, one can convert apartments to condos if one wants (assuming rent control is not an issue). The developers alternate between doing condo and apartment projects, I guess the distinction is important when projects are approved individually, but you can't set that bias…

The US is weird in its fixation on detached housing, for sure. Is it really so weird not to want to hear your neighbors' every amorous evening? Or worry that your kids are bothering them when they run around, or that your work schedule will interfere with the sleep schedule of your neighbors (or vice versa)?

It's kind of weird when choosing to live in a large city, where being in close proximity to people is the whole point. It's not so weird when choosing to live in a low population area, but also not so much of a problem.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#218

Post by notahacker » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:30 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #207

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning controls single and multi unit housing, but the "apartment building" that consists of just rentals is an American thing unrelated to that. In fact, one can convert apartments to condos if one wants (assuming rent control is not an issue). The developers alternate between doing condo and apartment projects, I guess the distinction is important when projects are approved individually, but you can't set that bias…

The US is weird in its fixation on detached housing, for sure. Is it really so weird not to want to hear your neighbors' every amorous evening? Or worry that your kids are bothering them when they run around, or that your work schedule will interfere with the sleep schedule of your neighbors (or vice versa)?

It's weird that you tolerate houses built to such a low standard that hearing through walls is a major problem solved only by doubling them and adding an air gap of a few feet...

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#219

Post by michaelt » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:37 PM UTC

rubber_duck wrote: post #182

jaggederest wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article says, there are plenty of solutions for these problems, individually. The predicament, as a whole, is that we cannot afford them. Infrastructure quality is, like so many things, directly proportionate to investment. You can trade off future maintenance by spending more initially, or vice versa, but you can't magically reduce both at the same time while providing the same level of service. This is preci…

>You can trade off future maintenance by spending more initially, or vice versa Umm is that really true ? Maybe it is I just don't see why this would be - if anything I would guess spending more would lead to more expensive maintenance as well > but you can't magically reduce both at the same time while providing the same level of service. Not magic - innovation.

  if anything I would guess spending more would lead to
  more expensive maintenance as well

The idea is to buy a $100 thing that lasts 10 years, instead of a $20 thing that lasts one year, thus halving your long-term spending.

Of course, not all more expensive products last longer, so careful attention to value for money is a must.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#220

Post by woliveirajr » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 12:40 PM UTC

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,…

OTOH, Brasilia [1], the Federal Capital of Brazil, was 100% planned and included just spaces for cars. Not parking, just roads. Everything is very far apart, and the living part of it (houses, buildings) should consist in mega-blocks that would provide those basic needs: markets, pharmacies, groceries...

Didn't work. You need a car for everything. The roads are flooded with cars. The city expanded and a great part of the habitants live very far from the place they work, so it takes a long time to go home.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia