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

231–240 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#231

Post by snarf21 »

jaggederest wrote: post #149
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…

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…

I think schools is as big (or bigger) of a problem than the infrastructure. So many towns are bedroom communities that have people commuting to other more dense areas. All the businesses that make money (and pay lots of taxes) are in those other dense areas, not local. Now the local community is on the hook forever to support the school base. Very few communities have rules saying that new developments must pay a substantial fee that could be saved against future school, infrastructure costs. But like most things in this country, people want it just don't want to pay for it (and if it is bad, don't want it here).

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#232

Post by ideonexus »

This problem can be projected out to Federal Spending as well. We can see this in the taxes paid versus tax revenue spent on urban states compared to rural [1]. Alaska gets $1.84 back in federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes compared to the $0.79 New York gets back on its federal taxes.

[1] http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-d...

One quibble I have with the article though is that suburban communities did not start out as luxuries or inventions of convenience. Suburban growth was actually promoted by the federal government with tax incentives in response to the threat of nuclear war. The idea was to spread populations out away from the cities, where a single bomb could kill millions. Shawn Otto's book The War on Science covers this development in great detail, which I've clipped here:

http://mxplx.com/meme/2504/

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#233

Post by majewsky »

porker wrote: post #176
cameldrv wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in Berlin, which is mostly 5-6 story buildings, I think there's a real sweet spot at this height, perhaps a bit higher if people want larger apartments. This puts enough people in a small area that having good transit, including subways, makes economic sense, and all of the daily essentials are within a block or two. Going higher means you need bigger spacing between buildings in order for the lower floo…

How was the soundproofing in these 5-6 story buildings? I've lived in flats in the UK and had endless problems, from people vacuuming at 6am on wooden floors above my bedroom to sleepless nights from parties, to hearing TV and conversations. I like the idea of 5-6 story buildings and know we need higher density housing, but past experiences make we want to live in a 2-story (semi-)detached house with enough garden to…

I live in a GDR-era 5-story apartment block (a model WBS-70/5, to be exact). The soundproofing is quite good; I don't feel disturbed by the neighbors in the surrounding apartments at all. My only gripe is that the door to the entry door is a bit thin. On weekends, when I like to stay in bed a bit longer, I frequently hear people passing by on the stairs.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#234

Post by ap22213 »

true_religion wrote: post #170
ap22213 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Canada towns have strip clubs in the main commercial area across from banks and grocery stores. It's not an issue. The windows are blacked out and the mere aura of a strip club doesn't somehow damn children. Heck in the D.C., liquor stores are precriously close to playgrounds yet it causes no trouble. People who buy liquor have children too, and if not are still part of the community and thus tend not to do whatev…

Sorry - was just using that as an example to illustrate that most people have some preferences about what they want and need in their environment. The purpose wasn't to demonize strip clubs or pot houses. Some people may prefer a strip club next door. To others, it may be a church or a parking lot or a factory that they don't want.

Some people don't want free markets to be a force in their lives - pushing up against their personal preferences. And, those people have as valid of a position as those that do, particularly when in a community of like minded people. It's ironic that libertarian minded people try to wash away this fact - some communities want central planning and zoning, and others don't.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#235

Post by zeroer »

dnautics wrote: post #203
zeroer wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just have metered parking everywhere and have the cost per unit time reflect the local demand for parking. Now you've eliminated an externality.

Who gets to decide the cost per unit time? Do we have 24/7 real-time bidding system?

Presumably some governmental authority. Some realtime bidding system would be nice, but that may or may not realistic. I think a realistic goal is that the prices should be set such that there's always 1-2 spots available in any given small area (say, one city block). If you have zero spots available, then the prices are too low and should be raised. If half the street is empty, the prices are too high and should be lowered. The prices will have to adjust based on time of day and day of week, etc.. It doesn't have to be be perfect to be much better than the system we have now.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#236

Post by dragonwriter »

zeroer wrote: post #235
dnautics wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who gets to decide the cost per unit time? Do we have 24/7 real-time bidding system?

Presumably some governmental authority. Some realtime bidding system would be nice, but that may or may not realistic. I think a realistic goal is that the prices should be set such that there's always 1-2 spots available in any given small area (say, one city block). If you have zero spots available, then the prices are too low and should be raised. If half the street is empty, the prices are too high and should be…

> Some realtime bidding system would be nice, but that may or may not realistic.

Realtime bidding would be a UX nightmare, though I guess it's Econ 101 (i.e., ignoring lots of real factors, including transaction costs) optimal.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#237

Post by ffjffsfr »

OK so the reason why US cities have no money is that they have grown horizontally instead of growing vertically and horizontal growth means high infrastructure cost. That's all very well, but I still dont understand why it happened. Does anyone know why US cities expanded horizontally instead of following growth patterns similar to Europe?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#238

Post by lhopki01 »

ffjffsfr wrote: post #237

OK so the reason why US cities have no money is that they have grown horizontally instead of growing vertically and horizontal growth means high infrastructure cost. That's all very well, but I still dont understand why it happened. Does anyone know why US cities expanded horizontally instead of following growth patterns similar to Europe?

They expanded after car ownership became widespread. The older the city the more compact it is generally.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#239

Post by abricot »

jimmaswell wrote: post #66
gohrt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You prefer that your local neighborhood be administered by a national bureau of neighborhood affairs?

Homeowners associations are abominations. They put "property value" above everything else to the point that you're not allowed to have the wrong brand of car or put your garbage out before midnight the night before it's collected. They should honestly be illegal.

I wonder if that is not a symptom of them having nothing real to worry about?

If they had infrastructure issues to discuss, they would never get to the car brand point on the agenda.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#240

Post by voxic11 »

ffjffsfr wrote: post #237

OK so the reason why US cities have no money is that they have grown horizontally instead of growing vertically and horizontal growth means high infrastructure cost. That's all very well, but I still dont understand why it happened. Does anyone know why US cities expanded horizontally instead of following growth patterns similar to Europe?

The federal government gave cities money under the condition that they spend it on infrastructure. They did this to grab the money in the short term and their backwards accounting practices allowed them to ignore the long term costs, which are catching up to them now.
Post reply on HN