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

251–260 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#251

Post by AndyMcConachie »

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…

> those businesses couldn't figure out for themselves the optimal amount of parking to pay for to keep their customers happy.

Those businesses don't pay for the parking themselves. The tax payer pays for those parking spots. That's the entire point of street parking, city run parking lots, and the like. Public parking isn't market controlled it's state subsidized. That's why it's called 'public' parking.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#252

Post by davidw »

ap22213 wrote: post #234
true_religion wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It ultimately comes down to how much you think that 'majority rule' should be able to force things on other people. Some communities, in the past, wanted all the non-white people to stay away from certain neighborhoods. These days, we view that as abhorrent.

I'm not a libertarian by the way - I'll happily argue for regulations and government solutions to other problems where I feel they make sense. But in this case, I think we have gone way too far in regulating and dictating things in the US.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#253

Post by davidw »

LordKano wrote: post #250
davidw wrote: post #106

Earlier 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…

This desire of urban planners to regulate virtually every aspect of city life is precisely why I live in the suburbs. I like to remind budding conservatives and libertarians that the free market is an ideal, not a mandate. The situation you describe is one that it perfect to be handled by the market. It's a cliche but it's also true that what matters is "Location, Location, Location". If you locate a business in an a…

> regulate virtually every aspect of city life is precisely why I live in the suburbs.

You could easily get the same thing out of a HOA in a city with fewer city-wide rules and regulations.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#254

Post by davidw »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #251
davidw wrote: post #75

Earlier 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…

> those businesses couldn't figure out for themselves the optimal amount of parking to pay for to keep their customers happy. Those businesses don't pay for the parking themselves. The tax payer pays for those parking spots. That's the entire point of street parking, city run parking lots, and the like. Public parking isn't market controlled it's state subsidized. That's why it's called 'public' parking.

The parking spots on a business' property, right out front as is often the case in the US are not public. A business could choose to locate somewhere with more or less of this, or forego it altogether. However, currently, businesses are almost always required to have some spots of their own, that are not public.

Public spots (street parking) might get used by customers of a barber, or by local residents, or by another business. This might prove frustrating to customers of the barber who demand easy parking, and they'll go to another barber who does provide more reserved, non-public parking. Or maybe not! Maybe different barbers have different clientele.

This is something the barber shop ought to be able to decide.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#255

Post by LordKano »

davidw wrote: post #253
LordKano wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This desire of urban planners to regulate virtually every aspect of city life is precisely why I live in the suburbs. I like to remind budding conservatives and libertarians that the free market is an ideal, not a mandate. The situation you describe is one that it perfect to be handled by the market. It's a cliche but it's also true that what matters is "Location, Location, Location". If you locate a business in an a…

> regulate virtually every aspect of city life is precisely why I live in the suburbs. You could easily get the same thing out of a HOA in a city with fewer city-wide rules and regulations.

You are absolutely right about that, I also would never buy a home in a community with a HOA.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#256

Post by davidw »

LordKano wrote: post #255
davidw wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> regulate virtually every aspect of city life is precisely why I live in the suburbs. You could easily get the same thing out of a HOA in a city with fewer city-wide rules and regulations.

You are absolutely right about that, I also would never buy a home in a community with a HOA.

Ah, I see what you are saying: you think that suburbs are not planned down to the most minute of details?

I don't know where you live, but I bet if you read a copy of your local zoning code, and have a look at the zoning map, you will probably find that yes, your suburb is very, very heavily regulated, including parking minimums, minimum floor/area ratios, setbacks, uses, and so on and so forth.

Probably less than some HOA's demand, but still a lot of details. I too am not the kind of person who relishes that level of control, but I suppose some people like it.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#257

Post by dragonwriter »

davidw wrote: post #254
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those businesses couldn't figure out for themselves the optimal amount of parking to pay for to keep their customers happy. Those businesses don't pay for the parking themselves. The tax payer pays for those parking spots. That's the entire point of street parking, city run parking lots, and the like. Public parking isn't market controlled it's state subsidized. That's why it's called 'public' parking.

The parking spots on a business' property, right out front as is often the case in the US are not public. A business could choose to locate somewhere with more or less of this, or forego it altogether. However, currently , businesses are almost always required to have some spots of their own, that are not public. Public spots (street parking) might get used by customers of a barber, or by local residents, or by anoth…

> However, currently, businesses are almost always required to have some spots of their own, that are not public.

I don't think that's actually true; certain types of developments are required to include parking as part of the development (e.g., strip malls), but the individual businesses, either in those developments or not, are rarely required to have their own parking.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#258

Post by Sargos »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #153
hackuser wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

In that case, you set up a corporation that buys an entire subdivision of the city, has 'zoning laws' in its corporate bylaws, and makes 'landowners' shareholders. Isn't this just local city government with another name? Well, no. There are significant differences between a city government and an organization of private citizens. For one, it's illegal for Walmart to bribe voters; but a corporation would love to have…

I really don't want to live in the world of Snow Crash

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#259

Post by tpm »

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,…

Not it didn't, speaking as someone who lives in such a planned part of a city. There are several problems: - the areas for living, for offices, and for industry are disjointed and far from each other, necessitating a lot of travel each day. This was partly understandable for workers in polluting industries, but now it's just a pain. - the 'green' spaces are too big (yes, really), which further increases distances and makes it too expensive for the city to take care of them properly. Furthermore the absence of enclosed communal space (what is sometimes inside the 'city blocks') means that the inhabitants don't feel the green space 'belongs to them'. So they don't feel incentives to care for that space, and they don't. (as an aside, the absence of city blocks is sometimes explained as it should make easier for tank armies to control the area in the event of an uprising or war) - the supporting infrastructure was to be built later than the flats, sometimes much later, sometimes never. That's a problem of the execution, though.

I'm not saying it's all bad, but it could be much better.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#260

Post by sologoub »

cperciva wrote: post #185
sologoub wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ick. In Vancouver we have some areas which are basically paved with 5-10 floor buildings -- there's no space between adjacent buildings, and only a narrow sidewalk separating buildings from vehicular traffic. We also have areas with 30-40 floor towers separated by parks and playgrounds, with plenty of trees and wide sidewalks. The population density is basically identical between these areas, but I can't imagine why…

Seems like a problem with street design. As someone noted above, you do need wider streets with wide side walks for this type of construction to be livible. If you cluster too tightly, window to window, it definitely degrades the setup.
Post reply on HN