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

331–340 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#331

Post by ocschwar »

roel_v wrote: post #157
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…

The number of parking spots isn't for the barber, it's so that the customers don't park their cars in the spots of the residents or other users of the area! We in 'Europe' have exactly those rules (and then some). And we need them, because these old, not-planned looking cities lack space for everything that didn't exist 500 years ago, obvious things like cars but also 100's of people per building (few residential bui…

No, you don't. Your city would look very, very different if you had parking minimums like in the US.

A parking spot is about 30 square meters. 300 square feet. My house is on a footprint of 900 square feet. When you add driveway length, you can see that my driveway takes up almost as much land as my house, and for homes with more than one parking spot in my area, it can take up more than the house.

For businesses, it's even worse. Look at a satellite image of any American suburban area, and start coloring in the parking spots, and you'll be appalled at how much space is taken up by these things.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#332

Post by a3n »

mercer wrote: post #310
pif wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe is full of such cities and they're loved for it. Sure, Florence is beautiful and lovable, but I personally like the possibility to also drive to a commercial center, buy what I need for a few days, drive back home and park my car in a closed garage conveniently connected to my apartment via a lift, or my house via a door.

Over here in Holland we use bikes for all of that. It gets you some free exercise and it's less polluting.

What do people do who can't bike?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#333

Post by hx87 »

zackmorris wrote: post #283
bufordsharkley wrote: post #39

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

I was for a land value tax (because people with more wealth in the form of land would pay more taxes in theory) but after watching the video I am now against it. It hinges on the definition of improving land, and from an environmental standpoint human improvement of land is an externality that as often as not creates negative value through exhaustion of resources, waste and unsustainability. Also IMHO there is far to…

Improvement isn't always worse for the the environment. Is converting a forest to a parking lot a net negative from an environmental point of view? Yes. Is converting a parking lot to a 5 story residential building a net negative? No, because the parking lot wasn't environmentally friendly to begin with, the residential building doesn't damage the environment any more than the parking lot, and provides much more value to the public than the parking lot for the same environmental cost.

> Also IMHO there is far too much investment in construction, when buildings are already sitting idle.

Unfortunately all the idle buildings are in the wrong places. LVT, plus tax credits for reclaimed materials would at least move them to where they can do the most good.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#334

Post by vanderZwan »

pif wrote: post #308
yason wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Europe is full of such cities and they're loved for it. Sure, Florence is beautiful and lovable, but I personally like the possibility to also drive to a commercial center, buy what I need for a few days, drive back home and park my car in a closed garage conveniently connected to my apartment via a lift, or my house via a door.

To add to mercer's comment, an article and video about the city of Groningen:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/29/how-groningen...

https://vimeo.com/76207227

Mind you, whether or not Groningen is the most bike-friendly city in the Netherlands is largely irrelevant, all of our cities are so even if it was it's not exceptional. It's kind of comparable to how we dominate in speed-skating[0] - from the outsider's point of view it's irrelevant who is the best.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_at_the_2014_Winter...

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#336

Post by bobhall1981 »

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…

The argument that suburbs are some kind of liberty-loving small-government haven is 100% insane. I'm not here to say suburbs are good or suburbs are bad -- that's a value judgement. But there are facts: suburbs rely on federal dollars, central planning, lots of regulations (try opening up a corner store on the lot next to your suburban home), and limit individual choice.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#337

Post by mamurphy »

a3n wrote: post #332
mercer wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over here in Holland we use bikes for all of that. It gets you some free exercise and it's less polluting.

What do people do who can't bike?

I presume that they learn how to bike.

If you meant to ask "What about people that physically can't ever bike (but can drive)?"

What percentage of the population, honestly, do you think that is? Out of shape people can lose weight and eventually learn to bike. Very few people can-drive-but-not-bike, and surely exceptions can be made for them.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#338

Post by battlebot »

jakewins wrote: post #69
battlebot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: It creates misguided incentives in all kinds of directions. The simple idea that money is limitless has led to municipalities over-promising on pension benefits for just one example. Who got these developments approved? The developers who made millions and extracted the wealth in partnership with the taxpayers. Same as it ever was.

> The simple idea that money is limitless has led to municipalities over-promising on pension benefits for just one example. Would I be right in restating your argument like this? "A fiat currency allows the state to inflate away loans. That incentivizes taking very large loans, which in turn means the state builds infrastructure it cannot actually afford." Assuming it is, I'd like to note at least a few things. On f…

My point was they don't have to pay off all those loans at one time, which is what accrual accounting assumes. It is a false argument, in other words.

As far as inflation goes--you're making the original commenter's point about why the Fed is bad. They inflate away debt, in other words, it was all a confidence game. We get paid in deflated dollars and wonder aloud why the change in our pockets is worthless.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#339

Post by vanderZwan »

a3n wrote: post #332
mercer wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over here in Holland we use bikes for all of that. It gets you some free exercise and it's less polluting.

What do people do who can't bike?

First, we have a law called Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning[0] (and a 2015 update to it), which means "law for societal support", specifically aimed at helping everyone partake in society. Part of that is monetary support to buy, for example, a mobility scooter[1] if you have a disability that limits you in your freedom of movement otherwise. Many elderly use this.

Also gaining in popularity recently is the so-called "Duofiets", which is a two-person side-by-side tricycle[2], which lets people without a disability help out. Here's a video of a project that combines student housing with elderly care[3] (also an interesting project in itself) that shows off the bike halfway. My grandma was taken on daytrips with such a bike in the last years of her life, and it really brightened her day.

[0] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/zorg-en-ondersteuni...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobility_scooter

[2] http://www.koekange.info/2015/03/fietsen-op-duofiets/

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjRtaulQsZU

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#340

Post by bobhall1981 »

maxsilver wrote: post #317
dpark wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> StrongTowns is claiming that infrastructure maintenance alone costs the same as leveling the entire neighborhood and rebuilding it all from scratch at retail pricing every 30 years. This doesn't seem that surprising to me. Replacing existing utilities in place is far more expensive than laying them in the first place because you have to do it without cutting off everyone's access to water/electricity/whatever while…

> Replacing existing utilities in place is far more expensive than laying them in the first place. Sure, but it's not 6X more expensive in the suburbs. Water / Gas lines, for instance, are often under sidewalks or yards now so you don't have to dig up the road to replace them. > because you have to do it without cutting off everyone's access to water/electricity/whatever while you do it You don't have to. When utilit…

Yeah, what the heck does Chuck Marohn know? He's only been a city planner/engineer for like 15 years. He probably has no idea what he's talking about. I bet some computer programmers could really educate him.
Post reply on HN