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

361–370 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#361

Post by deeth_starr »

jdsemrau wrote: post #223
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.

Just came back from Tokyo and realized how much I miss riding my bicycle in Singapore. The city is just not made for bicycles. It would increase the quality of living by a wide margin since Singapore is so small.

I lived in Tokyo in the late 90's and the bike lanes are a new (or newer) thing. They really make the city nice (at least in the summer).

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#362

Post by hackuser »

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #175
hackuser wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are externalities and also other ways markets fail; that's why I didn't use the term. Maybe there aren't enough street parking spots for all the businesses, and then the market fails: No business wants to spend on on-site parking in order to free up parking for everyone else. The way to move forward is to come together and pass a law. > Zoning didn't even exist in Bend until 1947. Some of the first zoning…

>Maybe there aren't enough street parking spots for all the businesses, and then the market fails: No business wants to spend on on-site parking in order to free up parking for everyone else. Or it could be parking is a low value land use and little parking is truly optimum. Oftentimes when streets are closed to car traffic permanently there's a boost to business in dense cities. Many cities don't have parking minimu…

>> Did humans live better before 1947?

> In some ways, yes.

Humans in the U.S. are far better off now in almost every way. Of course there are exceptions.

> Democracy is effective at not rounding up dissidents in secret police raids, but in cases like this it breaks down.

I disagree strongly; democracies perform exceptionally well economically. All the wealthiest economies are democracies, and they are far wealthier than any other economies in the history of the world. Saying democracies do well for political rights but not economics is like saying Microsoft did well with operating systems but not office suites.

And one could argue that human welfare is better in democracies with more planned economies, such as the Nordic countries.

Are democracies still very flawed? Absolutely, but I haven't seen a better option. As someone said, democracy is the worst possible choice, except for all the others.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#363

Post by hackuser »

zeroer wrote: post #191
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…

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

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

But that doesn't resolve the question of the supply of parking spaces - i.e., how many there should be. That only allocates the existing ones.

Also, it allocates them to those who can pay more; that's not always desirable. For example, should citizens' access to the grocery store be limited by their ability to pay for parking? To city hall?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#364

Post by hackuser »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #172
hackuser wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should citizens have a vote in what happens in their city, or should they be ruled by corporate executives? Also, a common and essential part of the free market is failure and bankruptcy. What happens when parts of the city go bankrupt? What happens to the citizens there? What happens to the debt?

Ask a local HOA for a copy of their bylaws. My idea isn't novel or weird. Wikipedia says 62 million people in the US live in a HOA. Those questions are all well-settled legally. I'm not suggesting to remove the city; just a way of re-implementing land-use and building codes if a city doesn't handle it. Probably you'd want fire codes and limited zoning for polluting heavy manufacturing to be handled by the city no mat…

An HOA is a democratic institution; it's not rule by the wealthy or corporate executive.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#365

Post by tropo »

cptskippy wrote: post #262
princeb wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the auto is a red herring. i think what it is is that these cities have a level of lifestyle that happened to be commiserate with the revenue that they can generate, because the more expensive infrastructure- fibre, 4g, or undergrounds, tram lines, auto traffic control, or even a large network of roads, have not or cannot be built in. when i travel to the cities in the developing countries in asia, and speak…

> their economy is going to get you in the kind of trouble that you see a lot of these bankrupt towns in the US in. I think you're discounting the affect that big box retailers have had on rural and small towns in the US. They're often given tax brakes and other incentives to build and then they park themselves right outside city/town limits to avoid any sales or property taxes. They then proceed to drive every small…

Big box retailers sell things in big boxes. Without the giant parking lot, it isn't viable to sell most of the products. Delivery from a separate warehouse would be required. Buyers aren't going to toss a refrigerator in a backpack and then hop on a bicycle! Putting a refrigerator in a minivan is reasonable. The same goes for large TVs, washing machines, clothes dryers, mattresses, sofas, desks, chairs, whiteboards, canoes, etc.

The old-style downtown shop simply can't handle large products in a reasonable way. Since it can't, people get used to shopping at places that can handle everything.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#366

Post by hackuser »

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #208
richmarr wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "fix" is important here. When you fix something it starts broken and ends up working how it should. Since space in cities is fiercely constrained any change is always a trade-off with repurcussions. Cities plan transport infrastructure years or decades in advance, and spend vast sums of money, with very different incentives to the market. Leaving parts of that plan (like parking) up to the whims of the marke…

>very different incentives to the market. They are concerned about being elected, that's it. Hence why we have huge infrastructure bills coming to haunt us, pensions that are out of control (though dwarfed by infrastructure costs), and other passing the buck behavior. That's not to say they're bad, do no good, etc. Just that their incentives are such that they can't enact good policy oftentimes or possibly even tell…

> They are concerned about being elected, that's it. ... / That's not to say they're bad, do no good, etc. Just that their incentives are such that they can't enact good policy oftentimes or possibly even tell the truth to voters.

I must say, I'm happy with my local elected officials. The main problem I see on the national level are politicians with an ideology - government can't do anything, thus they obstruct everything. They are the problem, not government.

(I'm not saying government is at all perfect, but democracy is a great tool.)

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#367

Post by gozur88 »

JamesBarney wrote: post #360
gozur88 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is based on the fact that the downtown area provides more tax revenue. All he's managed to prove is people do their shopping in the city core.

From an expenses stand point it seems intuitively obvious that the per capita cost of individuals is lower in high density areas. And from a tax revenue standpoint city's get ~4.5x of their revenue from property taxes than from sales tax. And most suburbanites, like urbanites probably spend most of their tax near where they live.

>From an expenses stand point it seems intuitively obvious that the per capita cost of individuals is lower in high density areas.

A lot of things that seem obvious aren't actually true.

>And from a tax revenue standpoint city's get ~4.5x of their revenue from property taxes than from sales tax. And most suburbanites, like urbanites probably spend most of their tax near where they live.

The city has some control over the mix of revenue sources. NYC has an income tax, and San Francico gets more than twice as much money from "service charges" as it gets from property taxes.

In terms of where people spend money, suburbanites spend a lot of discretionary income in the local city, particularly in places like restaurants and bars.

Let me ask you this: If it's so much more efficient to live in a city, why is everything more expensive in cities?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#368

Post by mwarkentin »

tropo wrote: post #365
cptskippy wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their economy is going to get you in the kind of trouble that you see a lot of these bankrupt towns in the US in. I think you're discounting the affect that big box retailers have had on rural and small towns in the US. They're often given tax brakes and other incentives to build and then they park themselves right outside city/town limits to avoid any sales or property taxes. They then proceed to drive every small…

Big box retailers sell things in big boxes. Without the giant parking lot, it isn't viable to sell most of the products. Delivery from a separate warehouse would be required. Buyers aren't going to toss a refrigerator in a backpack and then hop on a bicycle! Putting a refrigerator in a minivan is reasonable. The same goes for large TVs, washing machines, clothes dryers, mattresses, sofas, desks, chairs, whiteboards,…

I always thought "big box" referred to the size of the store itself, not the items it sells. Wikipedia seems to agree with me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-box_store

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#369

Post by ShabbyDoo »

I've always been opposed to folks who grumble about suburbs and urban sprawl. I thought that new developments and neighbourhoods meant a growing population and a bigger tax base. I've always lived in the suburbs and love it. I still think there's lots of great things about living in the suburbs, and there will always be demand for it.

I like how the author says that sprawl isn't the problem, the problem is that new developments are large scale, single-purpose, and with no room for improvement or addition.

The graph/map showing how downtown and poorer areas bring in more tax is what did it though. Even just thinking about ploughing in the winter makes it pretty clear that winding suburbian roadscapes are costing the city a lot more than we pay them. That's without mentioning schools, fire halls, garbage collection, etc.

I guess one of the more difficult issues is convincing North Americans that they don't need a private single-family house, large yard, 2+ cars, etc.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#370

Post by zeroer »

hackuser wrote: post #363
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.

> Just have metered parking everywhere and have the cost per unit time reflect the local demand for parking. Now you've eliminated an externality. But that doesn't resolve the question of the supply of parking spaces - i.e., how many there should be. That only allocates the existing ones. Also, it allocates them to those who can pay more; that's not always desirable. For example, should citizens' access to the grocer…

Yes? It's a finite resource that has to be allocated somehow. Having to have space for parking is a negative externality of owning a car. Make owning a car more expensive and you'll see fewer people driving, taking up parking spaces.

I don't own a car because it doesn't make financial sense for me to do so. That's the kind of longer term market impact you'd want to see.

Edit: The choices are not between allowing people to go to the grocery store and courthouse or not, it's between taking the bus and driving. I do just fine on public transport without a car.

Post reply on HN