Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 174 posts

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#51

Post by outworlder »

adolph wrote: post #45

I don't understand the author's argument. Is it "spiff up the 'poor' neighborhoods so the inhabitants will pay more property taxes?" When I look at the map, it looks like most of the city is lightly in the red and it has several extremely red areas which may drive most of the losses. What is driving those? Are they stadiums or large government facilities that aren't taxable? Or maybe middle-aged neighborhoods with se…

> Are they stadiums or large government facilities that aren't taxable?

Usually not. Low population density and far from city center is usually enough to make it very "red". See also, suburbs.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#52

Post by exhilaration »

ryandrake wrote: post #44
Anechoic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really gotta move out of California... It's not a California thing. As part of my job, I spend a lot of time presenting at public meetings and in my spare time I do a fair amount of advocacy (for various causes) which also results in a lot of time in public meetings. I've been in public meetings in small rural villages and large cities across 30 states. And I've observed the same thing - the folks that attend those…

This is exactly why national US voting is held mid-day on a Tuesday. Sure you have mail-in ballots now, but the default in-person voting time/date is surely deliberately designed to favor a particular demographic.

Midday? I agree the that midweek choice is a problem but the voting hours are quite flexing on voting day in the region I live in:

  New York: 6am-9pm
  New Jersey: 6am-8pm
  Connecticut: 6am-8pm
  Pennsylvania: 7am-8pm

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#53

Post by sAuronas »

adolph wrote: post #45

I don't understand the author's argument. Is it "spiff up the 'poor' neighborhoods so the inhabitants will pay more property taxes?" When I look at the map, it looks like most of the city is lightly in the red and it has several extremely red areas which may drive most of the losses. What is driving those? Are they stadiums or large government facilities that aren't taxable? Or maybe middle-aged neighborhoods with se…

> "What is obvious here is that the poor neighborhoods are profitable while the affluent neighborhoods are not."

I didn't understand the argument either. I've lived all over the country and doubt the poor neighborhoods in Chicago (where I'm from) and Detroit (where I once lived) do their respective cities much good from an investment point of view (whatever that means). Another thing to consider is that poor people use social services, and anyone who has been to Oakland will tell you a lot of those services live downtown. As a former resident of downtown Oakland, I'd say this rule wouldn't hold up there either.

Still, we should invest in poor neighborhoods because it's the right thing to do for the environment as well as the residents of said neighborhoods.

I'd argue the government should start the process by cleaning up brownfield and greyfield (obsolete shopping centers) sites and consolidated land for ease of development. The initial costs are certain to be higher but the returns are larger (in many cases).

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#54

Post by sundvor »

ryandrake wrote: post #44
Anechoic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really gotta move out of California... It's not a California thing. As part of my job, I spend a lot of time presenting at public meetings and in my spare time I do a fair amount of advocacy (for various causes) which also results in a lot of time in public meetings. I've been in public meetings in small rural villages and large cities across 30 states. And I've observed the same thing - the folks that attend those…

This is exactly why national US voting is held mid-day on a Tuesday. Sure you have mail-in ballots now, but the default in-person voting time/date is surely deliberately designed to favor a particular demographic.

That's pretty sickening, but can't help but consider true. Upvoted and added this comment for emphasis.

In Australia voting day is always a Saturday, from 8 am to 6 pm, also with ample opportunity to mail in beforehand. Oh and you'll be fined if you don't cast your vote... It may not be perfect, but appears way more democratic to me than the US elections.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/polling.htm

(When I left Norway nearly two decades ago, so glad I didn't go to the US now.)

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#55

Post by Gargoyle »

PaulHoule wrote: post #39
RangerScience wrote: post #31

> These places are built all at once to a finished state. Today is peak wealth; it's all downhill from here, regardless of how much public investment is made. This . I've struggled to phrase why most developments seem so terrible, or sterile, or what-have-you, while the areas that developed over time seem so much more... Alive? Valued? This is an amazing way to phrase that difference - it's possible to invest yoursel…

Go to the poor neighborhoods and look closely and you often find that they built a bunch of row houses that are maybe two to four stories high. Some of them got knocked down, some of them are still there but they've been altered or decorated. When the trees get taller the monotonous aspects are less visible. Some of them are now vacant lots or rebuilt houses, stores, parking lots, etc. When they went to see Levittown…

Unless the neighborhood covenants prevent it, of course.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#56

Post by Kluny »

adolph wrote: post #45

I don't understand the author's argument. Is it "spiff up the 'poor' neighborhoods so the inhabitants will pay more property taxes?" When I look at the map, it looks like most of the city is lightly in the red and it has several extremely red areas which may drive most of the losses. What is driving those? Are they stadiums or large government facilities that aren't taxable? Or maybe middle-aged neighborhoods with se…

It's more like, increase the value of those areas so the inhabitants will be prosperous so they can afford to pay more taxes.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#57

Post by Posibyte »

ryandrake wrote: post #44
Anechoic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really gotta move out of California... It's not a California thing. As part of my job, I spend a lot of time presenting at public meetings and in my spare time I do a fair amount of advocacy (for various causes) which also results in a lot of time in public meetings. I've been in public meetings in small rural villages and large cities across 30 states. And I've observed the same thing - the folks that attend those…

This is exactly why national US voting is held mid-day on a Tuesday. Sure you have mail-in ballots now, but the default in-person voting time/date is surely deliberately designed to favor a particular demographic.

I don't think that's true. Originally, Tuesday was chosen because farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the three days of worship, or Wednesday, which was commonly a market day. [1]

It could be kept that way for that reason, but to say it was deliberately designed for that reason I feel is disingenuous.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States)#H...

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#59

Post by Kluny »

nostromo wrote: post #18

This seems tautological. Those areas are "profitable" because they are using fewer services. If you invest more there, they would no longer be "profitable" -- and increased investment may not increase future "profits." I think this essay falls down in part because it's nonsensical to use these private industry terms when discussing municipal governance. I want my city to concern itself with equity and quality of life…

That's not quite true. The profitability comes from increased density. Instead of one business with a huge parking lot generating 1,000,000/year in revenue, you get three businesses with sidewalk traffic and street parking only generating 400,000/year each for a net gain of 200,000. Investing in the neighborhood - eg, with streetlights so that people will feel safe coming out after dark, thus effectively increasing the businesses hours of operation - might push up revenue for those three businesses to $600,000/year each, and the increased taxes will pay for the improvements.

However, a more usual pattern is for the three existing businesses to be torn out and replaced with a single retail space that's up to code, beautiful, clean, modern, and a financial drain on the city.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#60

Post by bryanlarsen »

ryandrake wrote: post #44
Anechoic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really gotta move out of California... It's not a California thing. As part of my job, I spend a lot of time presenting at public meetings and in my spare time I do a fair amount of advocacy (for various causes) which also results in a lot of time in public meetings. I've been in public meetings in small rural villages and large cities across 30 states. And I've observed the same thing - the folks that attend those…

This is exactly why national US voting is held mid-day on a Tuesday. Sure you have mail-in ballots now, but the default in-person voting time/date is surely deliberately designed to favor a particular demographic.

Technically it's on a Tuesday because back in 1845 people needed a travel day to get to the ballot box and another day to travel back, and you can't travel on the Christian Sabbath, so that only leaves Tuesday - Friday as options.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/192414-why-do-we-vote-on-tue...

Why is it still on a Tuesday? I think your reason is spot on.

Post reply on HN