Why Many Cities Have No Money • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#371

Post by tropo » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:04 PM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #140

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…

All real estate related problems in American cities are about nonsensical level of regulation. It is really cool to find so much free parking in Sunnyvale but then we cant really complain about high rents can we ? People fail to see the basic premise that you cant really have both, plenty of parking and lower rents. They go hand in hand.

You can easily have plenty of parking and lower rents. You might also be seeking big-city stuff like subways and major-league sports, and that just isn't going to happen.

Proof: Palm Bay, FL (got parking and low rent, and even has tech jobs -- but no subway or major-league sports)

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#372

Post by flukus » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:09 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #298

theandrewbailey wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but business tax gets paid with business money, which is (often) not attributed to a single person.

Does that really make any difference? The original calculation was just an average amount per person. It already accounts for the fact that multiple people are paying into the public coffers. A exception to that is if the location has a meaningful number of businesses held by non-residents. But even then, the businesses are not operating as a charity, and the tax they pay locally is going to come from the local custo…

> and the tax they pay locally is going to come from the local customers.

That's going to depend on the business. I doubt a significant fraction of googles revenues come from the city it's located in for instance.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#373

Post by gizmo » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:20 PM UTC

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,…

And so people end up with a car three sizes too large just because so they can go to a big box retailer twice a year. How many refrigerators does a family really need?

Renting a van or getting the big box item delivered is so much more convenient. Commuting to work and running errands in a minivan is just so wasteful.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#374

Post by WildUtah » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:28 PM UTC

Smaug123 wrote: post #152

Gustomaximus wrote: post #37

> When we added up the replacement cost of all of the city's infrastructure -- an expense we would anticipate them cumulatively experiencing roughly once a generation -- it came to $32 billion. A generation is what, 25 years? If you expect to replace all roads/electricity poles/sewers etc every 25 years you seriously need to look a quality. For this I feel this whole article is off. > Humans are predisposed to highly…

> One of the best test for predicting a child success is seeing if they will defer a treat now for more treats later. Although a different take on it is provided by [1], which suggests that the marshmallow test is not always testing for the ability to defer reward, but for the ability/will to obey instructions/please authority figures. I consider the post well worth reading. [1]: http://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post…

Also, a substantial number of children know the truth about marshmallows: they're disgusting. The study might get very different results with bittersweet chocolates with buttercream filling.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#375

Post by ceras » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:34 PM UTC

krakensden wrote: post #291

avn2109 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The model that gets us out of this predicament is trivially simple and literally fits on one line: Really Narrow Streets Unfortunately most North American local government has a savagely visceral hatred of that idea. Full disclosure I stole this idea from [0]. [0] http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2006/032606.htm

I feel like urbanists should talk about Mexico more. They have really narrow streets, as-of-right construction, and they are much closer than Vienna or Hong Kong.

As someone with a city planning hobbyist interest, I've visited Mexico City and greatly disliked it. It's a miserable city to get around in, though I can see its potential if it ever decides to move away from heavy car infrastructure (some core neighborhoods are pretty nice so long as you don't want to leave them). Were you thinking of somewhere else in Mexico, or specific parts of Mexico City?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#376

Post by tropo » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:54 PM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #113

Extreme density is overrated. See http://tinyvillages.org

It says: "maximum vehicle weight including passengers and cargo is 300 pounds"

Dear my. Americans will often need vehicles with negative weight. Does buoyancy count, or would a helium balloon just be more weight? (can you deduct the weight of displaced air?)

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#377

Post by tropo » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 12:05 AM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #166

ilaksh wrote: post #113

Extreme density is overrated. See http://tinyvillages.org

How do you move around in these neighborhoods? Take a daily stroll on foot for a few hours? It does not work when you want to do anything big, say a few thousand people in approximately the same place. Those people have to get to this place, which would require efficient mass transit. The large area makes both road and fuel costs go up.

Outside of huge cities, it isn't normal to put a few thousand people in approximately the same place. It just doesn't happen.

A moderate-sized city of 50000 people might put 1500 people at the main high school on graduation day. Aside from high school events like that, and the normal daily high school operation (also 1500 people), it's super-rare to get a real crowd. If you also exclude middle schools and elementary schools, crowd sizes probably top out around 100. That would be the crowd at a significant employer. In case you were thinking of night life and entertainment, that might get up to a few dozen people.

It's peaceful. It's very peaceful.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#378

Post by tropo » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 12:23 AM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #91

jcoffland wrote: post #84

The median house in Lafayette costs roughly > $150,000. A family living in this house would currently pay about $1,500 per year in taxes to the local government of which 10%, approximately $150, goes to maintenance of infrastructure (more is paid to the schools and regional government). I'm sorry but this kind of calculation is, I believe, the real reason infrastructure in America is suffering. If only 10% of my prop…

Someone still has to pay for education, law enforcement, and firefighter. There's not way around it; people are paying much less for infrastructure than they should be. Sorry to you but that's the price of civilization.

Proper building codes would mostly eliminate the need for firefighters. We'd still need them at airports, and the occasional burning car or trash heap, but not for buildings.

FYI, the vast majority of Florida houses are concrete block, and metal roofs seem to be gaining popularity. There is no reason a home should be vulnerable to fire, mold, or termites. Sadly there has been a decline in popularity for metal kitchen cabinets. We wouldn't need to be so obsessed with sprinklers and smoke alarms if we built things right.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#379

Post by rwallace » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 12:33 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #356

jimktrains2 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Why? That sounds like hell. If I had to drive everywhere for everything I'd go mad.

If I had to pay the insane real estate prices to live close to everything (or take buses) everywhere I'd go mad too.

One of the factors driving insane real estate prices is low density, partly to accommodate cars. Another factor is bad zoning laws, tolerated on the assumption that cars will be used. And if the bus service in your neighborhood is bad, that's likely because the rich and powerful drive cars, so they have no incentive to improve the buses.

Remember, the proposed new state of the world is not just like the current one except that you personally don't have a car. It's one where nobody owns a car, and everyone shares the benefits of that.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#380

Post by cptskippy » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 12:36 AM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #373

tropo wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

And so people end up with a car three sizes too large just because so they can go to a big box retailer twice a year. How many refrigerators does a family really need? Renting a van or getting the big box item delivered is so much more convenient. Commuting to work and running errands in a minivan is just so wasteful.

A minivan becomes a necessity when your family hits around 5 people. You can get by with a midsize sedan but it's difficult and you're unable to offer rides to anyone. Unfortunately in the US they can't or won't sell 6+ seater variants of smaller vehicles like the Prius or Accord.

Larger vehicles like conversion vans and full size SUVs that don't seat anymore people than a minivan but get half the fuel efficiency and take up twice the space are on the other hand completely impractical.