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

The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

thevintagenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#21

Post by DrBazza »

patrickdavey wrote: post #14

Also some pretty interesting tax and voting rules there ... Corporations get a vote, pretty much meaning they run the place. https://www.thecollector.com/what-makes-the-city-of-london-u... There's a good book called "treasure islands" all about tax havens... The city definitely features.

And it has the fewest residents of any London borough by a couple of orders of magnitude. So it probably makes sense that businesses have a bit more say.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/381055/london-population...

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#22

Post by timr »

chgs wrote: post #16
timr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It’s about 8 square miles - in Manhattan that would be about the area below 42nd street

You can't compare land areas directly. London is twice the size of New York. Population density, land uses, etc. are completely different.

For example, only about 140k people [1] live in the London area. Easily 800k live in the Manhattan area, and probably more (population density is higher on the lower half of the island, due to things like Central Park).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Prese...

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#23

Post by CamelCaseName »

klelatti wrote: post #5

The FT did a recent - and very good - expose with more on how the city works in “Undemocratic, anachronistic, fantastic. How the City of London survives” [1] Paywalled but accessible via Google. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/2b96763f-5cb2-475b-b20c-7c2d02050...

https://archive.is/Hgz5j

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#25

Post by notahacker »

timr wrote: post #4
simonbarker87 wrote: post #3

I’m probably being overly pedantic but it’s not a secret

It's not well known in America. Recent conversations on congestion surcharges in NYC regularly confused the charges in City of London (miniscule) with London as a whole (huge), and then tried to draw the comparison to the now-canceled charges in NYC, which would have affected more than half of Manhattan, and a large portion of the most significant commercial areas of NYC. People are either being completely disingenuo…

Aside from the points others have made that the congestion charge introduced by the mayor of the large urban area of London which covers the whole of central London[1] doesn't really have anything to do with the City of London boundaries or administration, I don't think "it's not well known in America" justifies the use of "secret"

The jurisdictions of San Mateo and Santa Clara aren't particularly well known in the UK but I'd still think any journalist referring to them as "secret" was being ludicrously hyperbolic...

[1]an area with approximately 17x the population of the City of London, and I suspect the ULEZ emissions charge which now covers all 9 million London residents also gets dragged into the US debate...

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#26

Post by CPLX »

timr wrote: post #19
lores wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Residents would largely not have to pay, if they follow the London model. The London congestion zone covers ~150K residents, but above 1 million commuters, not counting trade and tourists.

Sensible, but unfortunately, that's not how it was going to work in NYC. Any car entering the zone below 60th would be covered, regardless of residency. Taxis, ride shares, deliveries, etc., were all covered as well. The area in NYC was little more than a new tax on residents, disguised as congestion pricing. I'd personally have little problem with a fee that made carve-outs for the people who actually live here (and…

You’re just wrong. I live in NYC right next to the congestion zone and it would affect me greatly. I also have lived temporarily in London with a car. They’re very much similar plans.

You clearly don’t like the NYC one which is fine, but that wasn’t the topic.

As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things.

Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example.

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#29

Post by casta »

timr wrote: post #15
lores wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fraction by area, but it's by far the densest and busiest part of the city. Comparisons to half of Manhattan are not unwarranted.

Only if you don't know anything about Manhattan other than "density". The now-canceled project would have affected, at a minimum, about 10% of New York's entire resident population (~800k). A lot of New Yorkers actually live in Manhattan south of 60th. That's part of why it's dense. A more reasonable comparison to the current London congestion area would be midtown -- the small area in the middle of Manhattan with th…

It's not canceled. They paused the plan.

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#30

Post by Ylpertnodi »

keiferski wrote: post #24
simonbarker87 wrote: post #3

I’m probably being overly pedantic but it’s not a secret

I’ve read this exact factoid at least a few hundred times. I’m mostly just amazed that it continues to surprise people.

Obligatory xkcd: 10,000.
Post reply on HN