Why American cities are broke (2021) [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#131

Post by foobarian » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #92

Enginerrrd wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Further, they use the state (via zoning laws) to prevent the natural development of more housing within their borders, guaranteeing a perpetual state of dependence, and ensuring that prices stay high enough to keep out the riffraff. >It's a fundamentally parasitic arrangement. Except that those "riff raff" aren't footing much if any of the tax bill for the high density city. That bill is paid by the wealthier people…

This is like trying to define a garden to include only the tomatoes and none of the weeds. My commonsense opinion is that both the tomatoes and the weeds are part of the garden and if you setup a system where you say, "look, I only take care of the tomatoes, I'm not responsible for those awful weeds" then you're going to end up with a shitty garden. Rich people and poor people alike live in cities. It is basically in…

> but to go so far as to say, "no, we're actually not even part of the city, despite all commonsense physical reality; we're actually just a whole separate thing over here"

This was done pretty much the entire history of civilization. Communist revolutions tried to ignore the human nature that leads to it and we all know how that turned out.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#132

Post by bobthechef » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

foobarian wrote: post #17

I am biased because I quite like living in the suburbs, and get quite suspicious when some manifesto comes up that dictates I should feel bad for it. Why is the solution to live in better designed cities instead of better designed suburbs? Are cities still necessary given the modern conditions?

No post body was provided.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#133

Post by dionidium » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

foobarian wrote: post #131

dionidium wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like trying to define a garden to include only the tomatoes and none of the weeds. My commonsense opinion is that both the tomatoes and the weeds are part of the garden and if you setup a system where you say, "look, I only take care of the tomatoes, I'm not responsible for those awful weeds" then you're going to end up with a shitty garden. Rich people and poor people alike live in cities. It is basically in…

> but to go so far as to say, "no, we're actually not even part of the city, despite all commonsense physical reality; we're actually just a whole separate thing over here" This was done pretty much the entire history of civilization. Communist revolutions tried to ignore the human nature that leads to it and we all know how that turned out.

My argument is for stronger private property rights, the elimination of state-enforced zoning, fewer regulations, and the right to build whatever kind of housing you want on property you own, which can be characterized as "communist" to the extent that words have no meaning.

Your position is that the state should use central planning to determine which kinds of economic activity are allowed on which parcels and then restrict property rights accordingly. The call is coming from inside the house.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#134

Post by ghaff » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:38 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #125

ghaff wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Suburb" covers a lot of ground. There's the classical US cul-de-sac development of course. But people also use the term to encompass small cities and the periphery of larger cities that are mostly spread-out single family homes often generally lacking the ability to easily walk to stores, etc. Or largely exurban towns that may have a center but with homes often spread over a number of acres. (Which are still often c…

wikipedia struggles a bit with the definition, but the pictures at the right show very clearly how large the range of what at least sometimes is called a "suburb" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb But for discussions like this you probably can assume that people mean the less-dense, residential-only types

Yes, people think about characteristics like needing a car, mostly segregated (strip malls, industrial parks) commercial development, primarily single family homes, etc. but not truly rural (although that's a matter of degree). Whether or not it's actually a suburb of a city, an outlying town, or part of an outlying smaller city.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#135

Post by TrispusAttucks » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #60

ghaff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be a naive belief that if everyone just lived in dense urban cores there would be no need to pay for infrastructure beyond the city limits.

The average farm needs a single, nearby access road and power; water and septic is local (that's changing). A suburb needs that nearby road, lots of streets, water lines, sewage, significant power, often street lights, etc. etc.

And the city needs transport networks and power grids that reach far beyond the city limits.

The only logical difference is a matter of scale and limits.

The same rules apply to any region that has dependencies outside of its own borders.

The only way to not be subsidized in some fashion is to live directly off of the land in the form of some nomadic tribe.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#136

Post by ghaff » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #117

agent281 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't these be good examples? Boston is a pre-car city that weathered population decline well. Detroit was a city that rebuilt itself around the car and experienced decline.

Detroit never rebuilt because intellectuals in places like Boston cooked up economic policies that pulled the rug out from under American manufacturing and heavy industry with predictable consequences for any city depending upon them.

Cambridge and Boston had a significant manufacturing base at one point. https://historycambridge.org/industry/

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#137

Post by Ekaros » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #25

orangepurple wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fractional reserve banking

Not a ponzi scheme. It doesn't rely on growth to survive.

It kinda does. Fractional reserve system means there is more debt that there is money. And if interest rates are not below zero. There will be always more debt until someone defaults. Actually even full reserve with debts would mean there is more debt than there is money...

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#138

Post by Ekaros » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #23

quantumwannabe wrote: post #4

Can someone name an example of a city that has gone bankrupt due to infrastructure costs that didn't also lose a large amount of its population or lose key local industries?

This is made complicated because before cities go bankrupt they try to stay alive in ways that cause people and industry to leave (such as reducing school funding, reducing road maintenance, raising taxes, etc). As such, by the time the city goes bankrupt there will be other things to point to, but the underlying failure was that the city ran out of money and was trying to work around that.

And really what does bankruptcy mean for a city? It doesn't meet it's liabilities. It probably has some assets so those will be seized. That really doesn't extend to any property owned by others.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#139

Post by Ensorceled » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #135

Ensorceled wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average farm needs a single, nearby access road and power; water and septic is local (that's changing). A suburb needs that nearby road, lots of streets, water lines, sewage, significant power, often street lights, etc. etc.

And the city needs transport networks and power grids that reach far beyond the city limits. The only logical difference is a matter of scale and limits. The same rules apply to any region that has dependencies outside of its own borders. The only way to not be subsidized in some fashion is to live directly off of the land in the form of some nomadic tribe.

We’re talking suburbs. My city block contains literally thousands of homes and commercial properties in a zone that would contain, at most a few hundred McMansions. The cost to deliver services needed are within an order of magnitude of a suburb but the tax base is significantly higher.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#140

Post by stjohnswarts » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 3:48 PM UTC

foobarian wrote: post #17

I am biased because I quite like living in the suburbs, and get quite suspicious when some manifesto comes up that dictates I should feel bad for it. Why is the solution to live in better designed cities instead of better designed suburbs? Are cities still necessary given the modern conditions?

Most far leftists would like us all to live in concrete towers, in small apartments, sharing a common bathroom area for maximum efficiency and density. Probably with mixed in sources of food and drink but not much in the way of consumerist "excess". It doesn't account for ideas of freedom or individuality or needing to see the sunlight. The problem with this is that it doesn't account for the rebellion that happens when you cause people to finally break from this unnatural condition and a million years of evolution.