261–270 of 327 posts
You guys have so. Much. Money. How can you not pave a road properly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average American wants a big SUV/Truck
This is not supported by good data, Car manufacturers are pushing to make bigger larger vehicles because they require very little additional manufacturing overhead over smaller vehicles and the manufacturers are able to sell them at higher prices. What people want are Inexpensive vehicles, not necessarily larger ones. American car manufacturers have been actively suppressing cheaper smaller vehicles for their own ben…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect you don't understand how serious the problem is. The problem isn't "we need to add bike lanes." The problem is that the streets have to be repaved anyway and if the city can't afford to simply bring them up to code in the short run , then they can't afford to keep repaving them at all in the long run. The sidewalks are going to have to be completely replaced eventually... not just the sections that need ram…
"the code" is the issue. This isn't building code like protecting earthquakes, electrical, fire safety. When people hear "the code" -- they think critical safety measures. Activists came up with a doorjamb law to require bike lanes, ADA and road diets on every block that receives repair. That's just not practical in LA. You can't punish drivers into riding a bike to work. this is coming from someone who biked and bus…
I have been a Strong Towns follower/member for about 6 years. I really don't think people realize the world of pain we're signing up for by not actually fixing the underlying problem of lack of density and walk-ability and their effect on the municipal budgets of American cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Towns I know municipal finance is about as exciting socks for Christmas, but if the Strong Towns thesi…
You use the phrase "trivially fix". If your definition of "trivially" means several decades with the investment of billions of dollars, then perhaps. There are no "trivial fixes" in city infrastructure. Re-zoning only works if there are developers who want to redevelop the land. For existing neighborhoods this means buying dozens of SFH from people who don't want to move. This drives the price of any development up m…
This is closely coupled to the whole 'grandfathered in to very low property taxes from 50 years ago' problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re making an argument about school budgets being too high. That’s fine. I’m arguing that, our school budgets are set, in large part, by our available resources. Viewing our resources from a long run perspective helps us set our current budgets. If we cut the school budget only when we need to repave roads, we are playing fast and loose with our children’s future. When we set our budgets to be sustainable, we don’…
I'm not even saying school budgets are necessarily too high. I'm just saying that if someone is claiming that what amounts to 5-10% of the budget is why cities go bankrupt, and that's why they need to entirely reshape how they develop to fit some idyllic vision of a pedestrian city, then I'm going to go ahead and doubt their analysis. Like I'm happy that my (suburban) city requires new developments to connect to a ci…
Los Angeles has about 7500 miles of roads. At a reasonable cost of $5 million per mile that is 37.5 billion USD. Assuming a lifespan of 35 years, that is basically a billion USD per year spent on servicing road infrastructure costs. If they don't spend that billion every year or put it aside for future repairs, their road infrastructure is going to decay. It might not sound like much in comparison to the full budget, but since the road network is the largest man made structure in the city, it will affect everyone and be the most noticeable failure on part of the government. Lack of police or fire fighting can show up in the form of stochastic damage that doesn't necessarily impact every citizen directly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The three options you presented are the three available options. There is no fourth. Make a choice. You might think there is option 4--municipal bankruptcy--but that is just option 2 and 3 combined. Building buildings somewhere else will not fix your neighborhood.
I'm not giving you a hard time. I'm saying that I made my choice. I'm going to stay in my home. I don't really think those are the only three choices, though. The government can fail and be replaced with a new one that will shape things up. Then it'll be replaced by another that thinks it's too big and well off to fail, squander it, and fail. That's the typical cycle.
You're saying the government is going to fail, but actually it's not really going to fail. Someone is going to bail you out every single time. If the government failed, but I'm still in the house, it didn't fail hard enough. They should get better and more competent at failing. The failure needs to be more absolute and its consequences should be unavoidable. The bare minimum required is that they thoroughly crush my spirit and desire to keep living in this place.
People with a semblance of sanity left in their brain understand that getting the things they want, also means dealing with the associated costs and that if they insist on those things, they also implicitly insist on the costs associated with those things. When people refuse this cost benefit trade off, they will end up losing the things they want.
I have been a Strong Towns follower/member for about 6 years. I really don't think people realize the world of pain we're signing up for by not actually fixing the underlying problem of lack of density and walk-ability and their effect on the municipal budgets of American cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Towns I know municipal finance is about as exciting socks for Christmas, but if the Strong Towns thesi…
this is coming from someone who lives in san francisco like you and has a 2 kid, 4 adult family with no car. it's been like 80 years of USA = cars. people seem to really like SFH + cars, they vote for it, they pay for it, and seem to accept even longer commutes than ever. consider why. it's not so simple. > Strong Towns thesis is correct... slow moving crisis... The idea that LA literally can't afford to bring it's s…
The vast majority of the comments here seem to be completely missing the actual reason. I see people claiming this is about heavier SUV's, about people moving to the suburbs, governmental incompetence, that we "can't figure out how to pave roads", that this is corruption... ...just no. What this is, is that the federal ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) has required wheelchair access (curb ramps) along roads since…
The fact that 36 years of neglect coincide in 2026 isn't the result of a law that happened to pass 2025. That law was passed because of the 36 years of neglect. The asphalt patching strategy is just one more last ditch attempt at ignoring the 36 year old ADA law.
US cities over the past decade seem to be in a competition to see who can be the least competently run.
Basically, every city hall is like the show Parks and Recreation from a competency situation. Then it’s about rubbing each other’s back and staying in power. You have to jump through hurdles to get hired into a real position, or know someone that can sidestep those hurdles to get you hired, then once you’re in, it’s about staying there. This combination means you never do anything really useful, at least not quickly.…
Fun side note: the outdoor establishing shots for Pawnee city hall used Pasadena’s City Hall which is right next to LA. It always threw me off when watching Parks and Rec, especially since they never had a shot of it snowing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not giving you a hard time. I'm saying that I made my choice. I'm going to stay in my home. I don't really think those are the only three choices, though. The government can fail and be replaced with a new one that will shape things up. Then it'll be replaced by another that thinks it's too big and well off to fail, squander it, and fail. That's the typical cycle.
The problem is that you're camouflaging the implicit position of "I'm going to stay in my home, even if I have to see the world burn." as the seemingly reasonable position "I'm going to stay in my home", while being utterly ignorant to the consequences based on absurd levels of wishful thinking. You're saying the government is going to fail, but actually it's not really going to fail. Someone is going to bail you out…