71–80 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"While the US is very young ".... What's that? By what measure? It's one of the oldest continuous governments out there.
The government may be one of the older ones, but many cities are far, far older. Many cities in Europe have been around for thousands of years.
Big shifts in governance tend to reset things like municipal bonds and the like.
Remember which political party runs the city.
Precisely - if cities with overwhelmingly progressive constituencies can't get their own house in order - what's the chance that a country will be different?
I don't think the overwhelmingly... regressive? conservative government you've been running has done overly well either.
There is a reason that the people with the most aggressive social policies tend to also be the least in favor of federalism/local politics, because of this exact problem: people will just leave. If your system makes life worse for a certain group of people, you either need to prevent that group from leaving altogether, or ensure that there is no place that they can go to. If you iterate this to the logical conclusion…
You are talking about forcing people into situations that they are unhappy with, like it's normal or ethical.
The people who pay for the infrastructure and services are free to leave to more attractive places when they feel like they are being exploited. It's the city's responsibility to manage itself in a way that keeps residents satisfied. If the residents feel like they are getting the short end of the stick, they are right to leave and many will do so. Then you are left with those who had no choice and good luck getting them to fund your bloated, inefficient and needless projects.
The policy makers are in charge of just that, making policy. The residents have little control over that, but they do control where they live.
Louis Rossman said it in many of his recent videos.... new york has everything, but also costs alot. You have cinemas, broadway, restaurants, everything.... and you pay for that privilige. Now, when all that is closed, you have only the "bad" parts (the homeless, crime, noise, bad smells... all that with a "premium price")... so, why stay? Poor people have no jobs, have to move out.... rich people don't have anything…
1. Most of my life in NY (pre children), we had no car, no car insurance, no parking, and rare taxis (and before our current mayor, subways worked very, very well, I rarely considered taxis.)
2. Property taxes are comparatively low to other states
3. Access to culture is widespread and cheaper than people think -- there are subsidized tickets for students, etc. Museums are plentiful and often free. Libraries are literally everywhere.
4. Access to jobs is great and you dont crush your soul with hour-long drives. And when you lose/change your job, your next job is also often in the city center, so you dont have to move homes.
I live in DC suburbs now and we have one car. It is hard getting places w/o a car and the train system is good but does not cover as much of the metro as one wishes, and there are last mile issues. Property taxes are way, way higher both both homes and other property (e.g., $800/yr on my Kia minivan), but there isnt a city income tax.
How about: US citizens saved $34B by not having to stay in the highest COL areas? Why should we sympathize with a minority of rent-seekers?
The average New Yorker has a mere one-third of the carbon emissions as the average American. This is really bad for the climate overall. Dense city living is very efficient; living in the suburbs and driving everywhere is not. NYC is the densest city we have.
How about: US citizens saved $34B by not having to stay in the highest COL areas? Why should we sympathize with a minority of rent-seekers?
>Why should we sympathize with a minority of rent-seekers? I don't really think this is about sympathizing with rent-seekers. Cities invest in infrastructure to cover anticipated service delivery well before it's due, and the financing for doing so is a multi-decade affair. Before you complain, this includes things like providing running water, roads that are paved, etc. Really core essential pieces of making a city…
It’s less than 1% of the population.
The infrastructure needs don’t change much.
How much of the tax burden did those people support?
>In Tribeca, a wealthy neighborhood in downtown Manhattan, residents who left this year earned an average income of about $140,000, Walle said. The typical person moving into the neighborhood earned an average $82,000, he said. I was going to ask if we might call this "de-gentrification" and if that's a good thing, right? I'm sitting here in disbelief after a quick search reveals that the actual average income is $87…
I've been seeing more of these types of stories with a line like this: > About 3.57 million people left New York City this year between Jan. 1 and Dec. 7, according to Unacast, which analyzed anonymized cell phone location data. Sorry, but I don't really trust the "anonymized" very much. Why should some company I've never heard of have access to my cell phone location data in the first place.
> Sorry, but I don't really trust the "anonymized" very much. Why should some company I've never heard of have access to my cell phone location data in the first place. If you don't have location services turned off on your phone, chances are they have access to it because you gave it to them (via an app), or gave it to someone who gave it to them.
Remember which political party runs the city.
Remember what the difference between causation and correlation is.
It is plain stupid to not hold elected leaders responsible for actual outcomes produced under their watch.
Louis Rossman said it in many of his recent videos.... new york has everything, but also costs alot. You have cinemas, broadway, restaurants, everything.... and you pay for that privilige. Now, when all that is closed, you have only the "bad" parts (the homeless, crime, noise, bad smells... all that with a "premium price")... so, why stay? Poor people have no jobs, have to move out.... rich people don't have anything…
Irrelevant to some, but folks like me couldn't be bothered to even consider it even if my take home salary went 10x.