If you want to increase urban residents fix the problems (metro, suburban)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forget cars, space, or whatever else you want to come up with. The driving force behind people leaving cities is the fact that by and large cities oppress the people who live there. High crime, high taxes, bad schools, and unresponsive government are what are driving people away from cities. Unfortunately for cities the people who remain (and thus have a higher tolerance or even a desire for the problems of the cities) vote in their elections and as a result the people ruining the cities keep getting reelected. Just as an example a person in one of the city forums here once told me the city's homeless and panhandlers were a tourist attraction, and that people don't feel they're getting the experience without seeing and being hassled by them. How out of touch with reality can you get? I don't expect a positive response, but what do you think?
Just as an example a person in one of the city forums here once told me the city's homeless and panhandlers were a tourist attraction, and that people don't feel they're getting the experience without seeing and being hassled by them. How out of touch with reality can you get? I don't expect a positive response, but what do you think?
Out of touch with reality indeed. It's not that I don't believe you, but who says something like that? It sounds like something somebody would make up. (Not suggesting that you made it up, but that the person who said it made it up.) Anyone with even a tattered shred of a soul doesn't think of hungry, desperate, ill people living on the streets (or the hustlers who want you to think they're living on the street) as a form of entertainment. Some people say stupid things like because they think it will generate what they imagine to be some kind of urban cred - like people who do that thinly-veiled bragging about what a "bad" neighborhood they live in.
What kind of sociopath says "We've been here for two days and we haven't seen any homeless people! Where are they, I wanna get some pictures!" It's been my experience that people who aren't used to seeing homeless people tend to feel frightened, disgusted or guilty and embarrassed when they encounter them.
Anyway, I live right in the middle of a large city (a block and a half from a homeless shelter at that) and I don't own a car, so yeah, I probably have a higher "tolerance" for some of the things that come with that than would someone who lives a completely different sort of life. But I thoroughly hated the feelings of isolation and boredom I had during the six months I spent staying with someone in a suburban subdivision three miles from the nearest bus stop while I was out of work. Talk about "oppressive." The person I was staying with is just fine with it. She can tolerate some things that I can't.
Quote:
Unfortunately for cities the people who remain (and thus have a higher tolerance or even a desire for the problems of the cities) vote in their elections and as a result the people ruining the cities keep getting reelected.
Sounds an awful lot to me like the "If poor people would quit being so irresponsible and lazy they could quit being poor. They must like it or they'd do something about it" theory.
Candidates for public office anywhere pretty much uniformly over-promise and under-deliver. They discover that the obstacles to their agenda are much higher, deeper and more intractable than they anticipated. It's not as if there are all these tough-on-crime, clean-up-the-city reformer/ saviors out there running for office and people are just too dumb to vote for them. Every time you turn around, someone in Atlanta is vowing to "do something" about homelessness. They could use our underpaid, overstretched police force to constantly kick people out of parks and stairwells and doorways, bus shelters, courtyards, parking lots, transit stations, etc. But, then where are they going to go? The very most the police can do is drive them over to Grady Hospital where they'll get some very cursory "care" and be back on the street in a few hours. There aren't enough shelters because there's no money to fund them. There are no permanent, supervised mental health facilities to send them to unless they've committed a violent crime (sometimes not even then).
As far as being overtaxed, I care less about how much I'm paying in taxes than what I'm paying them for. I'd happily pay a 12 percent sales tax if it would get us much better transit, better public health facilities, more police and some badly-needed redevelopment.
It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. Fixing urban problems costs money, and there is absolutely no getting around that simple fact. Cities can't afford to fix urban problems without the tax base that comes from more residents. Suburbs are able to foist their problems off on cities (shipping homeless to the nearest city, not providing low-income housing or social services, not bothering with public transit), which means they don't have to pay to fix those problems, and in fact they do better by kicking the problem down the road to where the city has to pay for it.
What wburg said. People seem to have an expectation that the city will turn around and then people will start to move back in. The only way this works is if the government largely subsidizes cities and the infrastructure associated with them. Many people moved to the burbs with confidence that it was safe, great schools, etc, because a road was paved for them (pun intended) to some extent. This is not going to happen in our cities. If people want to live there, they have to make the effort to move back in, put in effort to make it a better place (work, community involvement) so that municipalities have the money to invest in schools, solving crime issues, etc.
It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. Fixing urban problems costs money, and there is absolutely no getting around that simple fact. Cities can't afford to fix urban problems without the tax base that comes from more residents. Suburbs are able to foist their problems off on cities (shipping homeless to the nearest city, not providing low-income housing or social services, not bothering with public transit), which means they don't have to pay to fix those problems, and in fact they do better by kicking the problem down the road to where the city has to pay for it.
And I thought Groundhog Day was over! Here we go again. Yes, suburbs have public transportation, and we pay for it, through taxes. Yes, suburbs, at least the one I live in, have public housing. Yes, the county provides social services to the suburbs. No, we don't have a homeless shelter, but there is one 5 miles away in Boulder.
And I thought Groundhog Day was over! Here we go again. Yes, suburbs have public transportation, and we pay for it, through taxes. Yes, suburbs, at least the one I live in, have public housing. Yes, the county provides social services to the suburbs. No, we don't have a homeless shelter, but there is one 5 miles away in Boulder.
Would you agree that most large metro-based public transportation efforts are pioneered by city municipalities? Burbs may have bus service, but usually they're more pro roads than they are public transportation (especially rail-based).
I also agree that social services are provided in the burbs, but not to the extent that the city does. I would assume this is more because of the population that inhabits the city vs. the burbs, and not because the burbs are just ignoring the issue.
Would you agree that most large metro-based public transportation efforts are pioneered by city municipalities? Burbs may have bus service, but usually they're more pro roads than they are public transportation (especially rail-based).
I also agree that social services are provided in the burbs, but not to the extent that the city does. I would assume this is more because of the population that inhabits the city vs. the burbs, and not because the burbs are just ignoring the issue.
The Denver RTD (Regional Transportation District) was "pioneerd" as you say, in 1969 as a regional transit district, regional meaning eight (count 'em) counties in the Denver metro area, only one of which is Denver. It's ironic that you use the word pioneer as the University of Denver's mascot is the Pioneers, but I digress. Prior to 1969 (41 years ago, I will remind you), the predecessor agency was "Denver Tramway Company, which served the City and County of Denver as well as older portions of Arvada, Aurora, Englewood, Golden, Lakewood, Westminster, and Wheat Ridge and smaller suburbs." The light rail now connects the southern suburbs with downtown Denver, and is expanding to the northern and western burbs as well. BART is an older system that also serves the burbs of SF, also the Metra in Chicago. Chicago is an example of an old, old system connecting city and suburbs by rail. So no, I won't agree with your statement.
Social services here are provided by the county department of social services. Where you live in the county has no bearing on what services they provide. There is a DSS office right here in my town (a suburban city).
The Denver RTD (Regional Transportation District) was "pioneerd" as you say, in 1969 as a regional transit district, regional meaning eight (count 'em) counties in the Denver metro area, only one of which is Denver. It's ironic that you use the word pioneer as the University of Denver's mascot is the Pioneers, but I digress. Prior to 1969 (41 years ago, I will remind you), the predecessor agency was "Denver Tramway Company, which served the City and County of Denver as well as older portions of Arvada, Aurora, Englewood, Golden, Lakewood, Westminster, and Wheat Ridge and smaller suburbs." The light rail now connects the southern suburbs with downtown Denver, and is expanding to the northern and western burbs as well. BART is an older system that also serves the burbs of SF, also the Metra in Chicago. Chicago is an example of an old, old system connecting city and suburbs by rail. So no, I won't agree with your statement.
Social services here are provided by the county department of social services. Where you live in the county has no bearing on what services they provide. There is a DSS office right here in my town (a suburban city).
Out on the east coast, the MBTA covers Boston and most of its suburbs and the MTA covers NYC and some of it suburbs. But the point is suburbs (usually but not always) have less frequent and less extensive public transportation than cities. And I can think of suburbs that fought against public transit expansions because they didn't think it was worth the money or afraid it would turn their quiet suburb into a city.
Out west, counties tend to be larger and encompass both the center city and suburbs. On the east coast, it is often the case the cities are all in one couty(s) and the suburbs only share their county with other suburbs. The county I grew up had no cities. In any case, in a lot places here counties aren't that powerful (or in my place non-existent) and the power resides mostly in towns.
Out on the east coast, the MBTA covers Boston and most of its suburbs and the MTA covers NYC and some of it suburbs. But the point is suburbs (usually but not always) have less frequent and less extensive public transportation than cities. And I can think of suburbs that fought against public transit expansions because they didn't think it was worth the money or afraid it would turn their quiet suburb into a city.
Out west, counties tend to be larger and encompass both the center city and suburbs. On the east coast, it is often the case the cities are all in one couty(s) and the suburbs only share their county with other suburbs. The county I grew up had no cities. In any case, in a lot places here counties aren't that powerful (or in my place non-existent) and the power resides mostly in towns.
Uh, no. Denver is the "City and County of Denver", has been since 1902.
The LIRR is a good example of suburban transportation that has been around a long time.
The Long Island Rail Road (reporting mark LI) or LIRR is a commuter rail system serving the length of Long Island, New York. It is the busiest commuter railroad in North America, serving approximately 83 million passengers each year.[1] Established in 1834 and having continually operated since then, it is the oldest US railroad still operating under its original name and charter.[2]
The Long Island Rail Road (reporting mark LI) or LIRR is a commuter rail system serving the length of Long Island, New York. It is the busiest commuter railroad in North America, serving approximately 83 million passengers each year.[1] Established in 1834 and having continually operated since then, it is the oldest US railroad still operating under its original name and charter.[2]
Methinks you doth protest too much!
Yea, I've been on it many, many times. The LIRR is operated by the MTA, which like the RTD, is a regional agency. The MTA in turn, is owned by the state. I was agreeing with you that many transit agencies are regional.
In any case, I was protesting because it sounded like you implied suburbs funded their public transit as well as cities. Many suburbs have infrequent bus services with poor coverages. The LIRR is not that useful for most suburb to suburb trips (though it can be once in a while). And to give a local example, one Long Island county (Nassau) has fairly decent bus system (though not as good as the city), but just refused to contribute any money to fund it, expecting the state to fund all of it. There's a possibility that half of the bus service there might be cut, causing great hardship to those who rely on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
