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.
Not that they shouldn't count... but that they shouldn't be confused with the middle class and professional families that longer term municipal stability and growth require in significant numbers.
When families start to move inward or when significant numbers of those those singles and dinks
who later start families actually stay put with their kids... THEN you'll have a change which is meaningful.
So... back out the singles and dinks from the stats of this inward migration of middle class
and professional types and you'll see if what you have left is meaningful or just trendiness.
hth
Why can't singles or DINKs count as part of the middle class? In general, people are getting married later, and waiting longer to have kids. Gay couples are less likely to have kids. I agree that traditional families have to be part of the urban mix, but you're too quick to discount the economic role of a segment of society that is growing, and tends to have a lot of disposable income!
Why can't singles or DINKs count as part of the middle class? In general, people are getting married later, and waiting longer to have kids. Gay couples are less likely to have kids. I agree that traditional families have to be part of the urban mix, but you're too quick to discount the economic role of a segment of society that is growing, and tends to have a lot of disposable income!
Agreed, this article is one such example of the benefits for example, note the income levels in said neighborhoods
I agree that traditional families have to be part of the urban mix...
I'm taking the OPPOSITE position.
That the "traditional families" ARE it... and that all the other groups are the peripheral.
You're trying to have the single and dink tail wag the dog... and it just doesn't work.
Never has and never will.
These peripheral sub groups get the ball rolling but if the social infrastructure isn't there...
or made to be there to attract the families to move back (or stay as they develop from S&D's)...
cities will continue to be forced into reinventing the wheel every 20-30 years.
---
I suspect that most you guys are just young and are seeing this "redevelopment" stuff for the first time
and thinking it's somehow a new thing only young folks get. It isn't.
Why can't singles or DINKs count as part of the middle class? In general, people are getting married later, and waiting longer to have kids. Gay couples are less likely to have kids. I agree that traditional families have to be part of the urban mix, but you're too quick to discount the economic role of a segment of society that is growing, and tends to have a lot of disposable income!
I think singles, gays and dinks definitely count as part of the middle class, moderate income with kids is really the "missing piece" to make our city whole again, since we're missing such a huge number of people from our peak (400,000). It's apparent in some of the more suburban neighborhoods on the edges of the city - where are the kids? First white flight, now black flight has shipped them to the burbs. The truth is the most compelling thing about living in the city is the price, and the convenience to culture, amenities of the city, etc.
The lack of stable households putting children into the school system makes it hard to improve the schools, which makes it hard to attract families given that our tax rate is double the surrounding suburban county, etc etc. It goes on and on.
We'd still live where we do if we had kids because it's cheap enough to afford private schools if we weren't satisfied with what was available in the public schools. But the easier and far more popular thing to do is just pay 1.5-3x as much for the same house in a suburb with what the public consensus views as "good schools." The property tax rate and lower crime make this decision easier for people as well. Not many people end up doing something different from what is common or easy, though, and thus we have the gap.
We'd still live where we do if we had kids because it's cheap enough to afford private schools if we weren't satisfied with what was available in the public schools. But the easier and far more popular thing to do is just pay 1.5-3x as much for the same house in a suburb with what the public consensus views as "good schools." The property tax rate and lower crime make this decision easier for people as well. Not many people end up doing something different from what is common or easy, though, and thus we have the gap.
Baltimore might be an easier place to do that compared to many cities if the housing is that cheap compared its suburbs. How does the property tax rate make the decision easier to move out? Or are you saying Baltimore has higher property taxes than suburbs?
I see nothing unworkable about a metro area where the city has mostly singles or childless couples while the suburbs have families. Singles and childless couples need to live somewhere. As long as city can stay as an attractive place for singles and childless couples to, I think it's a stable arrangements.
Why are singles and childless couples more periperhal than families?
I'm taking the OPPOSITE position.
That the "traditional families" ARE it... and that all the other groups are the peripheral.
You're trying to have the single and dink tail wag the dog... and it just doesn't work.
Never has and never will.
These peripheral sub groups get the ball rolling but if the social infrastructure isn't there...
or made to be there to attract the families to move back (or stay as they develop from S&D's)...
cities will continue to be forced into reinventing the wheel every 20-30 years.
---
I suspect that most you guys are just young and are seeing this "redevelopment" stuff for the first time
and thinking it's somehow a new thing only young folks get. It isn't.
Nope. People are less likely to get married these days, and getting married later in life. Especially better-educated folks, especially in high-population parts of the US. Here's a source for you:
Not sure what you consider "young," but I'm middle-aged. And the folks I know in the city and involved in this whole process of city life range from teenagers to people in their 80s. Some have kids, some don't, some are married, some aren't.
Yeah, Baltimore City's tax rate is 2.268%, Baltimore County (which surrounds us almost completely) is 1.1%. Howard and Harford Counties are about 1%.
Oh. I'm used to Long Island. Property taxes for a house in Long Island near the NYC (Queens) border are about double what an equivalent house would be in NYC on the other side.
2% sounds extremely low to me. Nassau county in Long Island is around 8%.
Do all American cities have higher property taxes than their suburbs? Toronto has 0.793% single family residential property taxes which is the lowest of the region, with most suburbs being around 1% (0.852% to 1.659%). Toronto gets away with low single family residential taxes by having higher multi-residential, commercial and industrial property taxes.
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.
