  Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 3597 Registered: 10-2003 |
Something to chew on from Harvard professor Edward Glaeser's Op-Ed piece in yesterday's Boston Globe: quote: Click here for the full article: A level playing field for cities | ||
Parkguy Member Username: Parkguy Post Number: 234 Registered: 04-2007 |
The Shrinking Cities exhibit last year really pointed out the way balkanized suburban areas escape the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure they use. That is especially true, I think, in this region, where an artificial boundary-- set by public policy-- determines whether you have to pay-in or not. Example: schools. When Detroit was a boom town, the school district raised capital funds to build school infrastructure, and, at that time, the cost of actually operating the system (those two kinds of funds are strictly separated by law) was also raised by operating millage within the district. As people left the city and the school district, fewer and fewer people were left to pay the cost of operating the schools, which were then left with overcapacity due to falling enrollment. Meanwhile, outlying districts had a constantly expanding tax base, easily able to pay the price of building and operating their own schools. The per-taxpayer costs of maintaining the original city schools soared, while it dropped in suburban districts. Then, to add to the problem, the state changed policy to take on operating funds itself, but based on a per-pupil basis. That only made the problem worse in the city, where fewer and fewer students were left in buildings that the district could less and less afford to operate, and with fewer taxpayers to pay for the capital costs approved by voters before they took off for the suburbs to escape the costs they themselves had approved. And, the city district has to spend vital funds to secure and maintain empty buildings while new buildings are built in outlying areas. This same scenario plays out for roads, and probably just about every other type of infrastructure. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 75 Registered: 10-2006 |
Wonder if Professor Glaeser lives in a high density poor urban area with all the crime, high taxes and poor services? Typical liberal. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2369 Registered: 10-2006 |
This is one of my favorite texts for Metro Public Policy and how terribly it is usually set up. In a more general sense: “Regions spend billions of dollars building infrastructure such as schools, freeways, and sewers, which add enormous value to outer-ring land. To the extent that these public expenditures serve to transfer value, they are wasted. Adding to this dysfunction, the infrastructure of new cities is often paid for by taxes and fees levied on residents and businesses in older parts of the region.” (63) Orfield, Myron. Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1997 Orfield's opinion is that it is best to make changes at the state level for regional governance. Other theorists lean toward the idea of annexation for solving many of these issues. Regardless, until the suburbs (esp. the inner ring ones) realize that they have more in common with Detroit than they would like to admit, chances of anything changing in Metro Detroit are pretty slim. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2370 Registered: 10-2006 |
Well Gene, even some conservatives might still have a desire to look out for those less fortunate than themselves. I think that this is less of a political issue than most think. Politics is just the forum in which it reveals itself. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5458 Registered: 10-2004 |
The Boston Globe is just another NY Times-owned and operated newspaper. Both lack credibility these days | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2371 Registered: 10-2006 |
Not to thread-jack Livernoisyard, but why does an op/ed piece need to be credible? That doesn't effect the statements made: IT IS AN OPINION! Therefore, your post is a moot point. You either agree with thee article or not. (Message edited by charlottepaul on March 02, 2008) | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2006 |
Taking care of the poor, or what we call the poor has been the bane of Detroit. At what point in time do you stop living off entitlements as a way of life and do something for yourself. If more residents were to get off crack,get an education, and pay taxes people like Professor Glaeser would have to find other topics to tell us what in his mind he believes is best for us. (Message edited by gene on March 02, 2008) | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 197 Registered: 08-2007 |
Gene, I think more residents would get off crack and get an education and pay taxes when we provide opportunities to them that are realistically obtainable and better than being on crack. The life of the working poor has no dignity. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 77 Registered: 10-2006 |
Frankg, Having been a member of the working poor I certainly would agree that it is a life of no dignity. Is Walmart better than the life of a beggar? | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 1632 Registered: 08-2007 |
"A level playing field requires that urbanites should not bear an undue burden of caring for the poor ...." This makes sense to me, but what would it take to implement it? State- or nation-wide poverty tax and program eligibility? As for this part ["and that suburbanites should pay for the environmental costs of energy-intensive lifestyles"], I think the infrastructure costs of new suburbs are spread over a wider region than the immediate use area. If the costs were directly applied to the use area, perhaps that would be away to curb sprawl. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5459 Registered: 10-2004 |
Michigan is one of only two states with no lifetime welfare limitations. A fair percentage of Detroiters are welfare recipients and, without term limits, most of them will continue to be on permanent welfare. They have an easier time than the working poor who aren't collecting welfare benefits. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 78 Registered: 10-2006 |
I think the professors ideas are really not that new the term Socialism comes to mind. Why do we always feel the need for a level playing field? I think Hank Greenberg CEO of AIG said it best, "All I want out of life is an unfair advantage". What the hell happened we have become a nation of sissies. (Message edited by gene on March 02, 2008) (Message edited by gene on March 02, 2008) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3947 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Perhaps it's because we spend a lot of money in this nation to weaken the inherent economic efficiency and competitiveness of our cities? Or, you know, it could just be that all professors are Reds in disguise. Take your pick. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2372 Registered: 10-2006 |
"If the costs were directly applied to the use area, perhaps that would be away to curb sprawl." They are called 'impact fees' most normal cities have them--metro Detroit of course does not. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2373 Registered: 10-2006 |
Or even better is when the developer pays for it themselves: http://charlotte.bizjournals.c om/charlotte/stories/2007/11/1 2/daily26.html Here in Charlotte this developer wants an extra lane on the interstate that runs by his site. He pays for the cost of the interstate construction upfront and the state DOT maintains it. It's a win-win. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1969 Registered: 07-2004 |
Dedicating more land to the most wasteful, polluting form of transportation is not "win-win." | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2374 Registered: 10-2006 |
Interstate 77 is going to get a third lane either way. There are few interstates in cities that are only two lanes in each direction. So your point aside, it is cheaper for the state and theoretically solves the problem caused by the gowth/new development. That is the point. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1970 Registered: 07-2004 |
The point is it induces more traffic, which, in turn, produces more demand, which means that the congestion is not improved in the long run and the environmental effects are more devastating. Sorry, Charlottepaul: It's lose-lose.  | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 1045 Registered: 01-2005 |
Gene, the Greenberg quote is a classic. Never heard it before. Let's be as honest as Greenberg is. Most of us want and work for advantages, unfair or not. Maybe the big job is to instill that kind of desire in the those on the perpetual welfare tit. Easier said than done, I know. Admittedly, those working poor in Detroit have it very rough in this economic climate. Maybe they need to broaden their horizons and head out to other areas of the country that are begging for workers. Like TX and Wyoming. And get some state funded job training in the process, training for jobs that are available. Immigrant workers have been coming here, alone, for 150 years, getting a toehold, and then sending for their families as they became more prosperous. My grandfather did it, and so did many of your grandparents. The State should set up a program to enable as many of our poor who wish to do so to migrate to other states where there is meaningful job training and work. Not just provide the bus fare, but actually work with other states to make sure that the folks get settled at their destinations and obtain employment. It would save we taxpayers a bundle and actually help folks in the process. Where can you find that combination. Lets have a level playing field for people, not cities. What nonsense. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2375 Registered: 10-2006 |
Fine, whatever, here is a different example then: http://www.impactfees.com/pdfs _all/0925beau.pdf | ||
Melocoton Member Username: Melocoton Post Number: 9 Registered: 01-2008 |
So on the one hand there's Gene, who wants more of the same failed urban policies (Detroit is many things, socialist isn't one of them), and then 3rdworldcity who wants the state to subsidize the depopulation of Detroit. A couple of real visionaries. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4569 Registered: 10-2003 |
Good article MikeM, It points to the core of our problem in Metro Detroit. The City of Detroit is stuck with the care of almost all the poor, disabled, felons, ex-felons, homeless and other disadvantaged peoples left behind by the ever-rolling sprawl edge. Almost all the other cities in our family of communities are given a pass on this burden, the expense it carries and the lack of taxable households to pay for it. Heaped on top of that are the penalties of higher insurance rates, blight, beggary and other factors which trap the city of Detroit, and most old urban centers in Michigan, in a no-win downward spiral. If all the poor and troubled peoples of metro Detroit were proportionately distributed among the all communities and tax and insurance rates equalized for all, the City of Detroit would rapidly recover. Instead of getting sympathy for carrying what should be the burdens of all, the City of Detroit and its citizens have to listen to the constant excoriation from smug scolds who are insulated from Detroit's problems precisely because Detroit is carrying their share of that load. Metropolitan union is the path to recovery for all of us. We cannot prosper as a whole with a hollow and rotting center anymore than a tree can. As for 3WC's idea of the state supporting those who need work in finding it out of state, I think that bears some merit although I think it would be politically impossible to fund as it contains a de facto admission of defeat. In some ways the argument could be made that the alternative is to offer them training then watch them take their new skills elsewhere. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 1046 Registered: 01-2005 |
Melocoton: You don't sound much like a taxpayer, or one who can think outside the box. Doesn't the quality of life of your precious "population" mean anything to you? Detroit is already depopulated, by those who can afford to leave. Why not help those that can't afford to leave on their own and who could achieve a better life if they did. The State pisses away as much money as it can get from the taxpayers so why not spend a little on people who can be helped if they're willing to take the relocation risk and start a new, productive life. What's your solution Mr. Visionary? |
