6 ms·

> National governments debate and mostly dither. Cities act, cities do. This is very similar to a sentiment that was shared by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel[0]. H

> National governments debate and mostly dither. Cities act, cities do. This is very similar to a sentiment that was shared by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel[0]. He made a case for running for mayor of a, albeit third largest city in the country, Midwestern city after being Chief of Staff in the Obama administration based on his feelings that meaningful change can no longer being effected on a federal level -- that cities are the correct place to start pulling levers and pushing buttons. Are things that screwed up at the federal level, or is it just because we have largely become complacent at best and apathetic at worst? Or is it that politicians see an easier track to entrenched power on a local level? [0]: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/09/economy/make-me-smart-kai-and-molly/16-chicago-mayor-emanuel https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/09/economy/make-me-smart... Edit: after re-reading what I wrote, damn those options are cynical and depressing.

chrischen 9y ago
The US federal gov’t overrereptesents the interests of the rural. Each state is given two senators regardless of population. Despite cities being the economic heart of the US and doing much better than rural areas, al of of policy making is driven by the economically backwards states.
- mc32 9y ago
  The same can be said of the Japanese system --but even moreso. Their rural areas have an exaggerated influence in national politics. Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages (geography, demographics, int'l politics, etc) and playing to the countryside. If we look toward Mexico, we can say the cities have an oversized influence in the politics and the frustration form the countryside can boil over into internal conflict.
  - uiri 9y ago
    I feel like the Nikkei index would disagree with you insofar as a stock market index is an indicator of economic prosperity. That said, the US system was designed to protect less populous (rural) states from being bullied by the more populous (urban) states. It is hard to say that the system is not working as intended.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Their problems will be ours in 30 years' time. All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation --given their demographics, I say they are doing a pretty good job. I don't think there are many economies which faced with Japan's demographics (together with their lack of natural resources, arable land, etc) would do as well as they are doing in their circumstances. Now, work culture, that's a different topic. They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity, etc.
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        > All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation We like to complain so much about automation, but I think the main driver of our current economic woes is outsourcing. When Americans have to compete against people in countries that have $1/hr minimum wage, there's no way our lower class can compete. Not everyone has the skills or aptitude to make it to the middle or upper classes. Should they see a declining quality of life just so corporations can see larger profits? > They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity Japan has a low amount of economic inequality and a high quality of life, so I see little reason why it should change. In most countries, it's still considered a fact that men and women are different. I think it may be your Western values determining what you think should change in a culture completely different from our own.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages Japan is far from doing well. It's in recession now, its demographics profile is going down the toilet, they have a massive public debt that they can never hope to repay, and a social security system that's constantly in the red. It's not going to end well no matter how optimistic you are.
    - mc32 9y ago
      There is no question they are going through a demographic restructuring and automating and becoming an elder-centered economy in the future. I don't think granting the countryside the power they have has contributed negatively to their economic outlook. What I am saying is allowing the countryside an outsized say in the politics of the country writ large does not seem to have negatively affected the economy given the structural realities. Although, granted, the countryside with their bloc keeps successfully thwarting any agricultural reforms (import tariffs). On the other hand, buy local and grow your own critical sustenance (cuz embargoes: see Qatar).
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        > Although, granted, the countryside with their bloc keeps successfully thwarting any agricultural reforms (import tariffs). On the other hand, buy local and grow your own critical sustenance (cuz embargoes: see Qatar). I'd rather have "make peace with your neighbors, promote commercial exchange instead of putting tariffs everywhere making eating fruits a luxury for 90% of your population". Seriously, agriculture in Japan is retarded. Productivity is extremely low compared to any other developed country, and they use tons of pesticides (way more than anywhere else), because JA forces folks to use them if they want to sell in their right channels. It's just a big mafia at the national level. If we were to make stuff at home, everything would be much more expensive (you would never get cheap smartphones like you have now) and the level of life would decrease sharply for everyone. Specialized regions for specific products, with proper exchange of goods is what has worked to make everyone richer in the end.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    But how do you know they are doing well because of it or despite it? They're also in terms of a country more likely to live around cities, and much more densely since Tokyo is one of the, if not most, densely populated megacities. I would say any economic power they do have is because of the density and progressiveness of their cities.
- OtterCoder 9y ago
  Yes, cities are the heart of America, but the country produces the blood. Urbanization is only possible through hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources. We owe every technological advance, every great work of art, every soldier who defends us, to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Not being a rural guy myself, I feel like I owe them.
  - forgotmysn 9y ago
    maybe 100 years ago, but not today. before the great depression, ~30% of the population worked on a farm. today, that number is closer to 3%. and most of them work on industrial farms where they can have a career. im not saying that we shouldnt be grateful, but i think folksy nostalgia of family farms and shit blind us from the realities.
    - damnfine 9y ago
      Wow dude, go outside more often. Sure there are less farmers, but they are no less important. That is ignoring the natural resources, and your disagreeable prejudices.
      - forgotmysn 9y ago
        im a self-described fat-ass, i eat constantly. im not ungrateful to people who work in the agricultural industries, but im no more grateful to them than i am to those who work in energy, water or telecomms. they are all necessities, and farmers aren't that special.
  - pas 9y ago
    > hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources Can you expand on that a bit? > ... to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Why? How? What? Because food is relatively cheap? (Because supply is high?)
    - OtterCoder 9y ago
- petre 9y ago
  City dwellers are all getting their food from the rural, economically backwords areas, that's why. And that is precisely why floating cities are a pipe dream: no land for agriculture. They'd have to resort to fishing, clam farms and eating seaweed.
  - devmunchies 9y ago
    This is the most convincing argument in the comments.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    We get them from farmland, not rural people. Even if your reasoning is true it's not justification for a person living outside of the city or densely populated areas to have less of a vote in government. Everyone should have an equal vote, no?
- SuoDuanDao 9y ago
  It's unfortunate that urban and rural populations both see the other as parasites and themselves as the more important actors. Just as urban populations resent redistribution towards the countryside, rural populations resent what they see as city folk meddling in affairs they don't understand. This is actually a great argument for the rise of the city state - without a shared governance structure that has to balance interests of such different voting blocks, city states could set any rules they wanted within their borders and deal with the rural population strictly through the markets.
mc32 9y ago
City politics can arguably be too provincial. I feel individual cities in the SF Bay area are too provincial and a more unified regional area governing body would serve the pop better as it pertains planning and development of infrastructure (transport, housing, jobs, zoning, etc.) When SF thinks development they think "Peninsula should develop" Or, "what will make SF transit/housing better "rather than "what will make bay area transit/housing better". From an administrative PoV some cities might benefit from being re-organized as prefectural-level cities or even direct-controlled municipalities (though, given W D.C. governance, I'm not sure it would fly in the US) And Rahm has not improved things in Chicago as far as I can tell. What non "optics-minded" improvements has he made there?
- pamqzl 9y ago
  The bizarre US insistence that places like San Francisco and Oakland are somehow separate cities baffles me. Look at it from space, there's clearly only one damn city in the SF Bay Area, and it goes from San Francisco down to somewhere south of San Jose and back up to Richmond. That's a big city, but not one of the biggest.
  - jdale27 9y ago
    Well, they are separate cities, since they have geographical boundaries and distinct city governments... But yes, if the San Francisco Bay Area were merged into a single megacity with a unified, powerful municipal government, some of its persistent and increasingly painful issues (imbalance between commercial and residential real estate development, broken public transit system, etc.) might have a better chance of being solved.
    - pamqzl 9y ago
      Only in a legal sense are they different cities. I mean you could legally declare that my legs and upper torso are different people, but it would be silly. I realise there's history and San Francisco wasn't always joined to San Jose by unbroken urbanity, but arbitrary legal structures should keep up with geography.
  - 9y ago
vacri 9y ago
Do mayors in the US actually control the whole city? Here in Melbourne, the Lord Mayor of Melbourne is actually just a local government position (despite the grand-sounding name), only managing issues in the CBD area (36 sq km of greater melbourne's 9990 sq km). Whole-city issues are managed by state-level politicians. I ask because I can't see our Lord Mayor actually being able to influence city-wide policy; I assume US city mayors have more grunt.
- mch82 9y ago
  It depends on the city and the rules in the state where the city is located. Larger cities are pretty independent with taxation, police, fire, education, sanitation, and health services. Smaller cities can be overseen by regional governments. The smallest unincorporated cities buy services from larger neighbors. Lots of variation! Cities in the US don't get militaries (but, technically, the federal military isn't allowed to carry out military operations inside cities).
- flukus 9y ago
  That's not universal in Australia. Brisbane encompasses all of the surrounding suburbs up to the satellite cities like Ipswich and Gold Coast, Frankston and Geelong would be the Melbourne equivalent of these I think but it's hard to say, I think Brisbane is much larger (in Area) than Melbourne. In the 00's Queensland pushed through council amalgamations state wide. I believe NSW has tried to do the same and the result was a mixed bag. From what I understand looking around the world, the age of a city seems to define it's boundaries. Cities that were populous prior to the car are much smaller.
- subwayclub 9y ago
  The US is usually broadly categorized as "strong mayor" (very consolidated power) and "weak mayor" (board of supervisors form a coalition) depending on the municipality. Where this distinction gets muddled is when a metro area is sprawling enough to have many governments. For example, City of Los Angeles has a mayor, but it only represents some of the major neighborhoods of the metro area, while Los Angeles County, which spans multiple cities, has a board of supervisors providing oversight on a more regional scale. In contrast, San Francisco is a combined city and county with both mayor and board of supervisors: but the Bay Area has 9 counties(more if you count certain outlying cities) with a multitude of city governments, and there is no equivalent to the LA county board unifying representation at the "millions to one" scale - those issues are duked out between different county agencies or pushed up to the state level. Accordingly, Bay Area cities have some more individual freedoms but are much less inclined to cooperate on regional issues and will frequently export problems onto each other.
guelo 9y ago
The stated objective of the Republican congress during their 6 Obama years was obstruction. For the 2 years before that Obama was able to get the stimulus and Obamacare. Before that Bush was able to get huge legislation around medicare and taxes as well as his wars. Clinton before him was also able to get through a bunch of legislation. Trump is pretty incompetent and is wasting his window to get big things done but he'll probably get something through. My point is that the last 6 years of total gridlock is a historical aberration. On the other hand, conservatives have wanted the destruction of the federal government for a long time, maybe they've won and we're entering a new era.
- viridian 9y ago
  The Dems seem to have take up that role now, so I think you may be right on Obama's presidency opening up a new era of sorts wherein the minority party just tells the majority party to pound sand.
humanrebar 9y ago
> Cities act, cities do. Then why do cities have such a hard time implementing suitable public transportation? Even the NYC subway system is a mess these days.
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  The NYC subway purse strings are controlled by the state. You kind of just proved the point.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    So they can get things done, but not without help from nation states?
    - IIAOPSW 9y ago
      exact opposite. NYC subway is in disarray partly because it is controlled by the state and the state political interests are not the same as the cities. The city effectively funds the state as NYC pays more in taxes than it takes out. Not true for upstate.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    NYC has a majority power over the state purse strings and Albany has the majority of what's left. If you want a mountain of money for the subway all you need to do is earmark it at the bottom of a repeal of NY-SAFE (or whatever you call that gun law that the rest of the state hates).
    - IIAOPSW 9y ago
      I'm ok with this. I'm also lazy. If you write a letter to our state assembly I'll co-sign it.

chrischen 9y ago

The US federal gov’t overrereptesents the interests of the rural. Each state is given two senators regardless of population. Despite cities being the economic heart of the US and doing much better than rural areas, al of of policy making is driven by the economically backwards states.

mc32 9y ago
The same can be said of the Japanese system --but even moreso. Their rural areas have an exaggerated influence in national politics. Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages (geography, demographics, int'l politics, etc) and playing to the countryside. If we look toward Mexico, we can say the cities have an oversized influence in the politics and the frustration form the countryside can boil over into internal conflict.
- uiri 9y ago
  I feel like the Nikkei index would disagree with you insofar as a stock market index is an indicator of economic prosperity. That said, the US system was designed to protect less populous (rural) states from being bullied by the more populous (urban) states. It is hard to say that the system is not working as intended.
  - mc32 9y ago
    Their problems will be ours in 30 years' time. All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation --given their demographics, I say they are doing a pretty good job. I don't think there are many economies which faced with Japan's demographics (together with their lack of natural resources, arable land, etc) would do as well as they are doing in their circumstances. Now, work culture, that's a different topic. They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity, etc.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      > All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation We like to complain so much about automation, but I think the main driver of our current economic woes is outsourcing. When Americans have to compete against people in countries that have $1/hr minimum wage, there's no way our lower class can compete. Not everyone has the skills or aptitude to make it to the middle or upper classes. Should they see a declining quality of life just so corporations can see larger profits? > They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity Japan has a low amount of economic inequality and a high quality of life, so I see little reason why it should change. In most countries, it's still considered a fact that men and women are different. I think it may be your Western values determining what you think should change in a culture completely different from our own.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages Japan is far from doing well. It's in recession now, its demographics profile is going down the toilet, they have a massive public debt that they can never hope to repay, and a social security system that's constantly in the red. It's not going to end well no matter how optimistic you are.
  - mc32 9y ago
    There is no question they are going through a demographic restructuring and automating and becoming an elder-centered economy in the future. I don't think granting the countryside the power they have has contributed negatively to their economic outlook. What I am saying is allowing the countryside an outsized say in the politics of the country writ large does not seem to have negatively affected the economy given the structural realities. Although, granted, the countryside with their bloc keeps successfully thwarting any agricultural reforms (import tariffs). On the other hand, buy local and grow your own critical sustenance (cuz embargoes: see Qatar).
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > Although, granted, the countryside with their bloc keeps successfully thwarting any agricultural reforms (import tariffs). On the other hand, buy local and grow your own critical sustenance (cuz embargoes: see Qatar). I'd rather have "make peace with your neighbors, promote commercial exchange instead of putting tariffs everywhere making eating fruits a luxury for 90% of your population". Seriously, agriculture in Japan is retarded. Productivity is extremely low compared to any other developed country, and they use tons of pesticides (way more than anywhere else), because JA forces folks to use them if they want to sell in their right channels. It's just a big mafia at the national level. If we were to make stuff at home, everything would be much more expensive (you would never get cheap smartphones like you have now) and the level of life would decrease sharply for everyone. Specialized regions for specific products, with proper exchange of goods is what has worked to make everyone richer in the end.
- chrischen 9y ago
  But how do you know they are doing well because of it or despite it? They're also in terms of a country more likely to live around cities, and much more densely since Tokyo is one of the, if not most, densely populated megacities. I would say any economic power they do have is because of the density and progressiveness of their cities.
OtterCoder 9y ago
Yes, cities are the heart of America, but the country produces the blood. Urbanization is only possible through hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources. We owe every technological advance, every great work of art, every soldier who defends us, to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Not being a rural guy myself, I feel like I owe them.
- forgotmysn 9y ago
  maybe 100 years ago, but not today. before the great depression, ~30% of the population worked on a farm. today, that number is closer to 3%. and most of them work on industrial farms where they can have a career. im not saying that we shouldnt be grateful, but i think folksy nostalgia of family farms and shit blind us from the realities.
  - damnfine 9y ago
    Wow dude, go outside more often. Sure there are less farmers, but they are no less important. That is ignoring the natural resources, and your disagreeable prejudices.
    - forgotmysn 9y ago
      im a self-described fat-ass, i eat constantly. im not ungrateful to people who work in the agricultural industries, but im no more grateful to them than i am to those who work in energy, water or telecomms. they are all necessities, and farmers aren't that special.
- pas 9y ago
  > hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources Can you expand on that a bit? > ... to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Why? How? What? Because food is relatively cheap? (Because supply is high?)
  - OtterCoder 9y ago
petre 9y ago
City dwellers are all getting their food from the rural, economically backwords areas, that's why. And that is precisely why floating cities are a pipe dream: no land for agriculture. They'd have to resort to fishing, clam farms and eating seaweed.
- devmunchies 9y ago
  This is the most convincing argument in the comments.
- chrischen 9y ago
  We get them from farmland, not rural people. Even if your reasoning is true it's not justification for a person living outside of the city or densely populated areas to have less of a vote in government. Everyone should have an equal vote, no?
SuoDuanDao 9y ago
It's unfortunate that urban and rural populations both see the other as parasites and themselves as the more important actors. Just as urban populations resent redistribution towards the countryside, rural populations resent what they see as city folk meddling in affairs they don't understand. This is actually a great argument for the rise of the city state - without a shared governance structure that has to balance interests of such different voting blocks, city states could set any rules they wanted within their borders and deal with the rural population strictly through the markets.

mc32 9y ago

City politics can arguably be too provincial. I feel individual cities in the SF Bay area are too provincial and a more unified regional area governing body would serve the pop better as it pertains planning and development of infrastructure (transport, housing, jobs, zoning, etc.) When SF thinks development they think "Peninsula should develop" Or, "what will make SF transit/housing better "rather than "what will make bay area transit/housing better". From an administrative PoV some cities might benefit from being re-organized as prefectural-level cities or even direct-controlled municipalities (though, given W D.C. governance, I'm not sure it would fly in the US) And Rahm has not improved things in Chicago as far as I can tell. What non "optics-minded" improvements has he made there?

pamqzl 9y ago
The bizarre US insistence that places like San Francisco and Oakland are somehow separate cities baffles me. Look at it from space, there's clearly only one damn city in the SF Bay Area, and it goes from San Francisco down to somewhere south of San Jose and back up to Richmond. That's a big city, but not one of the biggest.
- jdale27 9y ago
  Well, they are separate cities, since they have geographical boundaries and distinct city governments... But yes, if the San Francisco Bay Area were merged into a single megacity with a unified, powerful municipal government, some of its persistent and increasingly painful issues (imbalance between commercial and residential real estate development, broken public transit system, etc.) might have a better chance of being solved.
  - pamqzl 9y ago
    Only in a legal sense are they different cities. I mean you could legally declare that my legs and upper torso are different people, but it would be silly. I realise there's history and San Francisco wasn't always joined to San Jose by unbroken urbanity, but arbitrary legal structures should keep up with geography.
- 9y ago

vacri 9y ago

Do mayors in the US actually control the whole city? Here in Melbourne, the Lord Mayor of Melbourne is actually just a local government position (despite the grand-sounding name), only managing issues in the CBD area (36 sq km of greater melbourne's 9990 sq km). Whole-city issues are managed by state-level politicians. I ask because I can't see our Lord Mayor actually being able to influence city-wide policy; I assume US city mayors have more grunt.

mch82 9y ago
It depends on the city and the rules in the state where the city is located. Larger cities are pretty independent with taxation, police, fire, education, sanitation, and health services. Smaller cities can be overseen by regional governments. The smallest unincorporated cities buy services from larger neighbors. Lots of variation! Cities in the US don't get militaries (but, technically, the federal military isn't allowed to carry out military operations inside cities).
flukus 9y ago
That's not universal in Australia. Brisbane encompasses all of the surrounding suburbs up to the satellite cities like Ipswich and Gold Coast, Frankston and Geelong would be the Melbourne equivalent of these I think but it's hard to say, I think Brisbane is much larger (in Area) than Melbourne. In the 00's Queensland pushed through council amalgamations state wide. I believe NSW has tried to do the same and the result was a mixed bag. From what I understand looking around the world, the age of a city seems to define it's boundaries. Cities that were populous prior to the car are much smaller.
subwayclub 9y ago
The US is usually broadly categorized as "strong mayor" (very consolidated power) and "weak mayor" (board of supervisors form a coalition) depending on the municipality. Where this distinction gets muddled is when a metro area is sprawling enough to have many governments. For example, City of Los Angeles has a mayor, but it only represents some of the major neighborhoods of the metro area, while Los Angeles County, which spans multiple cities, has a board of supervisors providing oversight on a more regional scale. In contrast, San Francisco is a combined city and county with both mayor and board of supervisors: but the Bay Area has 9 counties(more if you count certain outlying cities) with a multitude of city governments, and there is no equivalent to the LA county board unifying representation at the "millions to one" scale - those issues are duked out between different county agencies or pushed up to the state level. Accordingly, Bay Area cities have some more individual freedoms but are much less inclined to cooperate on regional issues and will frequently export problems onto each other.

guelo 9y ago

The stated objective of the Republican congress during their 6 Obama years was obstruction. For the 2 years before that Obama was able to get the stimulus and Obamacare. Before that Bush was able to get huge legislation around medicare and taxes as well as his wars. Clinton before him was also able to get through a bunch of legislation. Trump is pretty incompetent and is wasting his window to get big things done but he'll probably get something through. My point is that the last 6 years of total gridlock is a historical aberration. On the other hand, conservatives have wanted the destruction of the federal government for a long time, maybe they've won and we're entering a new era.

viridian 9y ago
The Dems seem to have take up that role now, so I think you may be right on Obama's presidency opening up a new era of sorts wherein the minority party just tells the majority party to pound sand.

humanrebar 9y ago

> Cities act, cities do. Then why do cities have such a hard time implementing suitable public transportation? Even the NYC subway system is a mess these days.

IIAOPSW 9y ago
The NYC subway purse strings are controlled by the state. You kind of just proved the point.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  So they can get things done, but not without help from nation states?
  - IIAOPSW 9y ago
    exact opposite. NYC subway is in disarray partly because it is controlled by the state and the state political interests are not the same as the cities. The city effectively funds the state as NYC pays more in taxes than it takes out. Not true for upstate.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  NYC has a majority power over the state purse strings and Albany has the majority of what's left. If you want a mountain of money for the subway all you need to do is earmark it at the bottom of a repeal of NY-SAFE (or whatever you call that gun law that the rest of the state hates).
  - IIAOPSW 9y ago
    I'm ok with this. I'm also lazy. If you write a letter to our state assembly I'll co-sign it.