4 ms·

>My understanding is that a city boundary in the US is a big deal. The police force on either side can be completely different, things that can get you in a lot

by cjf4 8y ago

>My understanding is that a city boundary in the US is a big deal. The police force on either side can be completely different, things that can get you in a lot of trouble like gun laws can be different on either side, prices and taxes can be very different. The biggest thing that changes is the school district. City schools tend to be worse than suburban counterparts, and that completely drives a cities ability to retain young families, thus altering the demographic makeup and tax base of the city.

amha 8y ago
It depends on the state. At least here in New York (the state, not the city), school district boundaries have nothing to do with municipal boundaries (which, yeah, adds another layer of confusion!)
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  The larger cities and suburbs of New York definitely do have distinct district boundaries that follow the municipal boundary. It's only the smaller communities that expand their draw to township boundaries.
- cjf4 8y ago
  For the major NY urban districts, the municipal and school district boundaries are essentially the same.
prostoalex 8y ago
That's a contributing factor, but unlikely the decisive one. Some city schools are excellent, and business case for a private or a charter school is stronger in a city. There's also wider availability of various after-school programs. There's the space concern for those who wouldn't mind a backyard and a pet or two, safety concern associated with letting the kids just play outside, transportation concern as far as effort required to drive them to school and various after-school programs.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Suburbs used to be regularly annexed into cities; in some places they still are. This stops being the norm when desegregation occurs. Now that all races must be allowed to mix in schools, businesses and housing, whites flee to the suburbs, put up giant financial barriers in the form of zoning, and refuse to be annexed. These days overt racial politics is now dogwhistled as concerns about crime or undesirables or culture. But that's a big heaping portion of why things are the way they are. (This only really applies to suburbs within the same state of the main city; New Jersey, most of which is suburbs, would not face the same annexation pressure since the main cities their suburbs are part of (Philadelphia and New York) are not in their state and can't legally annex them.)
  - pishpash 8y ago
    Concerns about crime, undesirables, or culture are real, and taxes. They are neither inherently racial nor dog whistles, but are only so because of how American history shook out along racial lines. You are inverting cause and effect here.
    - alistproducer2 8y ago
      >how American history shook out along racial lines. Your comment is contradictory. On the one hand you say that crime, who is undesirable, and culture ate incidental and have nothing to do with race and then in this sentence you acknowledge that American history was largely determined by race, although you use very passive language as though that "shaking out" was some benign, incidental process instead of the cruel and brutal system it was.
      - pishpash 8y ago
        It's not contradictory at all. I'm saying historically past racist policies created a racially correlated class system, and I'll even say that in a great deal of regressive areas the past was very recent, say up to the 70's, but within the most recent generation, many of the issues people are concerned about are genuinely class issues, and they only appear to be race issues to the extent that race is still correlated with class. But there is a difference between saying people are primarily motivated by race vs. primarily motivated by class but using race as a proxy vs. primarily motivated by class only. Given that these are distinct things, it's not helpful to insist on identifying everything as being secretly racist, not because it conveniently absolves anyone of responsibility but because it muddies the discussion and denies possible solutions.

by cjf4 8y ago

amha 8y ago

It depends on the state. At least here in New York (the state, not the city), school district boundaries have nothing to do with municipal boundaries (which, yeah, adds another layer of confusion!)

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
The larger cities and suburbs of New York definitely do have distinct district boundaries that follow the municipal boundary. It's only the smaller communities that expand their draw to township boundaries.
cjf4 8y ago
For the major NY urban districts, the municipal and school district boundaries are essentially the same.

prostoalex 8y ago

That's a contributing factor, but unlikely the decisive one. Some city schools are excellent, and business case for a private or a charter school is stronger in a city. There's also wider availability of various after-school programs. There's the space concern for those who wouldn't mind a backyard and a pet or two, safety concern associated with letting the kids just play outside, transportation concern as far as effort required to drive them to school and various after-school programs.

bobthepanda 8y ago
Suburbs used to be regularly annexed into cities; in some places they still are. This stops being the norm when desegregation occurs. Now that all races must be allowed to mix in schools, businesses and housing, whites flee to the suburbs, put up giant financial barriers in the form of zoning, and refuse to be annexed. These days overt racial politics is now dogwhistled as concerns about crime or undesirables or culture. But that's a big heaping portion of why things are the way they are. (This only really applies to suburbs within the same state of the main city; New Jersey, most of which is suburbs, would not face the same annexation pressure since the main cities their suburbs are part of (Philadelphia and New York) are not in their state and can't legally annex them.)
- pishpash 8y ago
  Concerns about crime, undesirables, or culture are real, and taxes. They are neither inherently racial nor dog whistles, but are only so because of how American history shook out along racial lines. You are inverting cause and effect here.
  - alistproducer2 8y ago
    >how American history shook out along racial lines. Your comment is contradictory. On the one hand you say that crime, who is undesirable, and culture ate incidental and have nothing to do with race and then in this sentence you acknowledge that American history was largely determined by race, although you use very passive language as though that "shaking out" was some benign, incidental process instead of the cruel and brutal system it was.
    - pishpash 8y ago
      It's not contradictory at all. I'm saying historically past racist policies created a racially correlated class system, and I'll even say that in a great deal of regressive areas the past was very recent, say up to the 70's, but within the most recent generation, many of the issues people are concerned about are genuinely class issues, and they only appear to be race issues to the extent that race is still correlated with class. But there is a difference between saying people are primarily motivated by race vs. primarily motivated by class but using race as a proxy vs. primarily motivated by class only. Given that these are distinct things, it's not helpful to insist on identifying everything as being secretly racist, not because it conveniently absolves anyone of responsibility but because it muddies the discussion and denies possible solutions.