4 ms·

The problem is that American cities are structured to keep the poor and minorities in nominally independent cities or suburbs that are geographically indistingu

by gamble 15y ago

The problem is that American cities are structured to keep the poor and minorities in nominally independent cities or suburbs that are geographically indistinguishable from the richer areas, but just independent enough to ensure that property taxes aren't shared. It's also hard to escape the fact that many, if not most of these suburbs were explicitly set up to keep out blacks, latinos, Jews, and other undesirable groups. Until the sixties, houses in these communities often carried a restrictive covenant that explicitly prohibited sales to non-whites. Canada shares a lot of the basic educational structure as the US, and sadly a good share of the racial baggage as well, but our cities are far more monolithic than most American cities. There are only two school districts in my city (pop. ~1 million) and students can register in any school throughout the district. The only choice I make as a taxpayer is which district, public or Catholic, I want my property taxes to fund.

sidek 15y ago
Yes. In Edmonton, although schools have "attendance areas", there's always spots for students outside attendance areas. If a school fills up there's a lottery to determine who gets in from outside the attendance area, but only one high school ever goes to lottery (Harry Ainlay) and there's schools like Lillian Osborne that are just as good as Harry Ainlay. Even students in the Edmonton suburbs can go to any school in Edmonton as long as the school doesn't go to lottery. I've always found this to be a good system.
Alex3917 15y ago
"just independent enough to ensure that property taxes aren't shared." This is actually a good thing for everyone, in terms of improving the quality of schools for both rich and poor kids. What normally happens is that rich towns have higher millage, which poor town can't afford. Whereas poor towns tax the big box stores and businesses that tend to be more prevalent. When you combine the rich and poor districts you can't sufficiently tax either the houses of the rich people or the businesses, so the school quality for both declines. This is partly why Florida schools are so underfunded, because they only have 60ish districts for the entire state so they can't properly tax anyone.
- rdl 15y ago
  There are special cases like Palo Alto/East Palo Alto, which might actually be common. One city has a huge commercial tax base, and fixed institutions (Stanford) which can't move. The other, recently incorporated, has only poor people living in low value housing; no sales tax, high demand for city services like medical and police, and such. Even if EPA's property taxes were 10x Palo Alto's, EPA would still be a horrible place. The only viable solution is to destroy it -- probably by absorbing it into neighboring cities -- so it would be diluted across a larger tax base. (Palo Alto actually DID cherry pick certain assets, like a golf course and airport, and rerouted the creek which determines the border to take them as part of Palo Alto, a few decades ago)
anamax 15y ago
> It's also hard to escape the fact that many, if not most of these suburbs were explicitly set up to keep out blacks, latinos, Jews, and other undesirable groups. Actually, it's pretty easy to escape that "fact" because it simply isn't true. Yes, there were some covenants like that, but they were relatively rare. And, most of the housing stock is newer than that, so even if such covenants were somewhat common and were still in force, they'd cover a small fraction of the population. Since they haven't been in force for decades.... > Canada shares a lot of the basic educational structure as the US, and sadly a good share of the racial baggage as well, but our cities are far more monolithic than most American cities. More "monolithic" is right. Canada is about as diverse as Minnesota.
- gamble 15y ago
  Restrictive covenants were not rare, especially in the post-war suburbs. The first modern suburb, Levittown, NY, was racially segregated. It wasn't called 'white flight' because the people fleeing the inner city wanted to live with blacks. Restrictive covenants didn't end up the Supreme Court because no one was interested in enforcing them.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > Restrictive covenants were not rare, especially in the post-war suburbs. The first modern suburb, Levittown, NY, was racially segregated. Pointing to an instance doesn't make the "not rare" case. Levittown takes good pictures, but it isn't representative of post WWII housing development. Moreover, you're still ignoring the fact that even if covenants were't rare before, the affected housing is a very small part of today's housing stock. As a result, covenants which haven't been enforceable for 50 years can't have much, if any, effect today.
- ojbyrne 15y ago
  I was mostly with you till that Canada/Minnesota comment. Perhaps Minnesota is exceptionally diverse... Because Canada is very definitely more diverse than the US.
  - 15y ago

by gamble 15y ago

sidek 15y ago

Yes. In Edmonton, although schools have "attendance areas", there's always spots for students outside attendance areas. If a school fills up there's a lottery to determine who gets in from outside the attendance area, but only one high school ever goes to lottery (Harry Ainlay) and there's schools like Lillian Osborne that are just as good as Harry Ainlay. Even students in the Edmonton suburbs can go to any school in Edmonton as long as the school doesn't go to lottery. I've always found this to be a good system.

Alex3917 15y ago

"just independent enough to ensure that property taxes aren't shared." This is actually a good thing for everyone, in terms of improving the quality of schools for both rich and poor kids. What normally happens is that rich towns have higher millage, which poor town can't afford. Whereas poor towns tax the big box stores and businesses that tend to be more prevalent. When you combine the rich and poor districts you can't sufficiently tax either the houses of the rich people or the businesses, so the school quality for both declines. This is partly why Florida schools are so underfunded, because they only have 60ish districts for the entire state so they can't properly tax anyone.

rdl 15y ago
There are special cases like Palo Alto/East Palo Alto, which might actually be common. One city has a huge commercial tax base, and fixed institutions (Stanford) which can't move. The other, recently incorporated, has only poor people living in low value housing; no sales tax, high demand for city services like medical and police, and such. Even if EPA's property taxes were 10x Palo Alto's, EPA would still be a horrible place. The only viable solution is to destroy it -- probably by absorbing it into neighboring cities -- so it would be diluted across a larger tax base. (Palo Alto actually DID cherry pick certain assets, like a golf course and airport, and rerouted the creek which determines the border to take them as part of Palo Alto, a few decades ago)

anamax 15y ago

> It's also hard to escape the fact that many, if not most of these suburbs were explicitly set up to keep out blacks, latinos, Jews, and other undesirable groups. Actually, it's pretty easy to escape that "fact" because it simply isn't true. Yes, there were some covenants like that, but they were relatively rare. And, most of the housing stock is newer than that, so even if such covenants were somewhat common and were still in force, they'd cover a small fraction of the population. Since they haven't been in force for decades.... > Canada shares a lot of the basic educational structure as the US, and sadly a good share of the racial baggage as well, but our cities are far more monolithic than most American cities. More "monolithic" is right. Canada is about as diverse as Minnesota.

gamble 15y ago
Restrictive covenants were not rare, especially in the post-war suburbs. The first modern suburb, Levittown, NY, was racially segregated. It wasn't called 'white flight' because the people fleeing the inner city wanted to live with blacks. Restrictive covenants didn't end up the Supreme Court because no one was interested in enforcing them.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Restrictive covenants were not rare, especially in the post-war suburbs. The first modern suburb, Levittown, NY, was racially segregated. Pointing to an instance doesn't make the "not rare" case. Levittown takes good pictures, but it isn't representative of post WWII housing development. Moreover, you're still ignoring the fact that even if covenants were't rare before, the affected housing is a very small part of today's housing stock. As a result, covenants which haven't been enforceable for 50 years can't have much, if any, effect today.
ojbyrne 15y ago
I was mostly with you till that Canada/Minnesota comment. Perhaps Minnesota is exceptionally diverse... Because Canada is very definitely more diverse than the US.
- 15y ago