4 ms·

Cities need social services to work, because of the density of people. It is a problem when my neighbour is crazy and screams for 18h a day when we live on top

Cities need social services to work, because of the density of people. It is a problem when my neighbour is crazy and screams for 18h a day when we live on top of each other in a city. It isn't when we live in the middle of no where and are separated by 50miles. Only America is specifically designed to prevent any sort of social services, because people have the freedom to come into town to use those services and then leave before it's time to pay the tax for them. This is why American cities have so many issues compared to European ones. From public transport to healthcare to education to crime, American is designed to be 100% individualistic and that is incompatible with how cities work. Cities are forced to subsidise surrounding areas.

fakethenews2022 4y ago
Cities already make visitors pay. First there is usually a higher sales tax. Furthermore, many cities have additional taxes on lodging and entertainment. These taxes are quite substantial. Furthermore look at decaying cities in the 70s. The cities weren't subsidizing surrounding areas by providing services. Instead, many businesses and services straight moved out of cities to surrounding areas. So did many people. It was only in the 90s when cities became hip again and services sprang back up in cities. According to your notion, surrounding areas were subsidizing cities in the 70s.
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  It would be like saying that Santa Clara was subsidizing San Francisco residents when those residents attend a 49ers games.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  The ways you list are fine for getting a few extra dollars our of tourists. But there nothing compared the millions who commute in and out daily to work and pay no property taxes. And that's without counting criminals or people with mental health issues or 101 other groups who travel in and become the cities problem.
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    Read the article. It disproves your point completely. The commercial property owner is paying taxes and very high ones at that if it is recently purchased property. Do you know what the rents were per sq ft in SF? They were Manhattan level. SF was collecting on that. According to your notion, why isn't the town the employee resides also collecting commercial property tax on where the employee works? That town provides services too.
    - fakethenews2022 4y ago
      Do you know the transportation agencies were regionally paid for? It wasn't just SF that was paying for BART or CalTrain.
      - inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Muni is entirely owned and operated by the city and county of San Francisco and larger than both BART and CalTrain. Muni's got 150 trams, 27 cable cars, a handful of vintage trams, and however many hundred buses. CalTrain has 29 locomotives, BART aims to have 775 cars (around 75 trains).
        fakethenews2022 4y ago
        If you are a visitor/commuter from the burbs, you most likely aren't riding MUNI much except for rare occasions or for short trips. Otherwise you are asking for a ridiculously long commute. They still pay the fare. People tend to drive if the trip is ridiculously long by transit. Go tell people how much SF residents pay for museums and how much they pay if they are low income. Compare that to people who don't live in SF but are low income.
        fakethenews2022 4y ago
        BART and CalTrain have very few connection points with Muni. The CalTrain people would get off at 4th & King and a relatively small percentage would take the 3rd street streetcar. The primary BART connection points are near the Embarcadero. Muni is so slow from the SOMA that it is often easier and faster to walk to/from those BART stops. Oftentimes, instead of MUNI, you saw people with scooters or bikes. The people going to the other BART stops don't need to connect to MUNI. They could be working for the city and can just get right out and walk a few blocks. The tech people I knew detested BART and completely ignored MUNI. It was Uber for them.
bombcar 4y ago
The "cities are forced to subsidize the surrounding areas" can be solved by pushing services up to the county or state level, if needed. What has happened is people can move and cities weren't ready for that. Moving things to the federal level is the final backstop against it, but even that eventually runs out.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  I agree, though counties have the same issue with out counties and states with other states. This is one of the reasons the US federal government is fought over so much: many many things ultimately either have to be done federally or not at all. This is because only the federal government does not have to compete with someone "next door" exporting liabilities and importing assets. Just look at the recent big name moves from California to Texas: Joe Rogan and Elon Musk (just two very public names) needed California's support to start their fortunes, now they have them best move to Texas for lower taxes. You can always fly back for the odd meeting, use their educated workforces and infrastructure and save $.

fakethenews2022 4y ago

Cities already make visitors pay. First there is usually a higher sales tax. Furthermore, many cities have additional taxes on lodging and entertainment. These taxes are quite substantial. Furthermore look at decaying cities in the 70s. The cities weren't subsidizing surrounding areas by providing services. Instead, many businesses and services straight moved out of cities to surrounding areas. So did many people. It was only in the 90s when cities became hip again and services sprang back up in cities. According to your notion, surrounding areas were subsidizing cities in the 70s.

fakethenews2022 4y ago
It would be like saying that Santa Clara was subsidizing San Francisco residents when those residents attend a 49ers games.
LatteLazy 4y ago
The ways you list are fine for getting a few extra dollars our of tourists. But there nothing compared the millions who commute in and out daily to work and pay no property taxes. And that's without counting criminals or people with mental health issues or 101 other groups who travel in and become the cities problem.
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  Read the article. It disproves your point completely. The commercial property owner is paying taxes and very high ones at that if it is recently purchased property. Do you know what the rents were per sq ft in SF? They were Manhattan level. SF was collecting on that. According to your notion, why isn't the town the employee resides also collecting commercial property tax on where the employee works? That town provides services too.
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    Do you know the transportation agencies were regionally paid for? It wasn't just SF that was paying for BART or CalTrain.
    - inferiorhuman 4y ago
      Muni is entirely owned and operated by the city and county of San Francisco and larger than both BART and CalTrain. Muni's got 150 trams, 27 cable cars, a handful of vintage trams, and however many hundred buses. CalTrain has 29 locomotives, BART aims to have 775 cars (around 75 trains).
      - fakethenews2022 4y ago
        If you are a visitor/commuter from the burbs, you most likely aren't riding MUNI much except for rare occasions or for short trips. Otherwise you are asking for a ridiculously long commute. They still pay the fare. People tend to drive if the trip is ridiculously long by transit. Go tell people how much SF residents pay for museums and how much they pay if they are low income. Compare that to people who don't live in SF but are low income.
        fakethenews2022 4y ago
        BART and CalTrain have very few connection points with Muni. The CalTrain people would get off at 4th & King and a relatively small percentage would take the 3rd street streetcar. The primary BART connection points are near the Embarcadero. Muni is so slow from the SOMA that it is often easier and faster to walk to/from those BART stops. Oftentimes, instead of MUNI, you saw people with scooters or bikes. The people going to the other BART stops don't need to connect to MUNI. They could be working for the city and can just get right out and walk a few blocks. The tech people I knew detested BART and completely ignored MUNI. It was Uber for them.

bombcar 4y ago

The "cities are forced to subsidize the surrounding areas" can be solved by pushing services up to the county or state level, if needed. What has happened is people can move and cities weren't ready for that. Moving things to the federal level is the final backstop against it, but even that eventually runs out.

LatteLazy 4y ago
I agree, though counties have the same issue with out counties and states with other states. This is one of the reasons the US federal government is fought over so much: many many things ultimately either have to be done federally or not at all. This is because only the federal government does not have to compete with someone "next door" exporting liabilities and importing assets. Just look at the recent big name moves from California to Texas: Joe Rogan and Elon Musk (just two very public names) needed California's support to start their fortunes, now they have them best move to Texas for lower taxes. You can always fly back for the odd meeting, use their educated workforces and infrastructure and save $.