4 ms·

The reason the suburban experience is still happening is because the urban government are failed/failing. Inability to manage homeless, drugs, gangs and educat

The reason the suburban experience is still happening is because the urban government are failed/failing. Inability to manage homeless, drugs, gangs and education force families out of cities and into terrible commutes

danny_codes 4y ago
Seems the causation is reversed. Take Section 9 housing. Originally, it was setup for everyone to live in, with the idea that tenants would have the skill to maintain their housing,and local governments would provide funding. However, what happened is that suburbs got built and setup rules so only whites could get loans & move there. The feds dramatically subsidized building these suburbs (billions in roads, sewage, etc), so the buying cost for houses in suburbia was massively low relative to true cost. So the whites moved to the suburbs on the basis of good personal economics (via gov subsidy and cheap credit) and good marketing (suburb developers sold the dream). The suburbs thus became politically powerful (white & somewhat wealthy now, bc of subsidized housing). Suburbs didn't want (and still don't) want to pay for city expenses, but since suburbs are generally part of the same municipality, they could use their political power to cripple inner city services. Which they did. Then the urbanites (mostly not white, bc suburbs where racially zoned) gradually became destitute as businesses couldn't survive without adequate services. And with destitution we see the rise of homelessness, drugs, etc that you rightfully point out. Seems like it's high time to recognize the calamitous mistake and fix it
- tw98521358 4y ago
  How do you fix it without harming yourself. It’s a prisoners dilemma every person is optimizing for themselves and the individual maximum is burbs. Collective maximum is urban but I see no way to get there in a democratic society. Right now the burbs are able to zone out or otherwise not have to deal with homeless, poverty, subsidized households, and lock in local tax revenue to high earners. As such burbs are the only good individual choice
  - danny_codes 4y ago
    Yeah it's tricky politically, because suburban life would be dramatically more expensive without the massive subsidies. However, I do think there is a growing body of urbanites who are pushing for change. California recently passed SB9, hopefully the first of many densification bills. Perhaps if a leader-state like California gets far enough down the road for the economic benefits to start accelerating, greed will work in the urbanists' favor
wizofaus 4y ago
That there's been massive failures in government policy over the decades isn't really debatable, but I doubt the impact of homelessness and crime is that big a factor on prompting families to move to suburbs in most cities (well, at least, in Australia. I'm basing that on the fact that many suburbs with higher homelessness and crime rates are still desirable places to live here, generally with property prices to match - primarily because they're located closer to the city centre with a wide range of transport options to access to various services, unlike outer suburbs that make at best a token effort to support any form of transport other than private automobiles).
- danny_codes 4y ago
  Sounds a bit semi-urban to me if there's good transit connections. But yeah to your point I don't think homeless prompted people to leave urban areas, people leaving urban areas caused homelessness. The causality is reversed, is my point. The reason people left, as alluded to above, was largely government subsidy + good marketing/lobbying by suburb developers, auto companies, and road builders.

danny_codes 4y ago

Seems the causation is reversed. Take Section 9 housing. Originally, it was setup for everyone to live in, with the idea that tenants would have the skill to maintain their housing,and local governments would provide funding. However, what happened is that suburbs got built and setup rules so only whites could get loans & move there. The feds dramatically subsidized building these suburbs (billions in roads, sewage, etc), so the buying cost for houses in suburbia was massively low relative to true cost. So the whites moved to the suburbs on the basis of good personal economics (via gov subsidy and cheap credit) and good marketing (suburb developers sold the dream). The suburbs thus became politically powerful (white & somewhat wealthy now, bc of subsidized housing). Suburbs didn't want (and still don't) want to pay for city expenses, but since suburbs are generally part of the same municipality, they could use their political power to cripple inner city services. Which they did. Then the urbanites (mostly not white, bc suburbs where racially zoned) gradually became destitute as businesses couldn't survive without adequate services. And with destitution we see the rise of homelessness, drugs, etc that you rightfully point out. Seems like it's high time to recognize the calamitous mistake and fix it

tw98521358 4y ago
How do you fix it without harming yourself. It’s a prisoners dilemma every person is optimizing for themselves and the individual maximum is burbs. Collective maximum is urban but I see no way to get there in a democratic society. Right now the burbs are able to zone out or otherwise not have to deal with homeless, poverty, subsidized households, and lock in local tax revenue to high earners. As such burbs are the only good individual choice
- danny_codes 4y ago
  Yeah it's tricky politically, because suburban life would be dramatically more expensive without the massive subsidies. However, I do think there is a growing body of urbanites who are pushing for change. California recently passed SB9, hopefully the first of many densification bills. Perhaps if a leader-state like California gets far enough down the road for the economic benefits to start accelerating, greed will work in the urbanists' favor

wizofaus 4y ago

That there's been massive failures in government policy over the decades isn't really debatable, but I doubt the impact of homelessness and crime is that big a factor on prompting families to move to suburbs in most cities (well, at least, in Australia. I'm basing that on the fact that many suburbs with higher homelessness and crime rates are still desirable places to live here, generally with property prices to match - primarily because they're located closer to the city centre with a wide range of transport options to access to various services, unlike outer suburbs that make at best a token effort to support any form of transport other than private automobiles).

danny_codes 4y ago
Sounds a bit semi-urban to me if there's good transit connections. But yeah to your point I don't think homeless prompted people to leave urban areas, people leaving urban areas caused homelessness. The causality is reversed, is my point. The reason people left, as alluded to above, was largely government subsidy + good marketing/lobbying by suburb developers, auto companies, and road builders.