An American Suburb, 2018

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Efficient delivery of services IS a fundamental issue. Sales prices are cosmetic.

You believe that if Dolton consolidated, and if there were somewhat more efficient delivery of services, that it would be significantly more desirable?

Then why are there Doltons all over the country, including in areas with efficient, consolidated govt.?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You believe that if Dolton consolidated, and if there were somewhat more efficient delivery of services, that it would be significantly more desirable?

Then why are there Doltons all over the country, including in areas with efficient, consolidated govt.?

Who cares if it is "desirable"? Everything doesn't have to appeal to white upper middle class families.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Who cares if it is "desirable"? Everything doesn't have to appeal to white upper middle class families.

So non-whites who are not upper middle class have a different idea of desirability?

I think we just hit peak social sciences.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Who cares if it is "desirable"? Everything doesn't have to appeal to white upper middle class families.

When decent single family homes are going for 90k, just a 40 minute train ride to one of the most important city centers in the Americas, I think there's an issue.

Dolton doesn't have to be white, or upper-middle class obviously, but most of its issues are tied to the fact that people with options don't want to live there.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

So non-whites who are not upper middle class have a different idea of desirability?

I think we just hit peak social sciences.

Yes, they do. Are you serious?

[llamaorama]

You have to ask what condition those homes are in. They could need a lot of expensive renovations to bring up to modern expectations. It might be more worthwhile just to buy a newer home in the suburbs and enjoy the benefits of improved safety and better schools.

Also there is a difference between an ungentrified 'bad neighborhood' that is populous, full of business activities, has a unique culture, etc, and one which is just steadily being abandoned. You won't find many hipsters willing to take a chance on a place which is mostly machine shops and vacant lots full of weeds and old tires.

Where I work kind of looks like Dolton. I work in the front office of a manufacturing company that sprawls out across multiple buildings that are across the street from one another. The neighborhood is a mix of pre-war and early post-war suburb that never had any zoning. There are pockets of 1950s and 1960s suburban tract homes and some of the streets widen out into avenues with grassy medians, but there are vast areas full of trailers and wood houses with peeling paint on narrow barely paved roads with ditches along the side. There's a lot of poverty, the schools have a negative reputation, you don't see any national grocery chains around. Its not really like an urban neighborhood full of things to do and in close proximity to things. It's more like if Detroit or Cleveland never lost all those industrial jobs.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You believe that if Dolton consolidated, and if there were somewhat more efficient delivery of services, that it would be significantly more desirable?

Then why are there Doltons all over the country, including in areas with efficient, consolidated govt.?

I don’t think anyone is saying it’s THE solution, but it’s certainly part of the solution.

Better services means less people leaving, leading for less losses in tax revenue and less reduction of said services. It’s a vicious circle.

Do you believe that small town politics exist and can plague a city?

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes. the city of chicago is not going to willingly take on even more deeply struggling communities than the ones it already has to deal with on the south and west sides.

it probably should, but it would only work with some kind of chicago-cook county merger so that chicago got the good along with the bad.

You hit the nail on the head.

In Sacramento we have over 500,000 people living in the unincorporated parts of Sacramento County and that’s why the city wants no part in annexing it. It would cost more to deliver municipal services than can recouped in tax revenue. It’s just not worth it.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

You hit the nail on the head.

In Sacramento we have over 500,000 people living in the unincorporated parts of Sacramento County and that’s why the city wants no part in annexing it. It would cost more to deliver municipal services than can recouped in tax revenue. It’s just not worth it.

Steely's post make sense to me. Some cities may have over annexed over the years to the point where there is resentment towards City Hall. Some neighborhoods feel neglected by the city -- they pay taxes, but they don't receive equal services in return. <-- They might, but they don't feel that way, which is the same because they can rally and vote.

[IrishIllini]

^
Is this the case in Houston? I'm curious to see how Houston balances the provision of essential services and revenue given the city covers something like 600 square miles and it's basically all low density development.

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You believe that if Dolton consolidated, and if there were somewhat more efficient delivery of services, that it would be significantly more desirable?

Then why are there Doltons all over the country, including in areas with efficient, consolidated govt.?

Dolton is a pretty extreme case. Did you read the article? Property taxes are quadruple those in Chicago. Going from $6000 to $1500 per year matters an awful lot for a family earning $50k per year. Additionally a larger entity will have both the money and the leverage to get the railroads to deal with their life-disrupting train delays.

I don't know how to solve the problems that the Doltons all over the country face, but it's pretty obvious what is wrong in this particular case.

[digitallagasse]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

^
Is this the case in Houston? I'm curious to see how Houston balances the provision of essential services and revenue given the city covers something like 600 square miles and it's basically all low density development.

Basically growth ponzi scheme. Works well when things are new and you can keep growing. Each growth ring needs to be bigger than the last. Stall out or slow down and things get painful a few decades later. The development has to not only cover the costs of the infrastructure that serves it but the replacement costs of that infrastructure when it is end of life. First replacement cycle starts to bight. Following replacements cycles bight hard. If that describes most of the built form of the city bankruptcy or financial collapse will be the end result.

Raising taxes to make up the difference is too little too late. The amount taxes need to go up is too much to be practical. City could try going pro-growth and upzoning but developers may not be willing to risk it without heavy incentives. Incentives the city may not be able to afford to offer. if caught early the city might have time to recover. Failure to do so leaves too much of the city in bad shape and lack of resources and desirability to come back from. Welcome to Dolton mention is this thread.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...q=growth%20pon