Residents Increasingly Fleeing New York, Los Angeles & Chicago

[Chef]

Originally Posted by The North One

I'd like to see a source for this because last I checked Minneapolis hasn't had positive domestic migration since 2002.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/ce...estimates.html

Minnesota is also seeing positive net domestic migration as a whole, which wasn't the case for a decade and a half:

https://www.twincities.com/2018/01/0...-to-minnesota/

[dimondpark]

Id only be concerned if their GDPs contracted, otherwise meh, all 3 appear to be booming as far as development

[dimondpark]

State and local officials in California have long believed that public employees' pensions are inviolable, even if their employer can't fulfill any of its other obligations. That belief is rooted in decades-old state Supreme Court rulings that the state and federal constitutions barred governments from interfering with pension contracts. The California Public Employees' Retirement System reinforced that notion by requiring governments to cover the full cost of the promised pensions even if they defaulted.

Unfortunately for CalPERS, the state constitution doesnt mandate any expenditure except for one, general obligation bond payments because that impacts the state's ability to borrow. Everything else including pensions, unfortunately does not enjoy such a guarantee.

Fortunately the state has never come close to being insolvent and havent had to resort to that.

[skyscraperpage17]

Michigan has the same wording in its state constitution as Illinois and California with respect to pensions, and Detroit's bankruptcy has already set the precedent that pensions can be wiped out (and a state isn't obligated to take on the debt) if an entity is insolvent.

Fortunately, because it has some of the most highly sought-after water & sewerage infrastructure in the country and one of the world's most prestiguous art museums, the city was able to "mortgage" those assets and pensioners only got a "modest" haircut.

[Acajack]

This thread kinda confirms what I have been thinking might happen to U.S. cities - and I've been thinking this for a while.

As suburban areas get blander and blander, and traffic and transportation to get to and from them becomes more and more of a hassle, it may be inevitable that the richest people will increasingly take over the central cities where amenities and (the highest paying) jobs are more abundant and easier to access, and the built environment (once refurbished, when necessary) is much more aesthetically pleasing.

In a sense, the inner areas of many American cities will be more like Paris and many other major European cities, where the city proper tends to be a fairly exclusive reserve for the rich, and the middle and lower classes are relegated outside the "city walls".

[dc_denizen]

suburbs in the Northeast are facing real competition from places like denver, seattle, austin, nashville, portland, minnie, even columbus that offer urbanity without much crime, traffic, etc and with proximity to interesting natural areas+cheaper housing and schools. think of it as the white collar collary to the sun belt migration

suburban LI, NJ and CT are mostly populated by ethnic white people (italians, irish, etc) who REALLY liked living in the suburbs, and who are the ones that drove the built environment changes in the last 40 years. they allowed the cities like newark and hartford to really get dilapidated, and now the states wonder why young people (and investment $$ and corporate relocations) prefer seattle or denver to metro park and rahway.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In a sense, the inner areas of many American cities will be more like Paris and many other major European cities, where the city proper tends to be a fairly exclusive reserve for the rich, and the middle and lower classes are relegated outside the "city walls".

European cities do have a higher % of wealth near the core, but they aren't that radically different from successful U.S. cities. Also, keep in mind there aren't as many rich households in Western European metros. There are more wealthy households in, say, Metro Detroit than in all but a handful of European metros.

The wealthiest areas in France are actually rail commuter towns in Paris' western suburbs. If you've ever taken the train out to Versailles, you've passed through the wealth belt. Kinda the Westchester/CT of France. And Paris proper has plenty of poverty, mostly in its eastern half. Paris is more of a "favored quarter" type metro (West is best) rather than one where the wealth is centralized.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Michigan has the same wording in its state constitution as Illinois and California with respect to pensions, and Detroit's bankruptcy has already set the precedent that pensions can be wiped out (and a state isn't obligated to take on the debt) if an entity is insolvent.

Fortunately, because it has some of the most highly sought-after water & sewerage infrastructure in the country and one of the world's most prestiguous art museums, the city was able to "mortgage" those assets and pensioners only got a "modest" haircut.

There is a slight difference between Detroit and Illinois's situation. The situation in Illinois is less clear than Detroit's because states cannot declare bankruptcy. So state pension obligations cannot be "wiped out" in federal bankruptcy court (nor can any other financial obligation).

Puerto Rico's situation started out under a similar to Illinois, but ended up being more analogous to Detroit, once the courts clarified that PR had the legal right to declare itself bankrupt. The courts clarified that territories are more like cities, and thus are able to declare bankruptcy.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

.

The wealthiest areas in France are actually rail commuter towns in Paris' western suburbs. If you've ever taken the train out to Versailles, you've passed through the wealth belt. Kinda the Westchester/CT of France. And Paris proper has plenty of poverty, mostly in its eastern half. Paris is more of a "favored quarter" type metro (West is best) rather than one where the wealth is centralized.

Point taken, though in the case of Paris my sense it went from a city of teeming masses to the high-brow place that banished the paupers outside the walls (for quite some time), and the increasing "pauperization" of the northern and northeastern arrondissements is more of a contemporary thing, due to demographic "spillage" from the banlieues outside the city limits on the other side of the Périphérique.

There is still a "eeeeeeeeewwww" factor associated with anything beyond the Périph' though some posh places like Neuilly-sur-Seine just outside of it (to the west as you say) are exempt from the stigma.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

European cities do have a higher % of wealth near the core, but they aren't that radically different from successful U.S. cities. Also, keep in mind there aren't as many rich households in Western European metros. There are more wealthy households in, say, Metro Detroit than in all but a handful of European metros.

.

The thing is, though, is that even at the moment there are only a handful of U.S. cities that would have something resembligng a comparable amount of wealth concentrated in the core in a way that is fairly common across Europe.

My point is actually that in the not-too-distant future, this will become much more common in many U.S. cities.

[the urban politician]

Illinois doesn't need to declare bankruptcy.

The State Treasurer can just stop issuing checks to pensioners.

The State Supreme Court can call it unconstitutional till they are blue, but unless they come with their own army I don't see why they can't be ignored.

They can duke it out in court for 10 years, and by then half the pensioners will be dead anyhow. Find loopholes outside of bankruptcy. When those loopholes close, find new loopholes. I can think of many ways that Illinois can make this a pain in the ass for pensioners until some sort of reasonable resolution is found.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Illinois doesn't need to declare bankruptcy.

The State Treasurer can just stop issuing checks to pensioners.

The State Supreme Court can call it unconstitutional till they are blue, but unless they come with their own army I don't see why they can't be ignored.

They can duke it out in court for 10 years, and by then half the pensioners will be dead anyhow. Find loopholes outside of bankruptcy. When those loopholes close, find new loopholes. I can think of many ways that Illinois can make this a pain in the ass for pensioners until some sort of reasonable resolution is found.

Yeah... no. Does Illinois really want to push a bunch of its own citizens into poverty? Heaven help the governor who lets that catastrophe happen.

[SIGSEGV]

Maybe they can require pensioners to physically to show up to Springfield or the Thompson Center to pick up their checks (or more realistically, charge a hefty fee for direct deposit or mail).

[The North One]

TIL Chicagoans are sociopaths.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by The North One

TIL Chicagoans are sociopaths.

A broke pension system will do that.... I mean who could have seen this coming.... over the last several decades...

[mhays]

A branch of government acting in defiance of its own laws...sounds like something that would result in a much larger liability for that government, and some type of serious repercussions per state's constitution for the elected officials.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by The North One

TIL Chicagoans are sociopaths.

Yeah, those 3% COL increases in pensions were a really bad idea...

Fortunately, Illinois only has the 3rd worst pension underfunding in the US... thank god for KY and NJ!

[bnk]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah... no. Does Illinois really want to push a bunch of its own citizens into poverty? Heaven help the governor who lets that catastrophe happen.

Lol Those pensioners don’t live in Illinois anymore.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by mhays

A branch of government acting in defiance of its own laws...sounds like something that would result in a much larger liability for that government, and some type of serious repercussions per state's constitution for the elected officials.

Yeah you can't stop paying pensions, that's not fair. Incentivizing pensioners to remain in Illinois would help defray the cost though (since they'd pay property/sales tax to Illinois rather than to Florida and Arizona).

It's probably fairer to just tax retirement income, which is currently exempt, unless it would be found unconstitutional.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

It's probably fairer to just tax retirement income, which is currently exempt, unless it would be found unconstitutional.

?????

My mom has been retired for about 10 years now, but used to work for the federal government. She pays income tax on her pension. Social security payments are also taxed.

I don't know where you got the idea that retirement income is not taxed?