What’s the Greatest Risk Cities Face?

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

You have a California perspective. I'd say no fewer than 44 out of the 50 states would run cities into the ground. Also cities primary exist to provide police, fire, streets, etc, not just planning.

Only a handful of states even have high demand cities, and other than Seattle and Houston they've done a pretty bad job of it.

[Crawford]

NYC is much better run than NY State. The cities in NJ and CT are generally better run than their states too.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

It has nothing to do with funding though.

Public housing I'm referring too. Think Housing Act of 1949 for example. Only on a grandiose level. The funding is there if they play around with the federal budget and allocate funds to public housing, and inject money into transportation related projects. Things like tunnels, bridges, rail (very important; light rail can help). Give subsidies to developers to encourage affordable housing. Think of it as NY's 421a program, only on a grander scale. A combination of that, relaxation of zoning rules in high demand cities, and federal intervention in infrastructure can help a lot.

Zoning is a biggie. If you give developers the leg room to build units, they will build it. More profits in the end. The limiting reagent is transportation, and given how expensive it is, the feds should get involved. Our lack of decent transit options like rail, and heavy reliance on highways kills our cities. Funding is the bread and butter needed.

[ChargerCarl]

I don't think public housing a solution:

https://www.yimbynews.com/2017/06/so...ng-crisis.html

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the biggest threat facing cities is clearly C.H.U.D.s.

dont go to toledo after dark.

[CaliNative]

Sea levels might rise 5-10 feet in the next 50 years. Glug glug.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

You have a California perspective. I'd say no fewer than 44 out of the 50 states would run cities into the ground. Also cities primary exist to provide police, fire, streets, etc, not just planning.

This is example A of what the Left in America hates Federalism. They like states that are liberal. But as long as a girl in Mississippi can't get an abortion they won't be happy. States are powerful because our country was made with their power embedded in it.

[llamaorama]

To reiterate the meat of my argument, I am opposed to states taking away local democratic control over what type and amount of public services to provide using the taxes that we the voters often consent to in special elections. I don't care if the states have the power to do it. They *shouldn't* do it it, because it would be unfair and wrong. Texas has a population somewhat larger than Australia. Could you imagine if Australia had no states of its own, if it was controlled by a single party at all levels of government, and only cities had any diversity in political opinion and governing philosophy? And then the national government decided to dissolve them so everything is the same everywhere, totally winner take all?

It's kind of crappy for states to simultaneously demand more autonomy from the federal government, while seeking to take away autonomy to cities and counties. States are way too big to not devolve things further. Many US states are the size of whole countries, which would naturally have provinces, counties, municipalities, villages, etc.

If this is the way it's going to be, then major cities ought to secede and become states of their own so they can reject all the resentful bullshit that is put upon them. But this is virtually impossible, especially if the original state is against it.

This is example A of what the Left in America hates Federalism

I'm not convinced conservatives like federalism for any other reason except that states currently give Republicans an electoral advantage.

They like states that are liberal. But as long as a girl in Mississippi can't get an abortion they won't be happy.

Conservatives like local governments that are conservative. But as long as businesses in cities can't legally discriminate against gays they won't be happy.

See what I did there?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

To reiterate the meat of my argument, I am opposed to states taking away local democratic control over what type and amount of public services to provide using the taxes that we the voters often consent to in special elections. I don't care if the states have the power to do it. They *shouldn't* do it it, because it would be unfair and wrong. Texas has a population somewhat larger than Australia. Could you imagine if Australia had no states of its own, if it was controlled by a single party at all levels of government, and only cities had any diversity in political opinion and governing philosophy? And then the national government decided to dissolve them so everything is the same everywhere, totally winner take all?

It's kind of crappy for states to simultaneously demand more autonomy from the federal government, while seeking to take away autonomy to cities and counties. States are way too big to not devolve things further. Many US states are the size of whole countries, which would naturally have provinces, counties, municipalities, villages, etc.

If this is the way it's going to be, then major cities ought to secede and become states of their own so they can reject all the resentful bullshit that is put upon them. But this is virtually impossible, especially if the original state is against it.



I'm not convinced conservatives like federalism for any other reason except that states currently give Republicans an electoral advantage.



Conservatives like local governments that are conservative. But as long as businesses in cities can't legally discriminate against gays they won't be happy.

See what I did there?

See, even when you talk about federalism you bring up the national government and their electoral advantage. I think most conservatives, that actually read, want a federal government that is so small it does not affect their lives. Period.

I don't see what you did there. Of course conservatives want a local and state government which mimic their ideals. But I don't think there are too many conservatives that are mad there are gay pride parades in California. It doesn't do anything positive or negative to them. I don't give a damn what North Carolina does. At all. I do care what my state does.

And that's it. I care what my state does. I don't care what any other state does. Its cant get any simpler than that.

[Centropolis]

i think we would all be better off if we paid more attention and were more engaged with what our own states were doing.

[Citylover94]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

See, even when you talk about federalism you bring up the national government and their electoral advantage. I think most conservatives, that actually read, want a federal government that is so small it does not affect their lives. Period.

If that is true and I doubt that is actually the case then the United States ceases to exist as a meaningful entity. When the government becomes so limited at the federal level that it doesn't in any way effect a persons life it no longer exists. Even if all the federal government did was only what was directly mentioned in the Constitution (for example create and enter into treaties and regulate commerce) that would absolutely have an effect on people lives. A functioning government by its very nature will and even must effect people lives or it is not governing.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i think we would all be better off if we paid more attention and were more engaged with what our own states were doing.

But people don't feel any connection to states. They're the perfect vehicle for special interests for this reason.

The US is large and probably needs a federal structure, but they should be centered on cities. NY, Philly, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, Kansas City, and many others are on the fringes of their respective states, so the states don't form effective regional governments. Texas should be 3 states. California should be at least 2, and probably 3 as well (or the upper bit joined with Oregon).

In a perfect world, the map would look very, very different and then possibly be reflective of regional interests.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by 10023

But people don't feel any connection to states.

I don't think that is true. Sure, in the case of your hometown, there seems to be actual antipathy for the rest of the state. And there are more than a few states that carry little in the form of state identity or pride, but I'd say a vast majority of people have a deep connection to their state. You didn't sense any state pride when you were in college. Colorado, Texas, North Carolina, Utah, Montana, and on and on: you ask someone where they are from and often they will mention the state, not the city where they live. Sure, you could probably combine Iowa and Wisconsin and Minnesota and not sacrifice too much in terms of regional character, though I am sure people from those areas will disagree forcefully. Lines on a map will frequently seem arbitrary to someone far away, but the closer you get to that line, the more important it tends to become. I do think these borders have had some negative impacts on cities like Kansas City, where most of the fiscal power has shifted across the state line from the central city--creating a painfully dysfunctional metropolitan area. Though I don't blame the map makers of a 150 years ago. I blame white flight.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Citylover94

If that is true and I doubt that is actually the case then the United States ceases to exist as a meaningful entity. When the government becomes so limited at the federal level that it doesn't in any way effect a persons life it no longer exists. Even if all the federal government did was only what was directly mentioned in the Constitution (for example create and enter into treaties and regulate commerce) that would absolutely have an effect on people lives. A functioning government by its very nature will and even must effect people lives or it is not governing.

Why? If the Federal government doesn't provide money for projects ranging from education to roads, how would that cease the very idea of the nation? I'll never understand this concept. A nation isn't based on grants from the Federal government to schools or for roads.

It not longer exist? They would provide:

*Federal courts, to include the supreme court.
*In a liberal sense, we could still provide medicare and SS.
*National defense and everything that goes along with foreign affairs.
*The Constitution would still be the law of the land, and everything that includes.....environmental laws, interstate commerce laws, civil rights etc etc

Lets not split hairs. Youre using a term I used to the extreme. You know what I mean, and if you don't, you must live in a bubble.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by 10023

But people don't feel any connection to states. They're the perfect vehicle for special interests for this reason.

The US is large and probably needs a federal structure, but they should be centered on cities. NY, Philly, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, Kansas City, and many others are on the fringes of their respective states, so the states don't form effective regional governments. Texas should be 3 states. California should be at least 2, and probably 3 as well (or the upper bit joined with Oregon).

In a perfect world, the map would look very, very different and then possibly be reflective of regional interests.

yep, i rail about this all the time. this perhaps an improvement in some spots, but it's based on keeping the states all the same population, so you end up with cities like louisville jumbled in with indianapolis, which would be rediculous for a smaller state:

now, an argument could be made that we simply need fewer, but more powerful states that would be far more relevant in everyday lives. this is already the case in say california, but not so much missouri. say every state had 20-30 million people. i would be in favor of more large, powerful states that would strip down the federal governments warmaking ability and the power of the fed deep state/military industrial complex.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by 10023

But people don't feel any connection to states. They're the perfect vehicle for special interests for this reason.

The US is large and probably needs a federal structure, but they should be centered on cities. NY, Philly, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, Kansas City, and many others are on the fringes of their respective states, so the states don't form effective regional governments. Texas should be 3 states. California should be at least 2, and probably 3 as well (or the upper bit joined with Oregon).

In a perfect world, the map would look very, very different and then possibly be reflective of regional interests.

True.

But with the Federal government taking 39.5% of rich peoples income in taxes(pre deductions, of course), it leaves little for states to matter. If the Federal income top tax rate was say....10%, states like California could raise their top income tax rate from like 13%(its somewhere near that) to 30% without the rich even noticing their taxes changed, because it didn't. So with that large amount of money now coming in, states could do a lot more and become way more important to people.

Edit* And no, I am not some extremist. I think the concept of Medicare and SS can only work on the national level. These programs are not the duty of the Federal government, but I think they work, and for it to work, it would have to be a national program. Maybe make a grand compromise:

A national healthcare program like the UKs, and in exchange, lower the tax rate and let the states have more power.

[Centropolis]

that's messed up how springfield (il) is the state capital of my state and JOLIET is the capital of "gary," (chicago).

menominee and gary should be one with chicago as capital, sangamon and maumee one state (and maybe even nodaway with st. louis as capital), and so on.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pico44

I don't think that is true. Sure, in the case of your hometown, there seems to be actual antipathy for the rest of the state. And there are more than a few states that carry little in the form of state identity or pride, but I'd say a vast majority of people have a deep connection to their state. You didn't sense any state pride when you were in college. Colorado, Texas, North Carolina, Utah, Montana, and on and on: you ask someone where they are from and often they will mention the state, not the city where they live. Sure, you could probably combine Iowa and Wisconsin and Minnesota and not sacrifice too much in terms of regional character, though I am sure people from those areas will disagree forcefully. Lines on a map will frequently seem arbitrary to someone far away, but the closer you get to that line, the more important it tends to become. I do think these borders have had some negative impacts on cities like Kansas City, where most of the fiscal power has shifted across the state line from the central city--creating a painfully dysfunctional metropolitan area. Though I don't blame the map makers of a 150 years ago. I blame white flight.

http://antiqueprintsblog.blogspot.com

missouri is a non-state, really, that was hacked out of the louisiana purchase/missouri territory. st. louis has a state divide, too, but it's less of an issue due to economics and the fact that illinois has been more cooperative than kansas, or at least neutral. the previous st. louis mayor had a working relationship with dick durbin, which helped. interesting that the same thing almost happened to minnesota/twin cities.

regarding the kansas city issue...midwest states aggressively try to poach from adjacent states all the time (see indiana vs illinois). growth on the kansas side of kansas city metro was inevitable...there was already a sizeable core city of kansas city, ks, and it was nothing at all to to run streetcar lines, streets, and later expressways right across the border into kansas. it was going to happen, since the urban core of kcmo sits right on the border. it's not like leapfrog suburbia like north mississippi is to memphis, or something. in fact it's amazing to me that it actually didn't happen sooner, as the development was initially pretty weak over into kansas.

the problem now is that one county of kansas city wealthy suburbs are pretty much the only thing the state of kansas has going for it, so the entire state is throwing everything they have at that one county to claw wealth over the border as the situation for kansas has grown desperate.

[10023]

Originally Posted by pico44

I don't think that is true. Sure, in the case of your hometown, there seems to be actual antipathy for the rest of the state. And there are more than a few states that carry little in the form of state identity or pride, but I'd say a vast majority of people have a deep connection to their state. You didn't sense any state pride when you were in college. Colorado, Texas, North Carolina, Utah, Montana, and on and on: you ask someone where they are from and often they will mention the state, not the city where they live. Sure, you could probably combine Iowa and Wisconsin and Minnesota and not sacrifice too much in terms of regional character, though I am sure people from those areas will disagree forcefully. Lines on a map will frequently seem arbitrary to someone far away, but the closer you get to that line, the more important it tends to become. I do think these borders have had some negative impacts on cities like Kansas City, where most of the fiscal power has shifted across the state line from the central city--creating a painfully dysfunctional metropolitan area. Though I don't blame the map makers of a 150 years ago. I blame white flight.

Your examples all seem to be states where the principal city is in the center of the state (Colorado), or the state is largely unpopulated (Montana), or there are multiple principal cities (Texas, NC).

Colorado wouldn't necessarily change under the re-mapping that I suggest would be better. Nor would Utah (which is also unique in its religious makeup).

[10023]

And then let's not forget counties. That's yet another layer of government which does what, exactly? These might have been necessary when you had to travel by horse and buggy, but they're superfluous now.

England is a nation of 55 million divided into 48 ceremonial counties (and is itself one of 4 subdivisions of the United Kingdom, albeit more than 5x the size of the other 3 combined). The least populated of them, aside from the City of London (which doesn't really count) is Rutland with 39,000 people. I would guess that there are many American counties with less people than this. There are also a number of cities and unitary authorities with equal power to counties.

Germany has federal states (and a few of them are city-states), but there is nothing really equivalent to counties. There are just cities and their respective surrounding villages (denoted as the kreis, or 'circle', of City X).

Somehow America ended up with all of the above, so we have local (municipal), county, state and federal. Some counties are so large that they include a city, its suburbs and rural area. Some include a city and only part of its metro area. Some (well, in NYC) are administrative subdivisions of a city.

The whole system is just convoluted as hell, and people wonder why Americans don't engage enough in local government.