Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may be hard to have a meaningful discussion for a wide variety of reasons. Some people don't want to admit that the suburbs have flaws or that they may not be all about "movin' on up;" for some, poverty is an inner-city, black and brown problem, not a suburban, white problem. Some don't like talking about poverty, period; go on a lot of economic or political forums and poverty is a work ethic problem, not something the government should tackle.
Well, we're 50+ years and 22 trillion in 2012 in welfare spending since the War on Poverty was launched. In some respects, it's been succesfull. The poor today have a higher standard of living and a lot of that has to do with welfare. The actual poverty rate, which excludes welfare benefits, hasn't much changed since 1967. Giving people a higher standard of living, it turns out, doesn't actually get people out of poverty.
You know, I think they might just be onto something there. It's interesting that roughly the same percentage of people are incapable or unwilling of earning more than the FPL today in a very different economy as there were in 1967. Today you have plenty of people who let you know they can't succeed because of the economy and how it's not like it was in the 1960s when anyone could just walk into the grocery store and get a job or work in a manufacturing plant straight out of high school. But really, same percentage are either incapable or unwilling of earning more than the FPL today as 1967. Not being around in 1967, I can't really say much about that but it's interesting. Especially when you consider how lazy us damn millenials are (we compromise the largest segment of the workforce) and yet despite all our laziness and this apparently so awful labor market you'd really expect a higher poverty rate since the workforce is lazier and the economy is so much worse, no? Despite that, same percentage are incapable or unwilling of earning more than FPL. Interesting.
And to be honest, while welfare might be a total flop at actually ending poverty, it's certainly not, at least imo, the worst way of spending taxpayer money. Maybe I think there's a bit more of it than I'd like to see but generally I am pro welfare. I think suburban poverty is generally, again, a good thing. Trying to cluster all the poverty in one place (inner city) wasn't good. Having the same income stratisfication but having it be in specific suburbs isn't necessarily any better though, which seems to be the form that suburban poverty tends to be going.
He talks a lot about what the place looks like. I've got news for him; even the wealthier parts of Florida look like that, until you get to the actual mansions.
If you aren't aware that homes generally are built cheaper today than they were 100 years ago, you've obviously have never done any rehabilitation of homes...or just paid attention. This isn't really debatable. Again...I'm talking in generalities here. The old saying, "they just don't build them like the use to" has real merit.
...and all your backhanded comment does is support my complaint. Your comment was trying to suggest homes in cities were built better than homes elsewhere. My comment was "Housing quality varies greatly based upon date of construction regardless of where it is located." If your argument is that homes were built better 100 years ago then it's not a city vs "non-city" issue but rather a date/age issue. I don't necessarily agree that things were built better 100 years ago. Some things were built better. I would agree that time period is relevant to quality of construction but suggest that the quality varies over time regardless of whether the property is in the city or not in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capitalcityguy
Regardless, this was only a minor point I chose to comment on. As the other poster suggests, this item doesn't explain away the trend of suburban poverty that is occurring and the fact that the way suburbs are generally built/laid out, means some tough times for the poor and disadvantaged in the coming decades. There are new articles being posted each day on the Strong Town's website so I'd suggest you take in a few and see how complex this issue really is.
I read them. I've had an issue for a while with local government's mandate of involuntary membership HOAs burdening all of these places for the last several decades. The homeowners are treated as third class citizens and taxed for services not and never received. The issue I have with strong towns is the elevation of the town/city and faux ideas like "community" over individuals. The HOA industry vendors have pushed the same agenda of elevating the HOA corporation above the involuntary members. They deliberately confuse the distinction between the people and the organization. The city is supposed to be there for the benefit of the people not vice versa and the local government needs to stop with the HOA mandate. In fact those restrictive covenants, etc.that impose the HOA contribute to the legal problem urbanists have concerning several of their objectives.
We could get back to the original topic. So, for whose benefit did you have to get in that parting shot? If you're talking about my post, I did not say old houses were better built. I said that the old stuff we have tends to be the stuff that was built well (at higher cost) and, of the newer stuff, I said
There's a lot of terrible construction in tract homes. Junction boxes wired wrong. Frames put together poorly. Plumbing that was installed incorrectly or, at least, cheaply. Foundations that prematurely cracked because of poor grading and drainage. Flashing installed incorrectly.
That's not to say it's all awful, but, given how much has been built, even a minority is a very large number. Modern construction doesn't deserve to put on any kind of pedestal for its quality.
That was not intended to be a "parting shot". It was intended to clarify why I was discussing those topics. You can find poorly built housing from every era. Until my uncle's death last year, he lived in the old family homestead, built by my great-grandfather on the land he received for fighting in the Civil War. I forget exactly when he exercised that option after the War, probably about 1870. To put it kindly, the place is poorly built. It was poorly built in 1870. My ggf didn't really know house construction, he just winged it. Your examples are not really impressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
It may be hard to have a meaningful discussion for a wide variety of reasons. Some people don't want to admit that the suburbs have flaws or that they may not be all about "movin' on up;" for some, poverty is an inner-city, black and brown problem, not a suburban, white problem. Some don't like talking about poverty, period; go on a lot of economic or political forums and poverty is a work ethic problem, not something the government should tackle.
Who are these elusive "some people", especially those you are accusing of racism? That is a serious accusation. As a visiting nurse, I've probably seen more suburban poverty than you've read about.
The "return to the cities" is overplayed and overhyped. Moreover it's irrelevant given the growth of the "suburbs".
Why does anyone believe housing/apartments were built to last decades in cities vs. those away from a city center? Sounds a bit arrogant and inaccurate. Housing quality varies greatly based upon date of construction regardless of where it is located. The so-called "quality" of homes in cities is one of the reasons people leave cities - they want nicer homes.
Poor Americans can "want" nicer homes all they want, but they're not going to get them.
Yeah...the thread seems to continue to do anything but talk about the real issue, Suburban poverty. I'm guessing like me not long ago, most simply aren't familiar with this issue as for the most part, they see and experience suburbia as shiny and new.
Here is a great article (and great pictures!) that was just posted with story of Lehigh, FL. This should be eye-opening for many and might help to get the thread back on topic and actually discussing the issue....
The author's point of view is quite evident throughout the article and his pictures are meant to back that POV up. For me, it did not. Where he sees desolation, I see space. Not wilderness to get away as he surmises as the reason people move there. His comment on no sidewalks is meant to be negative, but the streets in these areas are not highways and have minimal traffic. While sidewalks are nice they are not a necessity in low volume traffic suburban neighborhoods.
The houses in the pics are on minimum 8000 sq ft lots, close to a 1/4 acre, and many are larger. That represents space and while neighbor's are close they are not on top of each other.
4000 sq ft lots are common in much older NE neighborhoods from the late 1800's. The noise levels of everyday living are much higher there compared to more open suburban areas.
The picture in the article of furniture and junk at curbside is meant to be negative, but he doesn't understand FL garbage and bulk pick up. This is a normal weekly sight. While it isn't picturesque, it isn't the blight he wants to portray. FL counties have weekly garbage pick up including recycleables and yard waste along with furniture/large appliances being collected whenever waste management is called for a scheduled pick up. Pickers will usually get there first. Mattresses and furniture are not seen tossed in woods or isolated areas compared to communities that do not provide these services or only do twice yearly bulk pick ups.
Poverty is crushing no matter where it exists, but living in areas where noise levels are high and little natural beauty exists is worse. The blue skies, white clouds. trees and space in the pictures do not paint the picture the author wants me to see.
I read them. I've had an issue for a while with local government's mandate of involuntary membership HOAs burdening all of these places for the last several decades. The homeowners are treated as third class citizens and taxed for services not and never received. The issue I have with strong towns is the elevation of the town/city and faux ideas like "community" over individuals. The HOA industry vendors have pushed the same agenda of elevating the HOA corporation above the involuntary members. They deliberately confuse the distinction between the people and the organization. The city is supposed to be there for the benefit of the people not vice versa and the local government needs to stop with the HOA mandate. In fact those restrictive covenants, etc.that impose the HOA contribute to the legal problem urbanists have concerning several of their objectives.
I don’t understand your “problem” with Strong Towns as you state it here. #1 they don’t advocate for (or against) HOAs and in fact, one of the articles (you must have missed) explains the problems HOAs will have related to suburban poverty. : Suburban Poverty Meets Homeowner's Associations #2 if people choose to live in an incorporated entity like a town or city, they’ve agreed to be part of a community. i.e..pay taxes accordingly, use its services, abide by its laws, etc. If this isn’t of their choosing, they’d live in a rural area or unincorporated entity. There is nothing “faux” about it. What am I missing here?
Also (and maybe this is different where you live), anyone that lives in a neighborhood with an HOA has done this voluntarily. There are plenty of non-HOA neighborhoods people can choose to live in if they don’t wish to live under those rules or restrictions.
It seems you’re wanting to create victims here as if people are mandated to live in places that are not of their choosing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
