Surburban Flight: Commuting to Work Less Attractive as Gas Prices Soar

Madistan.com ^ | July 16, 2008 | Mike Ivey

[Patriotic1]

I wager that gas will never be less than $3.50 again, even if we start drilling. This a problem of global supply and demand.

You're completely ignoring the role our weakened dollar is playing in this. The issue is more complex than people think, but I don't think you're one who fully understands it either. I question your libertarian label - you're terribly naive to think that once more tax money comes in, the tax rate on property will decrease.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Sounds to me like you're doing fine. Good for you. I'm happy that things are working out. I've been misunderstood as criticizing people who live in suburbs, when I'm really criticizing people who feel entitled to live in suburbs regardless of their ability to afford it.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Sorry, I assumed L.A. because that seems to be a popular place of exit for California conservatives. I’m not sure what you mean by your second comment.

[Patriotic1]

Suburb to suburb commuting doesn’t mean you live in the middle of nowhere.

Say what you will, but I’ll bet there are more people in the suburbs of Chicago that have this problem then there are in many small cities. Looking at it from a numerical perspective, the suburb to suburb dimension should be what we are discussing. Otherwise, we’re talking about a much smaller percentage of the people with a problem (or should I say ‘whiners’?).

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

The weak dollar is part of it, but only part of it. Global supply and demand is a bigger part. Also, I never said that taxes WOULD decrease, I said they should in theory. I’ve been alive too long to think that government won’t try to find a way to get more of my money, but that will happen regardless of whether more people move into my city. At least it might slow the bleeding, and if enough other conservatives move in, we might actually be able to start cutting.

[rockinqsranch]

“I’m not sure what you mean by your second comment.”

Since posting that comment I went back and read more of the postings of your discussion with others. I agree with #99. He did however leave out the word “Troll”.

Terribly nice of him.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I guess promoting personal responsibility and opposing an unwarranted sense of entitlement aren't really conservative values anymore. My mistake.

[listenhillary]

Where do the poor go when you drive them out of the affordable housing in the city?

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

There’s always affordable housing. It just may not be the nicest. If you could be poor and live comfortably, why would anyone bother to work hard?

[LomanBill]

[As for people that live in McMansions...that chit doesn’t come cheap, either,

 

We live on just over 1/4 acre on the edge of the burbs.  Plenty of space for a large garden, the kids, and the dog.  30 yards from an 80 acre open-space maintained by the county. 

 

The best of both worlds.   Can raise up to ten chickens here... but no goats.

 

My commute is a long as it takes me to get down stairs to my office.

 

Like you, my farmer's-daughter wife  and I made plans to get here; and we worked and sacrificed for over 20 years to execute that plan.  It wasn't easy.  We lived in a mobile home in Santa Ana for nearly a decade while we saved our pennies - and solaced ourselves with visits to my wife's family farmstead.... 2000 miles away. 

 

We avoided the creative financing traps because my dad taught me how to use, and not abuse, credit.    Others weren't so lucky to have a wise parent for dispensing such an education.

 

[ and I’ve YET to meet anyone that has their wealth tied up in a house that didn’t work for what they wanted JUST as hard as I’ve worked for what I wanted.]

 

Several miles away is a recent development we call The McMansion Ant Farm.    6000 sq ft monsters with no yards, packed together as tightly as the building code allows; many financed "creatively"...    some now bank owned.

 

The folks who live in them have a right to make that personal choice; but it just seems foolish to me.   Considering the heating costs alone, together with the inability to grow food; the result is complete dependency upon, and subjugation to -  the hive.  

 

I especially feel sorry for their kids - urban rats packed into their wooden cages; obese and numbed by X-Box and Ritalin.  

 

And what happens to those kids while one or both of their parents are camping out in the F1Pity?

 

Queen's Castle destroys Pawn... Check.

[dragnet2]

That’s why I like Minneapolis and St. Paul.

lol...Minneapolis has more crime per capita than Los Angeles. Much more as a matter of fact.

Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:

	Minneapolis, MN	Los Angeles, CA	National
Murder:	15.2	12.4	7
Forcible Rape:		27.3	32.2
Robbery:	806.8	370	205.8
Aggravated Assault:	755.7	377.2	336.5
Burglary:	1552.3	524.8	813.2
Larceny Theft:	3493.2	1539.2	2601.7
Vehicle Theft:	965.9	654.4	501.5

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Then that’s a compliment to Los Angeles, because I feel safe here.

[fivekid]

Thank-You!

I can now stop banging my head against the keyboard.

[dragnet2]

You might feel that way, but the stats don’t lie. Some of those numbers are double and triple the per capita crime stats.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Also, it helps that some of the worst places in L.A. are techinically outside the city proper (Compton, Inglewood, etc.) But still, I’m sure the hype about crime in L.A. is far worse than the truth. A lot of people seem to think NYC has a lot of crime, when in reality it’s one of the safest cities in America.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Like I said, I’ll bet L.A. really isn’t so bad. I’m also confident the bulk of those crimes were in North Minneapolis and the area around E. Lake St. Most of the city is very safe. I’ve been to Los Angeles for both business and pleasure, and all of the West side seems very nice. A lot of the worst parts of South and East L.A. are technically outside the city, whereas the suburban San Fernando Valley is in it, so I’m not surprised.

[dragnet2]

Actually, Los Angeles much less crime per capita than almost all major cities in other states, including Minneapolis.

Check out St. Louis.

St. Louis and Los Angeles Comparative Crime Ratios per 100,000 People

Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:

	St. Louis, MO	Los Angeles, CA	National
Murder:	37.2	12.4	7
Forcible Rape:	97.15	27.3	32.2
Robbery:	907.2	370	205.8
Aggravated Assault:	1439.1	377.2	336.5
Burglary:	2453.3	524.8	813.2
Larceny Theft:	6802.4	1539.2	2601.7
Vehicle Theft:	2492.2	654.4	501.5

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Okay, great. Good for Los Angeles. I never disputed that. In fact, it supports either or both of my contentions that a) Los Angeles really isn’t so bad and b) L.A.’s stats are distorted because many of its worst neighborhoods are technically outside the city limits.

[meyer]

You might feel that way, but the stats don’t lie.

One should keep in mind that while the stats may be absolutely correct, they are as reported by the various local policing authorities. There may be a compelling political reason to have low crime statistics, so one jurisdiction may use a slightly different definition of a particular crime than another.

[meyer]

COnservatives conserve. We want sustainable living, we don’t want to burn up the planet. We were put here to be in dominion over every living thing, but not to destroy it.

I'm not disagreeing that it's silly to be excessively wasteful. But this hyperbola about "burning up the planet" and 'destroying earth' sounds like it came right out of AlGore's global warming bible. We are not burning up the planet and we are not destroying the earth. Those are the kinds of phrases used by the left to try to legitimize the socialist movement.

It's much more palatable to allow the government to steal half you pay when it's done to save the earth.