Suburbs in a New Light

Washington Post ^ | 05/01/2002

[cogitator]

Excerpt: "The first thing his maps demonstrate is the folly of considering suburbs as a single species, easily differentiated from center cities or rural areas, but pretty much all alike themselves. Measured by growth patterns, affluence, age, race, economic base and fiscal capacity, they fall into five distinct categories. The at-risk, older suburbs, often in the center ring, are unlike the affluent job centers, frequently miles farther out. The "bedroom-developing suburbs," as he terms the familiar tract-house communities with crowded schools and low tax bases, face challenges of their own."

[cogitator]

Very, very interesting. Haven't had a chance to look at the maps yet. Comments welcome; here's a Web link to them.

www.metroresearch.org

[StockAyatollah]

Orfield, who is a Democrat, is also a passionate advocate of stronger metropolitan government as the answer to the challenges facing central cities and all varieties of suburbs. His agenda calls for tax-sharing, stronger land-use planning, campaigns for affordable housing and other measures he says would halt the decline in some parts of the region and relieve the growth pressures being experienced in others.

In other words, let's take the disastrous leftist policies that caused people to flee the cities, and put them to work in the suburbs.

[cogitator]

In other words, let's take the disastrous leftist policies that caused people to flee the cities, and put them to work in the suburbs.

Broder doesn't advocate the author's positions, but he does state them. From my vantage point outside Frederick, MD, I can see some of the problems and read about other problems closer in to Baltimore and Washington. One of the clearest problems facing both is the aging of the inner suburbs, which reduces their attractiveness as places to live despite much better infrastructure compared to the outer suburbs. I think that's a major area that has to be addressed nationwide. As to how to address it, I'll leave that to the individual states and cities to decide.

[Clemenza]

Different areas develop in different ways. Here in South Florida, we simply have one mega suburb stretching from South Miami-Dade County on up to Jupiter, with no real Urban core (central city Miami and Fort Lauderdale are not that big).

In New York by contrast, the closer your commute, the more expensive it is. I have noticed that some of the "inner suburbs" have decayed, although most are either extremely expensive or inhabited by Middle and Upper Middle Class immigrants (who want the suburban lifestyle while being close to others of their ethnicity).

[balrog666]

Orfield, who is a Democrat, is also a passionate advocate of stronger metropolitan government as the answer to the challenges facing central cities and all varieties of suburbs. His agenda calls for tax-sharing, stronger land-use planning, campaigns for affordable housing and other measures he says would halt the decline in some parts of the region and relieve the growth pressures being experienced in others.

Allow me to rephrase the obvious:

Orfield, who is a idiot, is an advocate of making independent suburban towns subject to urban governments.
Orfield thinks that cities should be allowed to:
steal taxes from outlying suburbs,
control zoning and growth in non urban areas so no more suburbs are ever built,
institute rent control over landlord's property and restrict people's right to contract for housing, so as to destroy the housing construction business and insure that more housing is never built, and
institute local minimum wage laws that are not based on market forces or rationality of any kind so as to destroy those businesses that had the temerity to have fled the high-tax, low-sales, high-crime urban centers.

And all to halt the inexorable decline in urban city tax dollars, the impoverishment of the expanding urban welfare programs, and the further escaping of free citizens from urban tax slavery and property confiscation.

[KC_Conspirator]

In other words, let's take the disastrous leftist policies that caused people to flee the cities, and put them to work in the suburbs.

You are exactly right! If you read any poly sci textbooks, almost all of them are written by leftists talk about this idea. Furthermore, its motivated by greed as controlling leftists see all the money and success and literally want to take it away.

[Black Agnes]

Ding! Ding! Ding! You win the prize! Well said!

[RightWhale]

the Brookings Institution.

Getting an acrid taste in my mouth. This think tank is beginning demonstrate that they are not thinking productively. Or maybe they are well past beginning and have been condescending toward the proles for a long time. Some say Brookings are elitist.

[NativeNewYorker]

I went to the site & maps, and they are crafted to rationalize broadening the tax base and centralizing power in regional structures.

It's the mid-20th century goo-goo movement all over again. This time, they won't make the mistake of drawing lines people can move across.

[NativeNewYorker]

An excellent translation.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Most of the suburbs were created because the land prices in the cities and housing costs drove the population farther out. This growth occurred principally because of economic reasons not political. Many of the suburbs surrounding Chicago for example are MORE liberal than the city.

[StockAyatollah]

Funny you mention the "inner suburbs". I grew up inside the Baltimore beltway but outside the city in Towson area. This area is lower middle class. Its still in good shape. The one thing threatening it is the "Move to Oppoprtunity" program, that pays irresponsible bums to move into and destroy the suburbs. Once again, if government would stay out, things would be a lot better!

[StockAyatollah]

Yes, a lot of city dwellers that vote for RATS and RINOs run to the suburbs to escape the inevitable resultant hell. Then they continue their voting patterns, destroying their new neighborhoods. It even happens across state lines, such as when northern liberals move to Florida.

[Alberta's Child]

Orfield, who is a Democrat, is also a passionate advocate of stronger metropolitan government as the answer to the challenges facing central cities and all varieties of suburbs.

That flies in the face of an interesting article on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal this week, which indicated that the large, centralized government in Los Angeles is so incompetent that large swaths of the city will be voting in November on secession measures. The article pointed out that smaller California cities in the 100,000 population range do a much better job of controlling crime, running schools, etc.

[balrog666]

That flies in the face of an interesting article on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal this week, which indicated that the large, centralized government in Los Angeles is so incompetent that large swaths of the city will be voting in November on secession measures.

Excellent point. If the new urban planners had faith in their "vision", they would just invite the suburbs to join in their expansion of urban control instead of forcing them into the yoke via state and federal coercion.

[cogitator]

Orfield, who is a idiot, is an advocate of making independent suburban towns subject to urban governments. Orfield thinks that cities should be allowed to:
steal taxes from outlying suburbs,
control zoning and growth in non urban areas so no more suburbs are ever built,
institute rent control over landlord's property and restrict people's right to contract for housing, so as to destroy the housing construction business and insure that more housing is never built, and
institute local minimum wage laws that are not based on market forces or rationality of any kind so as to destroy those businesses that had the temerity to have fled the high-tax, low-sales, high-crime urban centers.

You read between the lines quite well. However, I think one of the things you are doing is attacking the author's broadly-stated (and secondhand) positions and not looking at the main subject of the article, which is the data and maps. I looked at some of the maps and some of them aren't very informative. Some of the others, such as the percentage of children in the free school lunch program, are informative. They show the pockets of lower income (and also higher crime) in the suburbs as well as the cities.

I grew up rural, a bit outside a mid-size city in Wisconsin. I went to grad school in a major city in California. I live outside a mid-size city in Maryland, not very far from the WashBalt metroplex. So I've been around a little. One of my observations is that suburbs don't normally have: cultural institutions (museums, major symphony orchestras); major events (parades, big fireworks displays); and major league professional sports teams. That's not all, but that's a start. Many suburbanites get used to enjoying the perks of living near a city but don't contribute much to the "upkeep" of the urban environment. (A few wealthier suburbanites do, of course.) Also, many suburbanites complain about things like traffic and growth but don't want to take some of the more painful steps required to change those situations. So while some of the things you say above are important concerns, I am in favor of some kinds of regional development planning, because I think that intelligent use of our resources is better than unintelligent overuse of them. Now, it's not always easy to get intelligent solutions out of government, but I think we can at least try to find some.

By the way, from what I've seen around here, most of the slow-growth proponents are suburbanites, not urbanites. They want to be in the outer suburbs and don't want to encounter the problems being faced by the inner suburbs.

[Poohbah]

On defense matters, Brookings usually does a competent job, and their publications usually feature some good "out of the box" ideas. You may disagree with their conclusions, but those conclusions usually have some rational argument behind them.

In other areas, they're hopelessly muddled.

They seem to have multiple personalities.

Roses are red,
Violets are blue;
I'm schizophrenic,
And so am I.

[Dan from Michigan]

control zoning and growth in non urban areas so no more suburbs are ever built,

I'm for that.

[brianl703]

I'm for slow-growth. Restrict immigration.

[balrog666]

One of my observations is that suburbs don't normally have: cultural institutions (museums, major symphony orchestras);

So what? The cities didn't build them - philanthropists did.
Symphony orchestras are nice but are not self supporting - they live off of our tax dollars. So why not broadcast the performances so we can get what we paid for.

major events (parades, big fireworks displays);

I've rarely seen a city with absolutely no parades or fireworks displays. But so what - people choose where they live and I don't really care what their reasons are.

and major league professional sports teams.

Tax leeches. Let someone else pay for them. If I want to see them, I'll go where they play; if not, screw 'em all. Just keep your hand out of my wallet to pay for them (or their stadiums or their tax breaks).

That's not all, but that's a start.

No, that's crap. It's the same twaddle you hear from people who think that Broadway musicals or the ballet or Shakespearean plays or New Orleans jazz should be totally subsidized because it's Art(!), or it's tradition, or it's needed for our culture, or it would die out otherwise. Well, good! Let it die out - if people wanted it, they'd pay for it.

Many suburbanites get used to enjoying the perks of living near a city but don't contribute much to the "upkeep" of the urban environment. (A few wealthier suburbanites do, of course.

The main perk of living near a large city is in the high-end job opportunities that abound there (and rarely anywhere else). But at the same time, people *CHOOSE* not to live in the city because of: the high-cost-of-living, rampant crime, bad schools, liberal judges, corrupt cops, rent controlled housing, welfare programs, the bums, the stench, and a total lack of control over how to fix those very same problems.

Also, many suburbanites complain about things like traffic and growth but don't want to take some of the more painful steps required to change those situations.

A good point. Regional traffic control and expansion is a valid concern for all parties. But if you let the city control it, you get the type of idiocy that Tampa paid for - a built up city convention center built downtown that loses money every year, no highway expansion outside of town, poor maintanence on surburban roads, and a complete lack of planning for future growth outside of the city center. Giving control to the city only leads to the squandering of those dollars on useless city improvements - a complete waste for the suburbs.

So while some of the things you say above are important concerns, I am in favor of some kinds of regional development planning, because I think that intelligent use of our resources is better than unintelligent overuse of them. Now, it's not always easy to get intelligent solutions out of government, but I think we can at least try to find some.

While intelligent use of resources sounds good, when you talk about my resources, *I* am the only arbiter of "intelligent use" that matters. Also, at the moment, it's difficult to recall any notable successes of centralized planning.

Unlike you, I have a complete lack of faith in government planning when it comes to spending my tax dollars. But I agree with you that we should try some methods out - I just don't want everybody forced to do the exact same thing at the point of a gun (federal control or mandated "standards" that aren't).

Aw, rats! I wanted to throw the Portland, Oregon Metro region in there somewhere to show the real evil that happens when New Urbanist bureaucrats run wild but I didn't see a good place to put it.