Replies

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.

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.