The Obama Presidency

[Fe 26]

This is a decision people get to make for themselves. I don't advocate government sponsoring either behaviour. Either way local populations (in both Canada and US) are starting to see a reduction in birth rate (as you said). The problem is solved through education and so forth. But the point still stands - if you have a nation hungry to grow you need to support its needs. That's the entire point of governance in the first place. You DO have the resources to accommodate the needs of people. The thing about urban sprawl is that eventually it becomes cost prohibitive. The suburbs of New York and other large communities become as-expensive to live in as in the city. So the decision then becomes that of convenience and lifestyle. Razor lives in New York because he has decided an increase in rent is fine. A small price to pay for the convenience it offers him for his lifestyle (instead of commuting from NJ or whatever he was doing).

Like I said, I don't think urban sprawl is a big enough issue to push an agenda on (like an increase in tax or what have you).

Not really arguing with you, but I would like to point out that NYC is not the standard for the US. There are plenty of cities that have entire sections bare because people don't want to live in the city because the house that is 30 minutes away is cheaper (and assumed safer, lol white flight). The US only really has a handful of large cities that people really really want to live in. NYC is also an international city, making it a different beast from most US cities.



On a related note, I find it pretty interesting how the 20-30 crowd is moving back to cities and redeveloping areas. I think Little 5 Point in Atlanta got started that way? And holy cow was that place a shit hole. And it is still pretty bizarre. Young hip/art/fag whatevers moved in there and made a pretty horrible place kind of cool and here recently they built a HUGE upper middle class PUBLIX, Target, and Best buy down the street. But there is still horribly impoverished people living between the shopping center and Little Five Point. Walking from one end to the other is kind of surreal. Art fags, 3 minutes, impoverished war zone shit, 4 minutes, fancy best buy made out of brick.

I wonder if this influx of new young people into these old dieing areas is purely out of necessity (moving closer to work) or if there are psychological reasons. Like do they do it because artsy kids like "real" stuff, and these old homes are much more "real" because they stood the test of time and were made in an area that didn't have the same media blitz of today. Or if it is because of the recession and people feel unsafe/uncertain and people tend to feel safer around "older" and "stronger" things. Maybe owning a shitty home makes them feel safer than renting a shitty apartment?

[Diff-chan]

It's relatively cheap and people more often than not would rather live in more interesting, dynamic areas. Cities have been a part of humanity for as long as humanity has been around. The art fags lived in those places because they were REALLY cheap and gritty and good for their shitty art, but once they showed it was safe, then the fake hipsters and young married couples moved in.

White flight happened in the 1960's-1970's, so our generation & the one before were the first to grow up in really boring, stale suburbs. And now we want out. Because the suburbs suck balls.

[FirstBlood]

I wonder if this influx of new young people into these old dieing areas is purely out of necessity (moving closer to work) or if there are psychological reasons. Like do they do it because artsy kids like "real" stuff, and these old homes are much more "real" because they stood the test of time and were made in an area that didn't have the same media blitz of today. Or if it is because of the recession and people feel unsafe/uncertain and people tend to feel safer around "older" and "stronger" things. Maybe owning a shitty home makes them feel safer than renting a shitty apartment?

It's because it's cheap and they like living near their friends and interesting "creative" types and/or "cool" city stuff like (good) concerts and (good) art shows.

[Drewbacca]

In Toronto the art fags rent, but contribute culturally to city areas like the one Ironplant describes. It's the flippers and socially conscious 36ers who drive change in poor neighbourhoods for the "coolness" factor. Yuppies, kind of. The only issue is that a lot of poor people argue they have nowhere to go now because property values increase. (and they're renting, too!)

[Yoshi]

What the fuck is a 36er?

[Drewbacca]

Mid 30's professional types. In response to Cheeks' 20-30 reference.

[Yoshi]

Ah. Is that a commonly used term, or is it something you coined?

[icarusfall]

I've heard similar.

[Razor Ramon]

Renting is fine. I don't get why people still harp about buying property. Bring back rent control.

[Bojack]

That's what the market price is set as? If it's flourishing in America that's what it's supposed to be at. Gas is actually cheap to produce - record and soaring profits of big oil shows you that. Increasing tax or price only further goes to indenture people to these big companies. What you need to do is increase infrastructure. As your nation grows so to does its needs. You have position in the world now to make good on these needed increases. If you don't things will just end up getting clogged even more and stifle your growth, giving leg-up to competitive nations who provide these things.

To do otherwise is to tell the poor they can't have nice things or compete with the wealthy. Where are your liberal ideals then?

I'll avoid the strawman at the end of your post.

Back to taxing gas, well a brief google search shows that the US government subsidizes gas (or at least oil) which means it's not exactly at a free market price to begin with and we actually pay negative taxes on gas. Then you complain about infrastructure which either means the Fed has to print up more cash or states have to come up with it somehow. In other countries with comparatively high gas tax revenues almost all of them have much much better infrastructure and public transportation and use than we do. When gas went ape shit a couple years back (and it's on its way again) we saw public attitude towards gasoline use change in ways I had previously thought impossible. As long as gas stays dirt cheap and relatively low taxed we wind up with too little cash on a local level to keep good roads w/o raising revenues or cutting costs elsewhere and public transportation stays complete ass instead of improving (which will prolly help the poor more than a few bucks saved on gas each year) because gas is cheap as shit. Perhaps we could even take the subsidies we give to oilmongers and give them to the shipping/trucking companies that would be adversely affected by the tax hikes to help keep goods prices down. Point is we can do a lot better and the general anti gas tax sentiment is intellectually weak. Lastly oil is a finite resource and conservation ought to be encouraged and no I'm not a peak oil nut. Will this stagnate economic development? Perhaps but it will be necessary either now or later. We need to quit kicking this can down the road to our kids kids kids kids.

And before some one asks "Hey Bojack do you wanna have to pay 6 bucks/gallon at the pump" and the answer is... once I finish college and stop delivering pizza I won't care very much because my wife and I drive fuel efficient compacts and we don't live an hour from our jobs. Damn this was almost a cheeks length post.