Cincinnati leads nation in population decline Interesting trend. People are bailing out of many old-line cities for the strip malls and culture-barren suburbs. This is part of a trend of mismanaging our cities.
Escaping Hamilton County’s taxes and congestion appeals to 48-year-old Fred Davidson, who has lived in Madeira since his first day at kindergarten. Now that Davidson’s son has graduated high school, he said, he plans to move to a new home and more land in Clermont County or Brown County.
“I’m not going to pay these stadium taxes and high property taxes,” Davidson said. “Within the year, I’ll be out of here.”
I hate that argument that people who leave cites are moving to “culture-barren suburbs.” Who has a right to decide where a person lives? The person or an elite? If someone wants to give up museums and theater for the safety and quiet of suburbs, THAT’S THEIR RIGHT!
Our nation’s cites suck. They suck hard. John, seriously, would YOU want to live in Cincinnati?! Of course you’d give up all the “culture” Cincinnati has to offer to live where you want to live. It only makes sense.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for some to accept this, but there are people in the US who want to own their own land. They want to own their own house. And they do NOT want to live in cities. They don’t want to hear their upstairs neighbors arguing. They don’t want to spend hours finding a place to park. They don’t want to feel unsafe just to take a walk.
They love not having to lock their houses. They love knowing that if they leave their lawnmower out for the weekend, no one is going to steal it. And best of all they love the quiet.
Are suburbs perfect? Of course not. No place is. But what the elite has to realize is that given the choice, there are MILLIONS of people who think that suburbs are better.
I agree with Ima.
For years I lived in Bremerton, WA – and could enjoy all the “culture” of Seattle via a ferry-ride, without having to live in their congestion.
I now live in Troutdale, OR – and can enjoy all the “culture” of Portland, without having to live in their congestion.
Of course, the mayor of Troutdale dislikes the fact that it is a “bedroom community”, and would like to get more jobs locally – but I’m not sure I want any more “density” than we have now.
For Pat:
“And for all these amenities the ‘burbites do not want to have to pay for any infrastructure. ”
We ‘burbites are paying to use all of the facilities and services you mention. What “infrastucture” should we also be paying for?
“For a high priced lawyer, or architect, or other professional they head to the city. To see the opera, or a music concert, or any major league sports game, it is to the city. The museums, horticultural parks, and other art facilities are there too”
This goes hand-in-hand with the “economies of scale” you mentioned. No small town can support those activities, but the ‘burbites do help subsidize the big city’s amenities. We are not getting a free ride.
Imafish is right on.
City decay is a sad situation that needs a solution. But too many folks, environmentalists mostly, focus their efforts upon denying people choice. “Open Space”, “Smart Growth” — or whatever label they place on restricting building outside the cities — is designed to increase the cost of buying those acre lots or make building access roads almost impossible.
Solutions that go against the grain of people’s desires just simply don’t work. Until they address the reasons people flee cities, city decay will continue.
Mike Voice, I like your argument. You said it well but I disagree.
Well, let’s see what amenities ‘burbites use that they do not pay for OR pay a small fraction of the cost for the use.
Roads. Yup. The burbites pay the same amount of tax money to build the roads. It matters little if the road is an Interstate, trunk or arterial, or side street. The State level and Federal level pay the majority of the cost. The majority of the population lives in cities. The majority of people in the cities have very little daily use of ANY of these roads leading into the cities. Because of the very small density found in the ‘burbs, these roads are essential to serve a small population.
If you disagree, then please show me ONE “ring road” around a city used primarily by urbanites. Show me one “100, 200, 300, 400, …series Interstate where the vast majority of users live in cities and are trying to leave.
Culture. Yup. I would not want to suggest that the ‘burbs are totally devoid of culture. Most stores I’ve seen do sell yogurt! Outside of yogurt though, burbites must travel into the cities for culture. Even the large sport stadiums that are located outside of downtown areas, will be in a major suburb that could be classified as a city in its own right. You will see indoor arenas almost exclusively located in downtown areas.
The ‘burbs have few night clubs. Usually they do have a lot of Country and Western bars. And because the patrons must drive to get there, a lot more DUIs arise then when mass transit and cabs are available.
I agree that fine dining is growing in the burbs and is no longer solely a city thing. MacDonalds, Wendy’s, Burger King, Chili’s and Joe’s Crab Shack are all fine places. Clean washrooms too. Did I mention Ponderosa’s buffet?
Shopping is more equal though; I do like how Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and One Stop Convenience have added to the ‘burbite scene. (And the One Stop Convenience also sells yogurt and gasoline.)
Mass Transit. Everyday people drive into the city. By the millions they come, driving SUVs and pick-ups. Burning barrels of gas doing so. Polluting the air with burnt hydro carbons and carbon dioxide. Meantime, in the cities, the buses, street cars, and subways carry loads of people using a fraction of the fuel. The State usually kick in some of the cost of mass transit, but it no where near come close to the advantage ‘burbites get with their roads.
Land Use. Cities will tend to build higher and higher. ‘Burbites tend to all want to own a couple of acres with one house. Once that land is paved over, it becomes useless to return it to agriculture. Every day, valuable agricultural land is buried under suburbia. At some point that land will be needed to feed the hungry masses. If suburbia tended to be built on poorer soil then this would become less of a problem.
Now, how on earth can anyone truly say that ‘burbites pay a fair share for infrastructure and amenities of the cities?
An honest disclosure. We own our house (in harmony with the bank) in the country. Our place is just under two acres. My wife and I both have a car. I drive 45 miles to work and my wife drives 3. (The other way then I drive) And we love our little piece of dirt. And I do buy milk and gas at One Stop Convenience. And my wife likes C & W music.
My argument comes about because the gentleman quoted in the story did not want to contribute to the building a stadium. The stadium is used by all, urban and suburban. Those high taxes support police, fire, and medical protection. Something we do not get out here. Taxes pay for water and sewage treatment, again something I both pay for and take a chance on.
Also, I do not want to downgrade the proposition that some cities are in decline. Many cities are doing just fine while others are failing to adapt to suburbia and / or other pressures.
Smith has it right, but the environmentalist damage goes further than that. There are open space laws, development restrictions, building height restrictions and minimum lot size restrictions, all making house and rent costs go up. This leads to people having to live farther and farther away leading to more traffic. The hardest hit are low income workers who have to travel very far becuase of these high rents. Many fo the most ‘green’ cities have seen their black populations decline substantially.