U.S. Politics 20

[alguien]

I'm talking about what people in the Detroit suburbs want, and I'm no friend of theirs. None of this would have happened if they hadn't abandoned the city that was their life blood a few decades ago for less than savory reasons. But now it's there - blocks and blocks and blocks of unoccupied boarded up buildings. There is a reason they shoot apocalyptic films in Detroit.

To be fair, after awhile it just wasn't safe there anymore. My parents finally decided to move when drug dealers literally moved into the house next store. Though they both were committed to "saving" the city, that was just the last straw. Being 8 years old, I really didn't understand why and was pretty mad at having to leave my friends. Of course, within the following two or three years nearly all of my friends had moved as well.

Nowadays, I can't fault them this decision. Its honorable to stay and fight for a city you love, but when you have kids to think about, there's a whole new set of priorities.

[Reek]

I'm like Sword -- I'm not against mass transit as long as it raises enough in fares to pay for it's operation and maintenance. If it's popular enough to do that, fine.

How long do you think the interstates and highway systems in this country would last if they weren't being funded by tax dollars?

[S John]

And ignoring the presence of the federal government in DC, was DC ever really even in remotely the shape that Detroit is in?

My impression also is that they are vastly different geographically (in terms of population density and number of people with access to the city) as well, but I'd have to do some digging on that one....

Again not being familiar with Detroit I can't say how it compares necessarily. But DC's urban population - those living in the district - was at its highest in the 1950's at around 800,000 residents. Then came the civil rights struggles, the violent crime wave of the 80's and 90's when DC was often the 'murder capital'. That is actually the primary reason why the Washington Bullets are now the Washington Wizards, because the former hit a little too close to home with how violent the city was in the 90's. Anyway, all this leads to people, especially white people, steadily moving to the suburbs. DC steadily lost population from the 60's all the way until this past decade when it saw its first population growth in over 40 years. At its low in the 90's, DC was around 550,000 residents, which is a measly 68% of the number of people that housing and infrastructure was built for. Even now its only up to about 75% of its former size. So there were tons of abandoned buildings. Many neighborhoods were full of them. I remember going on field trips to DC as a kid and being shocked at all the boarded up houses. Now, I think the situation in Detroit is a bit worse than that, say a city of under 1 million that was built for 2 million.. but its not that dis-similar in terms of having major blighted sections.

But, DC is not really like that anymore. Certainly the Federal Government bringing in jobs helps, but the close proximity of both Virginia and Maryland makes it pretty much unnecessary for those workers to live in DC itself if you can afford to do otherwise. There are only a few factors to explain why, after 40 years, all of those suburban Federal workers started returning to DC from the relative safety of northern Virginia and southern Maryland. One of those is certainly the dying out of the crack epidemic and subsequent reduction in violent crime, but the other is the construction and expansion of the DC metro, which allows people from all over the metro area to access parts of the city that would have previously been buried within miles and miles of rough neighborhood. From there little bubbles of bars and restaurants sprung up, people came in and bought up these beautiful but abandoned row houses on the cheap and fixed them up. Property values then go up and expand from where the metro stop is. Eventually that bubble starts to run into nearby bubbles and you end up revitalizing entire swaths of the city. It has definitely worked here, and I don't see why it wouldn't work anywhere where there are millions of suburban dwellers who would jump at the chance to live in the city if you'd just make it convenient to do so.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I said "Regulate", not "ban" or "completely stop."

But, I suppose it's possible that they ALL flee as soon as the tiniest bit of regulation hits.

My mistake. I thought you were discussing regulations that would have a significant effect on outsourcing. But if you're only talk about the tiniest bit of regulation, that will just have an insignificant effect on outsourcing, then I doubt it would have a significant risk of causing a capital flight.

[Commodore]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116381289.html

Madison — Law enforcement officers are searching for Democratic senators boycotting a Senate vote on Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair plan Thursday in an attempt to bring the lawmakers to the floor to allow Republicans to act on the bill.

One Democratic senator said that he believed most of the members of his caucus have gone to another state to prevent enough lawmakers from being present in the Senate to take a final vote on the controversial measure.

Unbelievable, they are stifling democracy, leaving the state so they don't have to do their job while getting paid a salary by taxpayers, and causing the diversion of law enforcement to find them.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It has definitely worked here, and I don't see why it wouldn't work anywhere where there are millions of suburban dwellers who would jump at the chance to live in the city if you'd just make it convenient to do so.

Key difference here. All the jobs in DC are all in one spot, right in the middle of town. This is why light rail in Phoenix is such an exercise in waste. Our downtown simply isn't like that. There are probably just as many jobs in the suburbs as downtown. Whether this applies to Detroit, I couldn't tell you, but my understanding is that the jobs that used to be in downtown Detroit don't exist anymore.

[Commodore]

does anyone think economic growth is being impeded by a lack of mobility from city to city?

[Guest Raids]

the assertion though is that that rail is not so much a urban planning initiative as a political one.

Is it? That is news to me. What would be the political motivation? What does any party stand to gain from it? I had no idea that there could be any other perspective on running rail down Woodward Ave besides an urban planning one.

And ignoring the presence of the federal government in DC, was DC ever really even in remotely the shape that Detroit is in?

Yeah - Detroit and DC historically vied for murder capitol of the United States. The major difference is that the federal government is the auto industry of DC and for awhile there, pre-Republican Congress, business was booming. Whereas the auto industry....So there is perhaps an easier road to recovery for D.C., assuming you believe in economic recovery caused by government expenditures????

I mean....okay....

But yeah, the situation was definitely as bad. Detroit is just still bottoming out and D.C. hit rock bottom awhile ago. Our mayor was busted smoking crack. You remember that, right?

My impression also is that they are vastly different geographically (in terms of population density and number of people with access to the city) as well, but I'd have to do some digging on that one....

No, not in terms of population density, if you are talking about the metro areas. As far access to the city....are you fucking kidding? That's what we're talking about improving of course it's not the same. Come on.

To be fair, after awhile it just wasn't safe there anymore. My parents finally decided to move when drug dealers literally moved into the house next store. Though they both were committed to "saving" the city, that was just the last straw. Being 8 years old, I really didn't understand why and was pretty mad at having to leave my friends. Of course, within the following two or three years nearly all of my friends had moved as well.

What year are you talking about here? It was the mass exodus of people that left in the 1960s and early 70s that are problematic for me, not to mention the people that left after the courts held that it was unconstitional to build a race restriction into your deed as a part of sale or as part of the neighborhood assocation rules.

[Swordfish]

Yeah - Detroit and DC historically vied for murder capitol of the United States. The major difference is that the federal government is the auto industry of DC and for awhile there, pre-Republican Congress, business was booming. Whereas the auto industry....So there is perhaps an easier road to recovery for D.C., assuming you believe in economic recovery caused by government expenditures????

Huh???

I have no idea what this even means, or why it's relevant.

Is it? That is news to me. What would be the political motivation? What does any party stand to gain from it? I had no idea that there could be any other perspective on running rail down Woodward Ave besides an urban planning one.

Yeah - Detroit and DC historically vied for murder capitol of the United States. The major difference is that the federal government is the auto industry of DC and for awhile there, pre-Republican Congress, business was booming. Whereas the auto industry....So there is perhaps an easier road to recovery for D.C., assuming you believe in economic recovery caused by government expenditures????

I mean....okay....

But yeah, the situation was definitely as bad. Detroit is just still bottoming out and D.C. hit rock bottom awhile ago. Our mayor was busted smoking crack. You remember that, right?

No, not in terms of population density, if you are talking about the metro areas. As far access to the city....are you fucking kidding? That's what we're talking about improving of course it's not the same. Come on.

No. that isn't what I'm talking about. i worded that poorly.

I'm talking about the size of the pools of people available to take advantage of the mass transit options into the city.

DC has close proximity to Maryland and Virginia, and their populations, for example.

I don't know how the suburbs of Detroit compare to those in terms of sheer numbers of people, and also their demographics.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But yeah, the situation was definitely as bad. Detroit is just still bottoming out and D.C. hit rock bottom awhile ago. Our mayor was busted smoking crack. You remember that, right?

"Bitch set me up!"

Raids, my problem with your argument on Detroit light rail is that the casinos seem pretty busy, the concerts still attract people, etc., without that rail being there. Hell, my stepson goes up there all the time for concerts, sporting events, and casinos. I've got relatives who do the same from Ann Arbor. Your argument seems to be that there are large numbers of people who are not patronizing downtown solely because they're too afraid to drive down there, and I'm not aware of anything supporting that other than some anecdotal stuff, and I'm sitting with anecdotal stuff going the other way.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think it is to at least a small extent. But for more reasons than a lack of rail. Things like being stuck in a very illiquid asset (your house) or not wanting to risk losing your health insurance by changing jobs.

For this to be true there would have to be a surplus of jobs in an area going unfilled due to mobility issues in other areas. I don't believe that's actually true for anywhere in the country.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You may be right. I'm not really sure. Perhaps it's more true in a better economic environment? I'm sure some think tank has looked at the issue. If not, perhaps we should start our own think tank. We could do studies on which Oregon microbrews bring the most happiness to the NW, for example. Society needs contributions like this.

I'm planning to summer in Portland. I will diligently research this important issue, for my fellow man and for science.

[Swordfish]

You may be right. I'm not really sure. Perhaps it's more true in a better economic environment? I'm sure some think tank has looked at the issue. If not, perhaps we should start our own think tank. We could do studies on which Oregon microbrews bring the most happiness to the NW, for example. Society needs contributions like this.

I would like to sit on the panel for that one.

[alguien]

What year are you talking about here? It was the mass exodus of people that left in the 1960s and early 70s that are problematic for me, not to mention the people that left after the courts held that it was unconstitional to build a race restriction into your deed as a part of sale or as part of the neighborhood assocation rules.

Ah. Well, we moved out back around 1990, so I guess that's a bit different. I just remember once hearing my mom say to a friend that she still felt guilty about leaving, like she'd given up or something. But yeah, I think anyone who left because neighborhood race restrictions was ruled unconstitutional is disgusting. Interestingly enough, while growing up in D-town we were one of the only white families in a predominately African-American Catholic church.

[The Progressive]

You obviously don't know jack shit about the current outsourcing that's going on if you think it is primarily related to sweatshops.

The point is, it is in part the COST of these regulations that are driving a lot of this outsourcing.

Err, no. Call centers didn't get outsourced to India because of FCC regulations, but rather because of advances in telecommunication technologies.

The point is that you obviously don't know jackshit about this issue, as usual.

[The Progressive]

does anyone think economic growth is being impeded by a lack of mobility from city to city?

Not that much of an impact.

Listen, the largest impediment to economic growth is actually the lack of mobility from employer to employer due to our screwed up employer-based healthcare system.

[The Progressive]

Funny that given that if you look at OECD countries, those countries with the most regulated labour market, are also those with the highest employment rate.

Very interesting. Kinda debunks that whole "the more regulated the labor market gets, the more labor gets offshored" argument then.

[Swordfish]

We would need a name that gave our project the gravitas that it deserved. The Willamette Foundation?

That would work.

Other options:

'The 24 hour Church Of Elvis Consortium'

'Sir Hosis Memorial Panel on Quality of life'

[Swordfish]

I like the second one better. The first one sounds too cult-like. We must be a think tank that demands to be taken seriously as would be merited by the immensely important nature of our work.

Works for me.

I was trying to think of a way to work 'heritage foundation' in there, but 'panel' seemed better.....

[Shryke]

Not that much of an impact.

Listen, the largest impediment to economic growth is actually the lack of mobility from employer to employer due to our screwed up employer-based healthcare system.

Actually living near work, getting to work, and all the various issues associated with that (housing prices, traffic, etc, etc) are a huge dead weight on the economy.

So yeah actually, it does effect economic growth.

For this to be true there would have to be a surplus of jobs in an area going unfilled due to mobility issues in other areas. I don't believe that's actually true for anywhere in the country.

Actually all it would require is for some of your money to be tied up do to mobility issues. And that's pretty trivial to show.