Skip to comments.Burn Down the Suburbs?
Posted on 08/05/2012 7:18:07 AM PDT by KeyLargo
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com
Burn Down the Suburbs? By Stanley Kurtz August 1, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Editors Note: This article is adapted from Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, by Stanley Kurtz, from Sentinel HC.
President Obama is not a fan of Americas suburbs. Indeed, he intends to abolish them. With suburban voters set to be the swing constituency of the 2012 election, the administrations plans for this segment of the electorate deserve scrutiny. Obama is a longtime supporter of regionalism, the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools, housing, transportation, and above all taxation. To this end, the president has already put programs in place designed to push the country toward a sweeping social transformation in a possible second term. The goal: income equalization via a massive redistribution of suburban tax money to the cities.
Obamas plans to undercut the political and economic independence of Americas suburbs reach back decades. The community organizers who trained him in the mid-1980s blamed the plight of cities on taxpayer flight to suburbia. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Obamas mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation (a community-organizing network Obama helped found) formally dedicated their efforts to the budding fight against suburban sprawl. From his positions on the boards of a couple of left-leaning Chicago foundations, Obama channeled substantial financial support to these efforts. On entering politics, he served as a dedicated ally of his mentors anti-suburban activism.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Blaming Obama won’t fix a damned thing. Plenty of progressive republicans are pushing for the same crap.
We WILL LOSE if we continue to fight only when its convenient to do so.
Obama will target Suburban incomes for redistribution- next 2013 & beyond....
Obama blames white flight to the suburbs for the failing cities in America, he will target the tax base, incomes and fight to blend them (socialize them) for the sake of improving the inner cities. He has thrown enough government money at the problem now he is going to “equalize, standardize and blend city, county governments, and more importantly budgets from with the outlying areas. They will do it from an environmental mantra at first and then tighten the noose of collectivism, socialism....
Archives (Aug 2, 2012)
Obama’s Plan to Eliminate Suburbs
August 02, 2012
Listen to it Button
RUSH: Stanley Kurtz has an article adapted from Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities. And he’s very blunt about this. I have the book as a powerful, influential member of the media. My book is right over there, Spreading the Wealth. I have a copy. “President Obama is not a fan of Americas suburbs. Indeed, he intends to abolish them.” Now, Kurtz believes that this is an excellent way to campaign against Obama, that you don’t need to be Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. You just need to tell people that live in the suburbs that no matter what they are, Obama’s coming for ‘em, that he has been raised to believe that it was flight from the cities that led to all of the horrible economic conditions, the rotten schools and all of this that plague America’s cities....
Just more redistribution, folks!
The failed liberal cities have every authority to siphon from the successful, more conservative suburbs.
But if you mention the failure of inner city governments to create a safe, low-crime atmosphere that is receptive to business and maintains its infrastructure, then you are a racist.
So, what Obama is ADMITTING here is that only with whites living there, makes cities safe and successful, and that the all black cities have failed because blacks failed because they had no whites??? Just asking.
Just keep pretending that we’re all the same.
This is what Oboma is doing. While he crows about his desire to save the middle class, his real agenda is to destroy it. That's why Oboma slipped and said the private sector is doing just fine - it's the government that's suffering the most.
People think Oboma is stupid, or he inherited this mess, or "he's trying" , but this is exactly what he's deliberately trying to do. Destroy middle class America. The middle class is the enemy.
(For more info on the radical lefts agenda and tactics, google Saul Alinski. You'll recognize what the left has done and is doing. Every one here should familiarize themselves with these left wing tactics.)
What we need in Chicago is another of Mrs. O’Leary’s cows.
What we need in Chicago is another of Mrs. O’Leary’s cows.
Which Republicans for instance?
“move the poor out of cities by imposing low-income-housing quotas on development in middle-class suburbs”
That works well...saddle poor people with the responsibility of home maintenance..../sarc
...makes for great neighborhoods, over a five year period...
I suggest you hike up those big girl panties and start doing a little research on your own. The fact you haven’t already tells me how likely it is that you will. That would take courage.
You go right on ahead and take the easy way out there little lady.
My republican governor just announced another $38 million plus matching funds for greenways and preserves. Well actually about $5 for the land and the other $70 million or so is going to the cities for livable communities crap.
I’m gratified to see more and more references here to Alinski. It’s important that we are familiar with the doctrine and even moreso the tactics that he put forth that guide socialists like Obama.
Population density is very strongly correlated with the level of leftism. The connection is people living in closer quarters experience more envy, which leads to more hate, violence, destruction, murder, war, and voting Democrat. The nature of envy is not to have what someone else has, but to destroy what they have. As America becomes more densely populated, it becomes more socialist. There is some level of population density that results in maximum happiness, and living in a human ant hill is not it. If the government wanted us to find happiness they would adopt policies that depopulate cities and spread everyone out. Spread the people, not the wealth.
Kurtz has done some terrific stuff on Obama. He was the one who had the run in about his exposure of Ayres and Obama and the fund they jointly administered in Chicago on Milt Rosenberg’s WGN talk show prior to the election. Where they tried to shut it down.
When the herd is put into a corral, they are easier to control, and they can take all of the guns at one time. And, there will be no need for cars, just Volt golf carts.
He can spend less money on roads and bridges, and all shopping will be done at centralized, government-sponsored markets.
We’ve watched him “evolve” in 3 1/2 years, fom progressive, to socialist, to Marxist, and now he’s pushing for full blown communism.
He’s got to go.
What the heck are the taxpayers fleeing when they leave the cities? Perhaps that is the question that should be addressed.
Most Americans are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program known as Agenda 21. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 as a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with anti-American, anti-capitalist overtones.
Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice
Excellent article. Thanks for posting the print and 56K dialup friendly version.
The ominous steps outlined in this article, by itself, are way more than enough reason to toss nobama out on his ass come Nov.
When that happens the lame duck session will be hell on wheels.
Add dyslexic to his plethora of personality disorders.
And he publicly said his plans are working. Unemployment is skyrocketing, yet he claims things are going well and in the right direction.
Everything IS going well, and things ARE going in the right direction..... if your goal is socioeconomic destruction.
I agree that Obama is not a fan of Americas suburbs (populated with all those bothersome "clingers") and he would love (not "like") to abolish them. But as is the case with almost everything this doofus has tried to accomplish, the opposite is more likely to happen. Commuter suburbs with commuter rail links have been around for over 100 years in the northeast. Suburbia predates the welfare state and the creation of an urban underclass by more than half a century, and only accelerated under Johnson's "Great Society". Notwithstanding "Hope n' Change", this trend will not change. If anything -- with the advent of the internet and telecommuting, there are even stronger forces pushing workers out to the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas than there were in the 1960s. It is much less costly to reside in the suburbs and telecommute than it is to live or work in a city.
“greenways and preserves” are NOT the same as the Suburban deterrents described in this article.
I live in a Denver suburb, complete with “greenways and preserves”, which happen to be a great way to provide open trails and enhanced mountain views.
There’s a difference between managing housing density and prohibiting growth.
The simple fact is that you’ve made an unsubstantiated claim, unsupportable by the facts, so you hide your fraud behind insults.
Like dogs in cages, they're easier to control.
The dogs are lured into the cages with small pieces of free, red meat. Once trapped, freedom is gone, and all they offer to the dogs after that is a monthly brick of stale government cheese to gnaw on.
From that point on, the dependant dog learns to defend it's owner.
The sad part of this plan is that it’s doomed to failure and worse. Everyone would lose, especially those the far left claims they want to help. Imagine that the suburbs are integrated into the governmental structure of the cities they surround. We would have a repeat of the School Busing conflict of the 1970s. Back then, given a choice of having middle class kids who were assigned to failed urban schools spend three hours a day on a bus to attend a dangerous school, or taking a loss on the house and moving to the suburbs, millions of Americans moved. Involved parents left, even if they were not racist. That was just one of many problems in the cities, but together with other issues, white flight killed many previously successful parts of our urban schools.
If the far left grabs the suburbs, we’ll have a rerun of that catastrophe. Parents, faced with the corrupt and inept governments and school systems of Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, and similar cities taking over their pristine suburban schools, will flee. They may go just outside reach of the first urban land grab, provoking a second urban land grab, or they might immediately cross state lines to the adjacent states of WV, CT, NH, VT, and ME, or they might cross the country to the comparative safety of Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, and Texas. Either way, instead of failed cities with failed schools but still a tax base generated by business and jobs, the cities will be surrounded by a radius of desolation to which no educated parent would expose a child, unless protected by private school. While the top executives, lawyers, physicians, and accountants might be able to afford elite schools like Sidwell Friends (where the Obama kids go), not enough will have salaries in that range to maintain a full business base near the cities. The urban employer will die, dragged down by this power grab from bloated and corrupt city governments. What reason beyond pure evil (glorying in the destruction) or pure stupidity (obliviousness to unintended but inevitable consequences) could the far left have for such a plan?
And you aren’t man enough to face reality.
and your attempt at on on-line peeing contest is a testament to your masculinity.......
The progressive agenda overrides party lines.
I'm dealing with that outside of Ann Arbor within outer Washtenaw County. While it's personally good for me, it's bad policy. If this goes to its full intentions, I'd have to either live in an Ypsi ghetto, pay big bucks for Ann Arbor, get lucky with a spot in a small town, or go past the county line and pay for it in transportation costs as well as increased housing costs from supply.
Here in NYC, it's true that most upper-middle class families live in the suburbs beyond the reach of tax collectors. They don't pay the NYC income tax, so a commuter tax is always being proposed. The only people paying those taxes are the lower-middle class and elite. Both groups are taxed to death and have been leaving this entire metro area in droves.
But it's not just the taxes. I'm a single guy that can afford to live in the city but I would probably never live here with kids or a wife that wants to walk alone at night. Most of my friends already moved away for this reason. I live on the DMZ and will never give up this property to the wild animals as long as I'm single. I can take care of myself and would give my life to defend civilization but don't want to ever put my loved ones into a potential war zone.
I grew up on streets like this. It builds character but many of my childhood friends were ruined. Not to mention how much homo pedophiles have been enabled over the last 2-3 decades.
Unfortunately, some only want to fight the convenient battles while our enemies fight every battle. There’s just no possibility of us winning like this.
Too many of them don't even see the whole picture; the convenient battles aren't event the tip of the iceburg.
And watching people stick their heads in the sand like a bunch of ostriches.... I can't even look at them anymore.
"May the chains rest lightly upon them...."
I live in Union County, NC, just over the line from Mecklenburg County, which contains Charlotte. The Charlotte metro area is like many others in the Sunbelt -- a blue city surrounded by red suburbs. Until a year ago (with the GOP takeover of the NC Senate and House), North Carolina had one of the nation's most liberal annexation laws. If Charlotte wanted to annex land near its city limits, if said land met a (rather modest) population density threshold, and if the city promised to begin providing municipal services to the area within two years(!) of annexation, they were free to annex without the consent of the residents affected, and begin charging Charlotte property taxes. Charlotte could annex across county lines, but not across the SC state line; they could not, however, annex other incorporated communities -- which explains the rush to incorporate areas of previously unincorporated areas of Union County -- we now have something like 16 incorporated towns, mostly in the western and northern parts of the county, closest to Mecklenburg.
So, a wall of incorporated towns has been set up at the county line. Charlotte is running out of room to annex prosperous areas to its southeast, and it needs more revenue to support such idiocy as its light rail system, a separate trolly line, its NASCAR museum, its Black Arts and Cultural Center, its Convention Center, its basketball arena (where a certain convention will open soon, so I'm told), in addition to more mundane things such as schools, streets, firefighters, and police force. What to do?
Two words: regional government. This idea has been discussed among Charlotte's politicians and business leaders for decades, but the end of easy annexation has instilled a sense of urgency in City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce, and at the City Club bar.
Charlotte's leaders do not, of course, insult those from whom they hope to gain revenue. They don't call people who live in surrounding counties selfish for being desirous of lower taxes, lower crime rates, and better schools while still enjoying the assets of the nearby city -- even if that's what they're thinking. No, instead they offer the prospect of "regional cooperation," which sounds a bit less threatening than "regional government."
Let's all play nice, and get on the same sheet of music. Let's make sure the zoning laws in various counties, and the road plans, and the water and sewer line extensions are coordinated. And, maybe just a small region-wide property tax. Or maybe a little payroll tax for those who live outside Mecklenburg, but use Mecklenburg's streets to commute to work. You know, just a little token of cooperation.
In return, you'll get some express bus service to downtown Charlotte. Or maybe we could even extend our way cool commuter rail lines into your neck of the woods -- wouldn't that be nice? Of course, now that there's public transportation, we can locate some Section 8 public housing out in the burbs. It's only fair, don't you think? Oh, and let's talk about merging the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System with those of surrounding counties one day. No, not now, but let's keep it in mind. It would be better for everyone, right?
I have long been confident that the Trojan Horse scenario I describe would be seen for what it is if conducted, even with the greatest subtlety, at the local level. "We're from Charlotte, and we're here to help you" would do nothing other than cause laughter.
But federal policies permitting, encouraging, or mandating "regional government" are a whole 'nother animal. If you live in the suburbs or exurbs by choice, if you made the conscious decision to escape higher taxes, higher crime, and declining schools, be afraid. Be very afraid. Under Kurtz's scenario, the fact that a suburb is incorporated, and/or in a different county than the center city, would avail little. Perhaps we need to begin thinking not only of the rights of self-governance for the states, but also for counties and suburban towns as well.
Big cities, most of all, have more “income inequality”, demonstrating a higher level of economic dysfunction demanding public subsidies to make them workable.
Yet Liberals, who claim to hate “income inequality” are normally large majorities in big cities.
This article is silly.
It was the cities that annexed land in order to bring in more taxpayers. The existing taxpayers were advance-taxed to build new roads,schools, infrastructure in the newly annexed areas ... the developers often got sweetheart deals to build out these areas ... infrastructure paid for and taxes reduced or deferred etc. Then the same thing would happen again and again as cities grew and incorporated more area around them and increase their tax base through property taxes
The writer has it backwards.
How about the government get the hell out of the way and let people live where they want?
Some people like living in greater density, some do not, some in the middle.
I don’t want the goverment to “depopulate” anything. I want the government to leave people alone.
Obama's Presidential legacy will be that he enslaved the white devil.
Cities create broken, stressed dependent citizens. Citizens who become criminal, drug addicted, and frightened of losing their 'benefits' - the kind democrats control. The kind who vote for democrats... Great post, Key.
I do too but one of their jobs is commissioning more roads and bridges be built and maintained so the population can maintain a healthy living density. This is the expanding root system that helps the economy grow. City people tend to be physically stunted from living in a root bound environment. I went to a job interview on Wall Street and I towered over everybody, all the way up to the company president. People that live their whole lives in a city are visibly stunted as well as unhappy and neurotic. Humans don't do well living like insects.
Big cities: run away. I did and I’ve never been happier.
True, there’s no light/high speed rail in my backyard and I don’t have immediate access to the ballet, the opera the theater and national sports teams.
When the rubber meets the road, none of that will mean a thing anyway.
The article -- really a synopsis by the author of his book -- isn't silly in the least.
The era of easy annexation is, for the most part, over. Though laws vary by state, it is generally impossible for a city to involuntarily annex another incorporated community. Suburbanites have lately been wise enough to read the handwriting on the walls, and have incorporated areas which would have been in the path of annexation a few decades ago. Many cities are now "landlocked," with no way to expand their borders. As the whole metro area grows, more and more of the high income areas, in addition to retail malls and office parks -- all high tax revenue sources -- are being built outside the city limits. And the city gets poorer, and tax revenues decline, as the middle and upper classes flee to the suburbs.
A primary thesis of Kurtz's book is that the Obama Administration will seek to destroy the "protection" provided by the incorporation of suburban towns. They may, for instance, seek to permit or encourage "tax overlay" districts, based on a referendum of the entire metro area. So, if such a tax referendum passed by a large enough margin in the center city to offset its defeat in the suburbs (a likely outcome, as it would amount to a wealth transfer from the burbs to the city), the tax, and whatever urban-oriented projects it funded (streetcars, for example) would be implemented. Similarly, the Administration may seek to combine urban and suburban school districts, by bringing legal action (hello, Holder) to make a metro-wide vote on the question binding. Again, a likely outcome: the combined system would get overwhelming support within the center city (why wouldn't it?), likely enough to overwhelm the "no" vote of the suburbs.
Local government sovereignty is very much in danger. Anyone who can't see that is being, well, silly.
Here is a review of the book, Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, by Ron Radosh of PJMedia.
This is racially targeted harm. Obama, Holder and “his people” (Black liberals) are active racists. At the center of Marxist ideology is hatred of whites in the middle class.
What has gone of for over 40 years is cities expanding by incorporating unincoroporated areas. They did this to increase their tax base.
Existing city residents paid for the exapnsion infrastructure (and often enticement so developers) for these new areas. Once people moved into the new areas, these new taxpayers were tapped to pay for the next new expansion and its infrastructure costs ... and so on and so on.
This is how suburbs were created and why we have multiple rings of suburbs around central cities.
Here’s another. Democrats taking the blame from FReepers but no body bothered to read the story. The republicans are the ones who want to drain the Hetch Hetchy reservoir.