Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Urban Sprawl Is Literally Stranding the Poor (Paul Krugman)
Newser ^ | 07/28/2013 | Kevin Spak

Posted on 07/29/2013 11:51:33 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last
To: MrB
If they push “the poor” out to the suburbs, those who don’t want to live next to them will move elsewhere, and if that’s back in the city, they’ll do it.

Interesting. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the poor fled to the suburbs across the bay, bringing poverty and crime with them. Meanwhile, middle-class and upper-class folks either fled further out east to the Sierra foothills, further north or south. Or, they moved back to SF. At one time, SF had high-rise projects for the poor. They've been demolished, the ghettos are disappearing. And new high-rise towers for the rich were built. Probably happening to other cities as well. Towers for the rich, that the poor can't afford.

101 posted on 07/29/2013 2:17:38 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
If cities are more economically efficient why does it cost so much more to live there?

That's easy. It costs more because people make the economic judgement that it's worth paying extra for what the city provides, like proximity to jobs and services.

If the subways charged what they really cost they would be far more expensive than automobiles.

And what would happen if all the people riding the New York City subway or the Chicago El started driving individual cars? What would hundreds of thousands of additional cars on the streets at rush hour, needing parking, cost the economy?

The city work hub is being replaced by the internet hub that enables workers to be widely dispersed.

Yeah, when that internet janitor app is perfected, it's gonna be great! But seriously, never gonna happen.Employers who have tried it are rolling it back.

NYC's population would be declining if not for the imports from third world countries.

I'll be someone could have said that every year since 1800 and thought it especially true.

The people that can afford to move out are voting with their feet.

Aren't you the one who said it costs more to live there? But the answer is that they're paying extra for certain benefits like space, better schools, and so on.

102 posted on 07/29/2013 2:30:42 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Atlanta is the Sultan of Sprawl

One of the most confusing aspects of the sprawl is that almost every street in the city has the words Peach Tree in them.
As I drove throughout the city I noticed that I was always on Peachtree, no matter where in the city I was driving or what direction I was headed.


103 posted on 07/29/2013 2:47:51 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

So Krugman, why don’t you move there and transport them to A JOB...any job. Problem solved, next.


104 posted on 07/29/2013 2:52:02 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Awwwwww. Poor people in poor neighborhoods don’t live next door to successful companies that are hiring? Poor thangs.


105 posted on 07/29/2013 2:53:51 PM PDT by stuck_in_new_orleans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

I hope the country goes bankrupt before elite liberals can do to us what they did to blacks... That whole thing about making people dependent and useless is not a favor... it’s a horror.


106 posted on 07/29/2013 3:25:49 PM PDT by GOPJ (Sob stories should not be the basis for law...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Krugman (who I know personally and despise) wants to force working people near cities to live inside the city. As usual, he is clueless and has not considered the possibility that this will drive people from the suburbs to areas so remote that they are outside the sphere of economic influence for his beloved welfare class and criminal class. We already have most productive people outside the failed city school systems, outside the high-crime areas of inept urban police forces, and outside the excessively high city tax rates. Now he wants them so far away that they will not even shop or dine in the city (ending those urban service jobs), and possibly outside the state.

Paul never changes; he just gets more set in his fantasy world where theories survive regardless of how poorly they match reality. I think this is a shame. I wish liberals would back off of their predetermined answers and start looking at what helps and what hurts the poor. I care about the poor, the sick, and the hungry far too much to stick them with the perpetual poverty inflicted by the far left fringe.

107 posted on 07/29/2013 3:27:59 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

So what if it costs more infrastructure and other services, the city tax payers don’t have to pay for it? That is a nonsensical excuse for getting people out of the rural areas and cramming them back into the soulless cities, with crime rates through the roof.

When I was growing up in Philadelphia, gentrification of the area near the art museum was just beginning. One day, my girl friends and I had spent a day at the museum and were sitting on a bench along the park way across from the museum, waiting for my girl friend’s father to pick us up. I noticed a sign on this brand new high rise building that read, “for the discriminating buyer”. I was shocked because I had never heard that use of the word and the area was not yet gentrified. I laugh now, when I think of it. There is still a lot of tension over the gentrification of that part of Philadelphia.


108 posted on 07/29/2013 4:31:00 PM PDT by Eva (B Obama is to Trayvon Martin as Al Sharpton is to Tawana Brawley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888

Yes, I’ve seen it on the Home and Garden channel, million dollar row homes.


109 posted on 07/29/2013 4:32:09 PM PDT by Eva (B Obama is to Trayvon Martin as Al Sharpton is to Tawana Brawley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Yep, the suburbs are now considered the ghettos.

Personally, I don’t see the attraction for inner city life. I’m not interested in the night life, the restaurants or the shopping. We live on 15 acres with a 350 foot long gated drive way that does a 90 degree turn and have a lake in back of us. We don’t see another person, unless we want to. We like it that way.


110 posted on 07/29/2013 4:35:59 PM PDT by Eva (B Obama is to Trayvon Martin as Al Sharpton is to Tawana Brawley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Toronto is 240 square miles, but we figured out how to keep our population.


111 posted on 07/29/2013 5:06:13 PM PDT by Squawk 8888 (I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: roadcat

That is precisely what has been happening in Toronto for the past couple of decades. The amount of new housing going up in the downtown core is staggering, and people are willing to pay upwards of $250k for a one-bedroom condo.


112 posted on 07/29/2013 5:13:01 PM PDT by Squawk 8888 (I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Eva

I’ll be the first to admit that city life is not for everyone but I’m happy here. I’m self-employed and I like the fact that I live within walking distance of most of my clients. I’m fortunate that I live in a relatively low-crime area and that this city hasn’t hollowed out the way a lot of cities have.


113 posted on 07/29/2013 5:18:24 PM PDT by Squawk 8888 (I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

Every single thing this guy says is stupid.


Exactly what I was thinking.


114 posted on 07/29/2013 5:24:28 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Eva
That is a nonsensical excuse for getting people out of the rural areas and cramming them back into the soulless cities, with crime rates through the roof.

Nobody is forcing people back into cities, but I'll argue that a city, crime and all, has more soul than a cookie-cutter suburban subdivision with big box stores and an Olive Garden on the edge of the mall parking lot as the finest dining option around.

People are choosing to live in cities for reasons that make sense to them, not because they're being rounded up and run into the ghetto in cattle cars. I've lived in cities, I've lived in suburbs, I've lived in small towns and I've lived in the country. All have their good points and bad points, and we all make trade-offs when we choose where to live. How we weight those factors and how we make those decisions are individual choices.

115 posted on 07/29/2013 6:14:39 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South
Work or starve.

There you go!

It is blunt and it is brutal but it is the truth that will set these people free!

Real life is brutal and if you are not smart short.

For these gangbangers in the inner cities the laws of the jungle have reasserted themselves. The only hope of bringing civilization back to these people is reasserting the laws of economics on their lives.

If the women of these communities start to watch their children starve because the men that they irresponsibly mate with will not provide support then they will rediscover morality and begin to be more careful in choosing when and with whom to mate.

Women have always been the civilizing influence on men. Women by choosing a mate that will provide long term support for her children moderates men’s behavior.

Unfortunately children will suffer and this will bring out the worst in the bleeding heart Liberals. But these children are suffering now and they are dying now. The only alternative is more and more of the same.

116 posted on 07/30/2013 4:25:45 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

The kids will suffer for a long time. I think inner city women are as dumbed down as anyone else. They won’t be able to put 1 and 1 together.


117 posted on 07/30/2013 4:28:29 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The first reaction will be anger. They feel “entitled” to the government hand outs.

But I think after they get past the anger and reality settles in most people know that they have to work for a living.

I also think that most women will in short order realize that they need a true husband to make life with children work.

118 posted on 07/30/2013 4:40:40 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Aren't you the one who said it costs more to live there? But the answer is that they're paying extra for certain benefits like space, better schools, and so on.

Suburbanites aren't paying extra to live in the suburbs. They get so much more for their money they can afford to increase their standard of living. My half-acre 4 floor house in NJ is 7 miles geographically from Manhattan. A comparable house in Manhattan would go for $35 million, which is out of my price range at the moment. So doing an apples to apples comparison, it is profoundly more expensive to live in a city. The commute time from my NJ suburb into Manhattan is one hour door to door, shorter than many subway commutes from Brooklyn. Anyone that chooses to live in Brooklyn instead needs to have their head examined.

The demand for socialism, bigger government, more rules and restrictions, is driven by population density. Manhattan has 70,000 people per square mile and votes communist, while 60 miles northwest of Manhattan is Pike County PA which has 100 people per square mile. They vote for freedom, drive around with loaded weapons, barbecue their food, and blare their music as loud as they like.

Republicans represent the nicer suburbs and beyond, Democrats represent the city dwellers. Obviously Democrats want everyone to move into a city and learn to vote communist. Misery loves company. But Republicans should fight increasing population density. 70,000 people living per one square mile is not natural. Outside of modern times that has not occurred before in the history of mankind. The modern invention of the high-rise city served its purpose when there were factories that needed to be manned, but now with e-mail, the internet, video conferencing, there is no longer an economic advantage to building high density nuclear bomb targets.

While it doesn't apply to everyone, most people would do well to move out of the Devil's dens.

119 posted on 07/30/2013 8:38:09 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey

I remember visiting both Atlanta and Phoenix in the early 70s.
They were both really nice areas. Too nice in some respects because they became “Chicagos of the South”


120 posted on 07/30/2013 8:42:36 AM PDT by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

It is not the suburbs that the social engineers are trying to empty, it is the rural areas, like where I live.

Cities are cold and unsafe, even the cities that have been gentrified. I remember walking down the sidewalk in downtown Seattle, when my husband grabbed me by the arm and pulled me onto the curb because they were doing a needle exchange right on the sidewalk in the busy downtown shopping area. I have had homeless guys sit down with me at Starbucks and am constantly harangued by the homeless for money every time I go to Seattle. I’ve seen a purse snatcher run off with a woman’s purse. I’ve seen scam artists promising huge returns on investments if they will only lend them money for a short while and I often see the wide-eyed stare of the PETA freaks trying to solicit support from passers-by. Who needs it? I prefer my solitude.

In LA, I had to step over a dead man on the sidewalk, slumped against a doorstop, with flies going in and out of his mouth. People just walked around him. I went in search of police officer, and when I came back, I had a parking ticket and the guy was still there. That is soulless.


121 posted on 07/30/2013 8:54:30 AM PDT by Eva (B Obama is to Trayvon Martin as Al Sharpton is to Tawana Brawley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888

Cities are no place for raising a family.


122 posted on 07/30/2013 8:56:11 AM PDT by Eva (B Obama is to Trayvon Martin as Al Sharpton is to Tawana Brawley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Krugmans article is taken to an extreme in the plot of the movie (starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster) “Elysium”

Which just happens to be hitting theaters next week.

Coincidence? C’mon, show of hands ... who thinks Krugman’s article is just coincidentially timed to match the release of the movie?


123 posted on 07/30/2013 9:09:04 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
A comparable house in Manhattan would go for $35 million, which is out of my price range at the moment

What are the economic factors that enable a house in Manhattan to cost so much more than your house in the burbs? You argue that no rational person should choose to live in the city, but clearly rational people are demanding homes there, to the tune of creating that great a price differential. Why?

124 posted on 07/30/2013 10:19:18 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Obviously restricted supply and high demand drives the price up. The demand is driven in large part by emotion though, vanity in particular. People that live in Manhattan are quite proud of themselves, and let everyone know they can walk to the shows. An unfortunate side effect of vanity is envy, and it’s envy that drives leftism. At its most basic, leftism is size envy. Seeing so much surrounding wealth all day causes a desire to communalize others property. Out in the country, if a neighbor builds a large new horse barn, it’s mostly out of sight and out of mind. Maximum happiness occurs on average about half way between high and low population density, although the preference varies by age and sex.


125 posted on 07/30/2013 10:52:00 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

Keep Manhattan,
just give me that countryside.

126 posted on 07/30/2013 10:54:20 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
People that live in Manhattan are quite proud of themselves, and let everyone know they can walk to the shows. An unfortunate side effect of vanity is envy, and it’s envy that drives leftism.

The only people city dwellers are telling of their proximity to musical theatre are suburbanites like you who wish there was more to do out where they live.

You continue to discount any reason that someone might rationally choose to live in a city, or that someone can enjoy a quality of life and a lifestyle there without it being about showing off.

And are you seriously arguing that conspicuous consumption leads to unrest and revolution?

127 posted on 07/30/2013 12:28:57 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
In general conservatives tend to be anti-city for the same reason leftists are strongly for city life: high population density creates leftists out of any demographic. Of course there are many exceptions. Some conservatives love being packed in all tight like that.

Since Cain murdered Able, vanity leads to envy which leads to hate, theft, looting, riots, murder, war, and voting Democrat. For some reason city dwellers develop a self-esteem problem: way too much of it. Cities employ the vast majority of head shrinkers. In general the rise of leftism in any area coincides with the rise in population density.

128 posted on 07/31/2013 12:46:23 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Social mobility is low in both cities—meaning the poor are staying poor.

So the best idea is to legalize millions of uneducated unskilled foreign nations to move in to those cities too.

129 posted on 08/15/2013 8:52:06 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Kill Obamacare not wound it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
They want to build multi-modal transportation corridors that link population centers, moving people out of the dying inner cities to suburban hubs for the jobs and take them back to their homes at night.

Isn't that what they did in South Africa and in Europe? But in Europe the transported are getting restless.

130 posted on 08/15/2013 8:56:12 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Kill Obamacare not wound it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

What I didn’t mention was that they (the leftist social engineers) have an ulterior motive for wanting the poor out of the inner cities. They want their houses for gentrified neighborhoods. They think that retiring baby boomers and childless young couples will flock to the newly gentrified inner cities.


131 posted on 08/16/2013 3:54:06 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Eva

I wonder how the urban dwellers will take to being shipped off to “townships”. But yuppies will love the revitalized inner cities anyway those other people don’t appreciate fine arts and can’t afford good dining. I think the Boomers will hit the road if they can.


132 posted on 08/16/2013 5:15:49 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Kill Obamacare not wound it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
All those people that moved to the townships caused Detroit to fubar itself with bad schools, high costs, bad services, and crime everywhere.

Don't laugh. That is the precise argument that's been pushed by the last several mayors of Detroit. All of its problems can be placed at the fast-moving feet of fleeing citizens (it's mostly "black flight" now, BTW).

133 posted on 08/16/2013 5:25:00 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (It wasn't the Rodeo Clown's act, it was the crowd reaction they can't take.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson