Advertisement
by Christian Confederation » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:22 pm
by Shofercia » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:23 pm
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:The reason that I've brought up the bang for the buck point, one that you've heroically misunderstood Forsher, is to point out that you need it to pay for services used by people, rather than land, or cars, or houses.
Let's think about this for a moment...
is it cheaper to provide a school for a neighbourhood where everyone who attends can walk to it, or one in which everyone drives... thus necessitating parking management strategies, traffic demand management strategies, environment quality management strategies, traffic safety management strategies, road maintenance etc. etc. etc.
If this is your actual point, Shof, you should probably learn about this thing called "costs", not "revenue", because you're talking about costs, not revenue.
by Shofercia » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:25 pm
Forsher wrote:Watch the videos.
by Thermodolia » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:26 pm
Christian Confederation wrote:Some people just don't want a house
by Shofercia » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:30 pm
Berhakonia wrote:Why is real estate such a lucrative business in the west to begin with? Block foreign investors from scraping housing units and place restrictions on construction firms such that modern business abuses become less profitable. Then, provide free housing for students and low-income families. "One person one house" is a dumb workaround and hasn't solved China's housing crisis.
by Shofercia » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:33 pm
RESIDENTIAL VACANCIES
AND HOMEOWNERSHIP
FIRST QUARTER 2021
Rental Vacancy Rate 6.8%
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 0.9%
Homeownership Rate 65.6%
by Mercatus » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:35 pm
by Shofercia » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:37 pm
Mercatus wrote:It’s simple: the US govt should do nothing and stop using our tax money to solve other’s problems.
Let the free market be the free market. If you made mistakes and now you can’t afford a house, then that’s your fault.
by Forsher » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:39 pm
Forsher wrote:
Does the US (or California) not have metered water? Fucking socialists.
The more people live in a household, the more often the bathrooms and kitchen are used, hence the more water is used. The more water is used, the more water needs to be brought, irrespective of where the meters are positioned.
Conclusion: either Forsher loves to waste his time attacking meaningless arguments, or the arguments aren't meaningless. I'll let you pick whichever one you want.
In order to pay for costs, you need to raise revenue,
so when I was talking about a per person bang for the buck, I was actually talking about profit,
which is revenue - costs. Also, most schools in densely populated areas are within walking distance, and I certainly didn't drive to school, despite living in low density residential areas. The students who drove to school did it to show off their cars or got into the school on a lottery because they were from another neighborhood.
by Forsher » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:40 pm
by Berhakonia » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:44 pm
by Sungoldy-China » Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:04 pm
by Forsher » Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:13 pm
by Christian Confederation » Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:51 pm
by Ifreann » Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:14 am
Mercatus wrote:It’s simple: the US govt should do nothing and stop using our tax money to solve other’s problems.
Let the free market be the free market. If you made mistakes and now you can’t afford a house, then that’s your fault.
by Shofercia » Sat Jul 24, 2021 10:28 am
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:
The more people live in a household, the more often the bathrooms and kitchen are used, hence the more water is used. The more water is used, the more water needs to be brought, irrespective of where the meters are positioned.
Metered Water refers to a user pays system. Or did you think my socialist joke was entirely unconnected to what I was talking about? You might make nonsensical jokes but I, notoriously, do not. Maybe you meant to write "bought" instead of "brought" (though who knows why you mentioned the location of meters???) because that says some 73% of US cities have metered water.
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:Conclusion: either Forsher loves to waste his time attacking meaningless arguments, or the arguments aren't meaningless. I'll let you pick whichever one you want.
Alternatively: it's necessary to demonstrate that arguments are meaningless and you can't just assert that. Hmm...
So, let's go to why your argument is meaningless:In order to pay for costs, you need to raise revenue,
Is debt revenue? Many US cities are insolvent (fun fact: not every state allows cities to go bankrupt, as you'd know if you bothered to research topics you're talking about).so when I was talking about a per person bang for the buck, I was actually talking about profit,
Prove it.which is revenue - costs. Also, most schools in densely populated areas are within walking distance, and I certainly didn't drive to school, despite living in low density residential areas. The students who drove to school did it to show off their cars or got into the school on a lottery because they were from another neighborhood.
Ever heard of this concept called "being picked up and dropped off" from school? I'm sure you'll have seen a film where it happens. This seems your speed. (Because it's a shit film.) Note that it also demonstrates walking to school.
Alternatively: some statistics. https://www.bts.gov/topics/passenger-tr ... chool-2019
For high school, let's just go with:
Overall, more than two-thirds (68 percent) of students surveyed get to school by car: 36 percent are passengers and 32 percent drive themselves to school.
Even if I believed you, and I don't, your anecdotes aren't evidence.
We live in a car society, so it’s no surprise that more and more kids take cars to school. Today, nearly 60 percent of kids get to school by car, almost four times as many as in the late 1960s, when just 16 percent of children did so.
by Shofercia » Sat Jul 24, 2021 10:30 am
by GuessTheAltAccount » Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:18 pm
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by Forsher » Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:26 pm
Shofercia wrote:Forsher wrote:
Is that personalised rubbish collection or not?
That doesn't matter, since the city's bills are based on the overall amount of people living in said city. When I go out with friends, it doesn't matter if we have personalized checks, or one of us takes care of the bill, the restaurant gets the same amount.
I was unaware that you could make funny jokes, thank you for informing me of the possibility.
The reason for city insolvency is usually the pension fund,
with me having to explain the basics of economics.
A city gets its revenue from taxes and government grants, which are also raised through taxes, as well as other sources. These sources have nothing to do with the city's obligations or debts.
Regarding the passengers, I have to wonder how many of those are little kids whose parents drive them to school because they don't want their kids to walk, even if the school is within walking distance, how many of those are in magnet or charter schools outside of their neighborhoods, etc. Because the latter has fuck all to do with school placement.
From the Bloomberg article:We live in a car society, so it’s no surprise that more and more kids take cars to school. Today, nearly 60 percent of kids get to school by car, almost four times as many as in the late 1960s, when just 16 percent of children did so.
School placement didn't change much between 1960s and today. Single family zoning was more predominant in the 1960s.
Not really going to bother proving that revenue - costs = profit,
the people who can afford single family zoning are wealthier and pay more property taxes, the main source of city revenue, per person than those who are living in apartments.
The 20 million claim is a claim that says that 2 miles is too long to walk or bike to school. I doubt that. The average cycling speed is 10-14 miles per hour, so averaging 10 mph, you'd need a whopping 12 minutes to get to school. But apparently a 12 minute bike ride is deemed too far according to the study, which is laughable. Then again, they have a really pretty graphic with all those pretty colors.
by Forsher » Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:30 pm
Shofercia wrote:Forsher wrote:
"Waah, Forsher won't provide sources"
*Forsher provides sources*
*Shofercia exits conversation*
Your claim was that cities go bankrupt because of single family zoning, in the US. I've asked you to name a single city that did so, in the US. You decided to spam YouTube videos instead. Now you're claiming that I exited the conversation. You're right, you can make funny jokes, especially when talking about yourself in third person, i.e. "Forsher provides sources"
by Shofercia » Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:45 pm
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:
That doesn't matter, since the city's bills are based on the overall amount of people living in said city. When I go out with friends, it doesn't matter if we have personalized checks, or one of us takes care of the bill, the restaurant gets the same amount.
So... it bang for buck per person is entirely irrelevant. Gotcha.
In June 2013, the government of Detroit stopped making payments on some of its unsecured debts, including pension obligations.[3] In an effort to avoid bankruptcy, Orr sought to persuade some of Detroit's creditors to accept 10% of the amount they are owed.[3] White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, during a press conference in July, that he knew of no plans by President Obama to bail out the Detroit city government similar to the bailouts in recent years of Detroit-area automakers General Motors and Chrysler.[3] On July 17, just one day before the bankruptcy filing, Detroit's two largest municipal pension funds filed suit in state court to prevent Orr from cutting retiree benefits as part of his efforts to cut the city's budget deficit.[23][24]
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:with me having to explain the basics of economics.
The basics of economics involve using terms of art rather than casual slang so as to avoid situations where people claim that "actually, this doesn't mean what it literally appears to mean because actually I was talking about [introduction of terms of art] instead of [different term of art]".
This is also a basic courtesy.
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:A city gets its revenue from taxes and government grants, which are also raised through taxes, as well as other sources. These sources have nothing to do with the city's obligations or debts.
I know. It's why focussing on revenues... what you're doing... is stupid.
You were asked to demonstrate that you were talking about profit. You have not even attempted to do so.
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:Regarding the passengers, I have to wonder how many of those are little kids whose parents drive them to school because they don't want their kids to walk, even if the school is within walking distance, how many of those are in magnet or charter schools outside of their neighborhoods, etc. Because the latter has fuck all to do with school placement.
Stop wondering and try and find a fucking source to back up your claims.
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:From the Bloomberg article:
We live in a car society, so it’s no surprise that more and more kids take cars to school. Today, nearly 60 percent of kids get to school by car, almost four times as many as in the late 1960s, when just 16 percent of children did so.
School placement didn't change much between 1960s and today. Single family zoning was more predominant in the 1960s.
Shockingly, a society that had people who were in their 20s when suburbanisation really took off (the 1940s) only reach their 40s, is not at all similar to one in which said people are in their 90s and 100s.
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:the people who can afford single family zoning are wealthier and pay more property taxes, the main source of city revenue, per person than those who are living in apartments.
Your point isn't confusing. Your point is mind bogglingly stupid, which is why your restaurant example just demonstrated its failure in practice... in a situation where there's no dispersal of people and thus a need to disperse service provision, which either requires compromising level of service or ramping up costs.
By the by, thanks for admitting you weren't talking about profit.
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:The 20 million claim is a claim that says that 2 miles is too long to walk or bike to school. I doubt that. The average cycling speed is 10-14 miles per hour, so averaging 10 mph, you'd need a whopping 12 minutes to get to school. But apparently a 12 minute bike ride is deemed too far according to the study, which is laughable. Then again, they have a really pretty graphic with all those pretty colors.
In reality, 800m is the standard measure of "walkable" in this context. This is a quarter of the length of 2 miles.
Do even the slightest amount of research before you start running your mouth. I'm sure you'll still disagree with the idea of using such a restrictive definition of "walkable" but at least you won't phrase it in monumentally stupid ways.
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Your claim was that cities go bankrupt because of single family zoning, in the US. I've asked you to name a single city that did so, in the US. You decided to spam YouTube videos instead. Now you're claiming that I exited the conversation. You're right, you can make funny jokes, especially when talking about yourself in third person, i.e. "Forsher provides sources"
let me fix that for you
"Having been provided with the sources that I, Shofercia, requested, I will continue to ignore the sources and instead blather on about whatever happens to take my fancy, though I will now change my particular objection from failing to provide a single Californian example to a single American example"
I don't care. You asked for sources. You got them.
single family zoning is a major feature of the main reason cities go bankrupt in the US
by Forsher » Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:52 am
by Forsher » Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:53 am
Shofercia wrote:Not even remotely close to what I said, so let me dumb it down even more. One person living in a house that's worth $500,000, pays $5,000 in Property Taxes to the city, hypothetically speaking. The city spends $2,500 to service said person. Thus the net bang for the buck for that person is $2,500.
10 people live in an apartment complex that's worth $2,500,000. They jointly pay $25,000 in taxes, on average $2,500 apiece. The city spends $15,000 to service them, or $1,500, on average, per person. Thus the next average bang for the buck for one of these people is $1,000.
It doesn't matter whether they're paying jointly or separately. It doesn't matter if their rubbish is collected jointly or separately. And you seem to be the only one, Forsher, to fail to grasp this basic economic concept.
Forsher wrote:
You just can't help yourself with these pointless personal comments that have nothing do with the conversation at hand, can you?
Actually I can, but when someone makes flippant comments like did you think my socialist joke was entirely unconnected to what I was talking about they get a flippant response. What goes around, comes around Forsher. If you want others to treat you politely, learn to be polite yourself.
I asked for specific city names, not YouTube link spam. As for a source, this one took me all of two seconds to find:
You know what? I'll do you one better, I'll do something that you couldn't, I'll name an actual case, rather than linking to YouTube: Detroit Bankruptcy of 2013.
And here's the entire quote: However, you claimed that cities in the US go bankrupt because of single family zoning. You've yet to prove that insane assertion, and in fact you've ran away from it quite well Forsher, so now here we are, with me having to explain the basics of economics.
You do realize these are recorded, right? So when will you name this mythical US city that went bankrupt due to single family zoning? Oh, is the name Atlantis?
I was talking about the average net bang for the buck by pointing out that people living in wealthier homes, on average, provide a bigger net financial benefit to the city than apartment dwellers, on average.
I didn't realize this had to be demonstrated, because in the US, it's fairly common knowledge.
Areas with high income earners living in houses are wealthier, and less likely to go bankrupt, than areas with low income apartment dwellers. This is common sense for those of us actually living in the US, and your quote was about cities in the US, not Australia.
\·Ve pay a high social price for sprav.-1 as
well. By spreading residences, medical and
commercial offices. and industries through-
out a re�ion 011 large tracl5 of land, we in-
crease resident-;' dependence on aiuomnhik
transportation. En'rything and e\'er�·one is
too spread out to make public transportation
economicalh- feasible. \fith insufficient coor-
dination of work sites and highwa\'s, traffic l '
congestion result-;. Nor can eyeryone get
around by car: A lifestyle rhat requires a car
discriminates against poor families, the dd-
erly. the disabled, and the young. Suburban
Financial Costs. Conventional \>\-risdom says
that development strengthens the municipal
tax base. That may have been true in the
1980s, but by the 1990s local officials had dis-
covered that increases in ta.x rcven ucs were
eaten up by costs to their communities for de-
livering new services (including water and
sewer lines, schools, police and fire protec-
tion, and roads) to people who lived far away
from Lhe existing infrastructure. Here are
some exam pl es:
A Maryland study predicted that, in the first
two decades of the twenLy-firsL century, sprawl
will cost state residents about $10 billion
more for n ew roads, schools, sewers, and water
than would be ne<.:e.ssary if growth were more
concentrated. Similar studies in California,
Florida, and elsewhere have demonstrated a
direct relationship between sprawl and the spi-
raling costs of government (McMahon 1 997:4) .
These additional costs don't occur only in the
grmving communities. As people flock ro the
outlying suburbs, cities-their tax base
eroded-must raise taxes on the remaining
taxpayers to pay for city services.
Didn't need to, since your source pointed out that in 1960s, when we had similar distances between houses and schools, only 16% drove; today it's over 60%, so it's not zoning changes, as communities weren't downzoned. The first line of your source destroyed your point, so you ignored it. Shocking!
Forsher wrote:
Shockingly, a society that had people who were in their 20s when suburbanisation really took off (the 1940s) only reach their 40s, is not at all similar to one in which said people are in their 90s and 100s.
What does that have to do with land placement? Your comment was about zoning.
Yet sprawl doesn't occur only because of
population growth. Cincinnati, which lost 15
percent of its population between 1970 and
1980, then another 10 percent between 1980
and 2000, nonetheless increased its land area
from 335 square miles in 1970 to 573 square
miles. Metro Cleveland's population declined
by 11 percenl between 1970 and 1990, but it
still consumed 33 percent more land. Also,
between 1990 and 1996, Akron, Ohio, experi-
enced a 37 percent decrease in population
but a 65 percent increase in developed land
area use (Florian 1999:25).
So when I say that Group A is more beneficial to a city than Group B, I'm somehow not talking about the profits/benefits that said groups provide to the city?
It seems that you've misunderstood the point about the restaurant example, which was that it doesn't matter to a restaurant whether or not payment is made by a group or an individual, as long as payment's made in full. Similarly, it doesn't matter to a city whether payment's made by a group or an individual, as long as payment is made in full. That was it. It was to address your rubbish example, which turned out to be quite rubbish. Already explained the profit part.
I realize that it was the standard "walkable" measure in the context of a study that wanted to make a point.
Dude, your claim was, and I quote:single family zoning is a major feature of the main reason cities go bankrupt in the US
I requested specific city names. That was the request. Specific city names. How you, Forsher, managed to get "YouTube Link" out of "name a single city" defies logic.
by Duvniask » Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:29 am
Forsher wrote:Anyone, anyone at all, tell me if you care that I provided four Youtube links to substantiate a claim I made in this thread.
by Forsher » Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:46 am
We pay a high social price for sprawl as well. By spreading residences, medical and commercial offices, and industries across large tracts of land, we increase
dependence on automobile transportation. Everything and everyone is too spread out to make public transportation economically feasible: insufficient co-ordination of worksites and highway traffic and congestion result. Nor can everyone get around by car. A lifestyle that requires a car discriminates against poor families, the elderly, the disabled, and the young.
Financial Costs. Conventional wisdom says that development strengthens the municipal tax base. That may have been true in the 1980s, but by the 1990s local officials had discovered that increases in tax revenues were eaten up by costs to their communities for delivering new services (including water and sewer lines, schools, police and fire protection, and roads) to people who lived far away from the existing infrastructure.
A Maryland study predicted that, in the first two decades of the twenty first century, sprawl will cost state residents about $10 billion more for new roads, schools, sewers, and water than would be necessary if growth were more concentrated. Similar studies in California, Florida, and elsewhere have demonstrated a direct relationship between sprawl and the spiralling costs of government (McMahon 1 997:4) .
These additional costs don't occur only in the commuting communities. As people flock to the outlying suburbs, cities-their tax base is eroded so they must raise taxes on the remaining taxpayers to pay for city services [for those remaining taxpayers].
Yet sprawl doesn't occur only because of population growth. Cincinnati, which lost 15 percent of its population between 1970 and 1980, then another 10 percent between 1980 and 2000, nonetheless increased its land area from 335 square miles in 1970 to 573 square miles. Metro Cleveland's population declined by 11 percenl between 1970 and 1990, but it still consumed 33 percent more land. Also, between 1990 and 1996, Akron, Ohio, experienced a 37 percent decrease in population
but a 65 percent increase in developed land area use (Florian 1999:25).
Forsher wrote:a society that had people who were in their 20s when suburbanisation really took off (the 1940s) only reach their 40s, is not at all similar to one in which said people are in their 90s and 100s.
Housing affordability has deteriorated materially in recent decades, which has been a principal factor in an internationally observed reduction in middle-income standards of living. The last year has involved material setbacks, mostly due to the impact of the pandemic, which has led to a home buying boom in some areas while suppressing incomes. Housing affordability deteriorated by more than 1.0 median multiple points in just one year, --- the equivalent of one year’s pre-tax median household income --- in Vancouver, San Jose, San Francisco and Honolulu, with the greatest deterioration in Auckland (1.4 points) and Toronto (1.3 points).The flexibility of telework, and the disruption of life in the highest density employment and residential areas led many to relocate to more spacious houses with gardens (yards). As Liz Richie, Regional Australia Institute chief executive (RAI), told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, "If people's work can be done from anywhere, if location is no longer a barrier, we will see more and more regional mobility.” The hope for improvement has been expressed in Ireland’s just released National Remote Work Strategy, which emphasizes the potential to improve housing affordability through telework. Thus, greater remote working could begin to remove housing as a principal source of inequality. This could reduce housing demand in the least affordable areas, providing relief at every price point, including for many middle-income households whose living standards have decline as house prices have raced ahead of incomes.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Eahland, El Lazaro, Google [Bot], Little TN Horde, New Temecula, San Lumen, Shrillland, Spirit of Hope, Statesburg, The Imperial Fatherland, The Two Jerseys, Uiiop, Verkhoyanska
Advertisement