The Growth Ponzi Scheme

You right about the towns and city that depend on one industry. Anyone who thinks most town fathers are comfortable with a one-horse town powering its economy must have grown up in Shelbyville. Officials are usually working to attract other entities, but its not easy.

I didn't say the American Industry is dead. Only in Detroit. Sorry. Thank the UAW. It's not completely the UAW's fault, once the tail started wagging the dog it was only a matter of time before the industry there collapsed.
Toyota is doing really well in Tennessee and West Virginia (Non-Union plants BTW).

No doubt they tried to diversify the economy. I'm sorry, I don't believe for a second they didn't. But governments and development authorities can only do so much. (I covered city government for several years and now work for a development authority). You can't just go out and bring in a Wal-Mart, a light manufacturing plant and a chemical company. They have to want to come. There is a need, the resources and the other factors they need to be there. Could a chemical come in set up shop and go to work? I dunno. Maybe. But they would have to pay comparable wages to maintain staff.
Given that the automakers were housed in the area, it would make sense companion companies would build and locate there. The people who think Munis and can wave a magic tax-break wand and - poof! - a whole new industry springs up are mistaken.
Why didn't more things pop up? Perhaps they ran out of developable space.
The experienced workforce came at literally a high price. The infrastructure? Like what? The 3 Rs (River, Roads and Rails) you can find a lot of places. Places that don't already have established plants and a low workforce.
By workforce, companies will look for areas with an available and cheap workforce. Detroit likely did not have a lot of that. That's not the necessarily the government's fault.

 

To add to the discussion, weather is also a factor. Why build in an area in which the weather is poor when you can build in an area that doesn't get buried under a few feet of snow each year?

 

Jeezus ... you folks act like creationists when it comes to cities. Here's a fact: Cities aren't made, they happen. Detroit, New York, Dallas, San Francisco ... no government, no experts, no committee designed 'em. They emerged as the result of countless millions of individuals living their lives the way they want. And their passing, if it comes to that, will be the result of ... countless millions of individuals living their lives the way they want. The ONLY way to "preserve" a city is to interfere with those countless millions, to stop them from living their lives the way they want.

 

Of course.

The success of a city like Seattle has a lot more to do with folks like William Boeing and Bill Gates than it does to do with government policy.

And that's just luck.

But, a city like San Francisco has benefited from its proximity to Stanford, while Detroit really hasn't benefited from it's proximity to University of Michigan.

Attracting and keeping young talent does seem like something a city could work on.

 

Not for nothing (or maybe it's just nothing) but 3-4 customers from Detroit have been in the gallery lately. I ask them about Detroit's death and whether it will ever emerge and all of them gave a resounding Yes! Apparently a ton of investment money has begun to flow in. I don't know if this is true or if stories have been written yet but the fact all of these guys said the same thing led me to believe there's a movement afoot to rebuild and reshape.

 

Combined with decades of cross-burning rightwingers in the state legislature hell-bent to make sure Detroit slides under the waves.

 

Correct... but would it not make sense that city planning should allow for multiple options for where they could live, where they could shop, and how they can access those places?

When a city zones an area for low-density residential housing, that's the only option available to a person in that area unless the person applies for a variance. They can't just open a neighborhood coffee shop without city approval, which requires multiple forms and multiple hearings.

On top of that, the streets are mainly designed to move traffic quickly, with little thought given to pedestrians. What if somebody wants to walk to work or the store? Regardless of where they live, if the street is designed to move traffic quickly, they are basically told they have to take their chances in negotiating the street and parking lots.

Removing or relaxing zoning laws doesn't mean a Wal-Mart is going to plop itself down in the middle of a residential neighborhood. But if it allows a neighborhood coffee shop that is primarily aiming to get business from the neighbors, that can only be a good thing, because now more people can just walk a short distance to buy a cup of coffee, instead of feeling they have no choice but to drive a longer distance.

And if you make sure all streets have sidewalks, and the streets are designed so they encourage people to reduce their speeds, and businesses are allowed to develop without having to comply with parking and setback requirements, people are more likely to view walking as a viable option.

If you allow more options, there will be those people who will take a chance on them. Not everyone will succeed, but some will. And allowing more options does not mean we want to get rid of everyone's favorite option... it means we want people to believe the additional options are truly worth considering.

 

Today's food for thought comes from James Kunstler, who has a long writeup about why property tax works better when it taxes the land, not the building.

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/kunstler.html

 

I think he is overstating the case based on a few historical examples. I have never seen a property where the assessed value of the building was greater than that of the land. The assessed value of the land takes into account the economic value of building on that land. Any underuse of the property will be punished by the tax on the value of the land.

 

Raw undeveloped land will always be more valuable only after it is developed. That is what drives speculation on pastures and cornfields. It also drives tax bills which forces ranchers and farmers to sell.

 

Marohn's takedown of a guy full of talking points:

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/9/2/sheer-lunacy.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11064416/Motorists-have-ruined-England-and-they-need-to-pay-the-price.html