“I just feel like there is an undercurrent in the country to smoke out the poor people. Make it so they don’t decide to have kids and stuff like that.”
Poor people shouldn’t have kids. If you can’t afford to have them…..blah, blah, Hanna Montana blah
– Rob
Once again, I do not claim that policies tell the whole story behind population trends, especially in the near-term. However, I think that the stretch of 50 years is plenty of time to observe the efficacy of policies.
California used to be a pro-growth state, and it was rewarded as such. No longer. For the first time in recent years, it will not gain a single congressional seat.
Rf;
I have no reply to someone who believes that there is a limit to growth.
There is a correlation between this index and growth over the last 20 and 30 years, but it is even smaller than the correlation with Republican voting patterns.
Once again, I stand by my theory that business friendly policies are meaningful to growth, but not overwhelmingly.
I just feel like there is an undercurrent in the country to smoke out the poor people. Make it so they don’t decide to have kids and stuff like that.
personally I would not like living in high growth area or a declining area. Like lot of Florida,
Atlanta, wherever where rapid growth brings tons of congestion and little infrastructure -to me diminishes quality of life. Little sense of community. Very transient.
Declining areas (old manufacturing belt/Detroit/Buffalo etc )
also depressing.
“I also predict that these coming days will see the downfall of another movement that is currently unhinged: the preservationist movement. When job growth is not there, and a guy who makes $45,000 is told that his options are: a) commute to a far-flung part of the borough or b) sign up for the costly task of restoring a 1845 clapboard house, all sorts of reactions are bound to happen.”
Ridiculous, of course.
No one “makes” anyone do anything to their home, especially the LPC, which has very dull teeth.
People have to live in far flung areas because there is nothing cheap closer in. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with landmarking. These places would be expensive landmarked or not, and landmarking is here and there throughout the city. If your argument had legs, then any area, or block, or building that was not landmarked would be cheap, while the landmarked gentry would be in their expensive buildings. Much of the upper east side would be dirt cheap, as it is not landmarked. Half of Park Slope, and all of Greenwood Hts, Sunset Park, much of Carroll Gardens, Windsor Terrace, Boerum Hill, all these areas should be cheap, too, as they are not landmarked. Obviously they are not. By the same token Crown Heights North and Stuy Hts should be much more expensive, and they are not, and they are landmarked. Landmarking has nothing to do with rent, or home prices. Nothing.
So Benson, you’d like to fill Brooklyn up with 50-story apartment buildings?
That’s certainly an interesting question about whether or not people who cannot afford to have kids should have them.
“I just feel like there is an undercurrent in the country to smoke out the poor people. Make it so they don’t decide to have kids and stuff like that.”
Poor people shouldn’t have kids. If you can’t afford to have them…..blah, blah, Hanna Montana blah
– Rob
Scott;
Once again, I do not claim that policies tell the whole story behind population trends, especially in the near-term. However, I think that the stretch of 50 years is plenty of time to observe the efficacy of policies.
California used to be a pro-growth state, and it was rewarded as such. No longer. For the first time in recent years, it will not gain a single congressional seat.
Rf;
I have no reply to someone who believes that there is a limit to growth.
I found a 2011 State Business Tax Climate Index from a group called the tax foundation.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22658.html
There is a correlation between this index and growth over the last 20 and 30 years, but it is even smaller than the correlation with Republican voting patterns.
Once again, I stand by my theory that business friendly policies are meaningful to growth, but not overwhelmingly.
I was going to ask what you all were babbling about. But I scrolled up.
UGH!
Did Gem have the baby?
I just feel like there is an undercurrent in the country to smoke out the poor people. Make it so they don’t decide to have kids and stuff like that.
personally I would not like living in high growth area or a declining area. Like lot of Florida,
Atlanta, wherever where rapid growth brings tons of congestion and little infrastructure -to me diminishes quality of life. Little sense of community. Very transient.
Declining areas (old manufacturing belt/Detroit/Buffalo etc )
also depressing.
“I also predict that these coming days will see the downfall of another movement that is currently unhinged: the preservationist movement. When job growth is not there, and a guy who makes $45,000 is told that his options are: a) commute to a far-flung part of the borough or b) sign up for the costly task of restoring a 1845 clapboard house, all sorts of reactions are bound to happen.”
Ridiculous, of course.
No one “makes” anyone do anything to their home, especially the LPC, which has very dull teeth.
People have to live in far flung areas because there is nothing cheap closer in. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with landmarking. These places would be expensive landmarked or not, and landmarking is here and there throughout the city. If your argument had legs, then any area, or block, or building that was not landmarked would be cheap, while the landmarked gentry would be in their expensive buildings. Much of the upper east side would be dirt cheap, as it is not landmarked. Half of Park Slope, and all of Greenwood Hts, Sunset Park, much of Carroll Gardens, Windsor Terrace, Boerum Hill, all these areas should be cheap, too, as they are not landmarked. Obviously they are not. By the same token Crown Heights North and Stuy Hts should be much more expensive, and they are not, and they are landmarked. Landmarking has nothing to do with rent, or home prices. Nothing.