CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

[kcmetro]

I think you are starting to get it.  If the government didn't subsidize and facilitate sprawl to the extent they have, than the cost of moving further out goes up dramatically - both in dollars and in time.  If we didn't have many, many billions invested in the KC suburban freeway system and vast arterial road network, it might take well over an hour for someone living at 151st street to get much of anywhere.  Without the massive sprawl infrastructure, people might just have to buck up and deal with it when someone not exactly like them moves onto their block or if their kids find themselves sitting next to someone in school who speaks another first language.  Without the government making it easy to flee, perhaps folks decide to stay and maintain/improve their house and property and as a result the neighborhood stays stable in value despite some different folks moving in.  

My only contention with your earlier posts was that sprawl was simply about racism.  My viewpoint is that it's more about "newness" far more than racism, especially these days.  Maybe back in the 50's and 60's it was more about race, but today it's a different story.

[kcmetro]

I think most here unlike you just can't justify defending that type of use and throw away and move further away behavior.  That's the whole point.

I'll never defend sprawl as an admirable way to live, but I will defend people who live in suburbs.  They're people just like anyone else, and their decisions to live in suburbs vary greatly.

[KCPowercat]

They are people. Great insight.

[kcmetro]

They are people. Great insight.

You're a sarcastic prick.  How's that for insight?

[LenexatoKCMO]

My only contention with your earlier posts was that sprawl was simply about racism.  My viewpoint is that it's more about "newness" far more than racism, especially these days.  Maybe back in the 50's and 60's it was more about race, but today it's a different story.

If anything its worse today than it was fifty years ago.  Fifty years ago people used to be torn about it; people felt regret about leaving neighbohoods their family had been in for decades; and regretted leaving old houses with lots of memories.  Nowadays people don't think twice about leaving the house their kids were born in, or the neighborhood their kids grew up in at the first sign of "decline".  The only difference is people are now much less conscious or overt about their motives and much less likely to be honest with themselves about what they are doing.  Fifty years ago, people didn't give a shit about being openly racist - nowadays no one wants to admit it to even themselves.  People cite "declining demographics"  as a motive for fleeing rather than "that colored family moved in down the street" - but at the end of the day it means the same damn thing.  Nowadays people cite the "schools going bad" without really acknowledging their real concern about the schools - lots of kids from different socio-economic backgrounds enrolling.  

People just do a much better job now of mentally stuffing what they really mean but at the end of the day it is the same thing as fifty years ago - getting away from people you feel are beneath you.  

[KCPowercat]

Lol  so emotional. Seemed a funny thing to say on your part.

Billions spent to build interstate for those who want new houses cheap. Wonderful.

[kcmetro]

If anything its worse today than it was fifty years ago.  Fifty years ago people used to be torn about it; people felt regret about leaving neighbohoods their family had been in for decades; and regretted leaving old houses with lots of memories.  Nowadays people don't think twice about leaving the house their kids were born in, or the neighborhood their kids grew up in at the first sign of "decline".  The only difference is people are now much less conscious or overt about their motives and much less likely to be honest with themselves about what they are doing.  Fifty years ago, people didn't give a shit about being openly racist - nowadays no one wants to admit it to even themselves.  People cite "declining demographics"  as a motive for fleeing rather than "that colored family moved in down the street" - but at the end of the day it means the same damn thing.  Nowadays people cite the "schools going bad" without really acknowledging their real concern about the schools - lots of kids from different socio-economic backgrounds enrolling.  

People just do a much better job now of mentally stuffing what they really mean but at the end of the day it is the same thing as fifty years ago - getting away from people you feel are beneath you.  

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[KCMax]

I thought it was encouraging progress that really only one of the four candidates supported their "no" with the "let MO take care of their own crap" line of reasoning.  Most of the others focused on how taxes are already too high or that Gov't shouldn't be supporting zoos in the first place.  baby steps. 

IMO, they're saying what will get them elected. Segale actually pushed for a Transportation Cooperation Council before and has talked about more regionalism in transit. And his quote in the Star seems to suggest he would support a regional tax if JoCo had a say in how the zoo was run.

Surbaugh seems open to some regionalism - she suggested a possible regional tax for transit. But she is a bit of a rising star and I don't see her using her political capital on regionalism. I don't think she's openly hostile to it though.

Eilert and Toplikar are both about as anti-regional as you can get.

[mlind]

New is always alluring no matter the location?  Ehhh.  How about build new in established neighborhoods instead of further sprawl?

Urban infill is always brought up by those opposing sprawl.  Depending on the zoning, if it happens it's usually multi-unit.  And in a neighborhood of single family homes, there is usually a fight.  And, if it's low-income housing, look out.  Developers aren't going to build single family houses as infill because you can't make as much money.  For an individual to build, it has to be an area with high property values.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Urban infill is always brought up by those opposing sprawl.  Depending on the zoning, if it happens it's usually multi-unit.  And in a neighborhood of single family homes, there is usually a fight.  And, if it's low-income housing, look out.  Developers aren't going to build single family houses as infill because you can't make as much money.  For an individual to build, it has to be an area with high property values.

How much do those issues disappear if the government isn't encouraging and subsidizing cheap development on the fringe of town?

[mlind]

I think you are starting to get it.  If the government didn't subsidize and facilitate sprawl to the extent they have, than the cost of moving further out goes up dramatically - both in dollars and in time.  If we didn't have many, many billions invested in the KC suburban freeway system and vast arterial road network, it might take well over an hour for someone living at 151st street to get much of anywhere.  Without the massive sprawl infrastructure, people might just have to buck up and deal with it when someone not exactly like them moves onto their block or if their kids find themselves sitting next to someone in school who speaks another first language.  Without the government making it easy to flee, perhaps folks decide to stay and maintain/improve their house and property and as a result the neighborhood stays stable in value despite some different folks moving in.  

Excellent point.

[KCPowercat]

I'll just say if I wanted a new house, I'm not placing myself in the far burbs to get it, I am building a new place in an established neighborhood.

Simply not buying the excuse of sprawl is just because people want new houses.

[mlind]

Urban flight has been going on for almost 100 years.  In the 'early' days, cities were considered to be crowded and dirty with corrupt government.  With the development of urban and interurban rail lines (often with subsidies from developers), people started moving out to ares we now consider urban.  And so it goes.

My father's family's example:

1890's - Strawberry Hill in KCK
1915 - Quindaro area - KCK

My father:
1949 - Westheight - KCK
1956 - N. 40th St - KCK

1965 - Denver suburbs

Each move was to a bigger house with more land. I'm the only person in my family who doesn't live in a suburb. 

[NDTeve]

If anything its worse today than it was fifty years ago.  Fifty years ago people used to be torn about it; people felt regret about leaving neighbohoods their family had been in for decades; and regretted leaving old houses with lots of memories.  Nowadays people don't think twice about leaving the house their kids were born in, or the neighborhood their kids grew up in at the first sign of "decline".  The only difference is people are now much less conscious or overt about their motives and much less likely to be honest with themselves about what they are doing.  Fifty years ago, people didn't give a shit about being openly racist - nowadays no one wants to admit it to even themselves.  People cite "declining demographics"  as a motive for fleeing rather than "that colored family moved in down the street" - but at the end of the day it means the same damn thing.  Nowadays people cite the "schools going bad" without really acknowledging their real concern about the schools - lots of kids from different socio-economic backgrounds enrolling.  

People just do a much better job now of mentally stuffing what they really mean but at the end of the day it is the same thing as fifty years ago - getting away from people you feel are beneath you.  

But the schools in KCMO are bad. Regardless of their diversity. However, that argument will probably work for Center and Independence and the like. But, it would be hard to argue that those places have better schools than Olathe or Liberty. Test scores and graduation rates will tell that story.

[LenexatoKCMO]

But the schools in KCMO are bad. Regardless of their diversity. However, that argument will probably work for Center and Independence and the like. But, it would be hard to argue that those places have better schools than Olathe or Liberty. Test scores and graduation rates will tell that story.

In what way are they "bad"?  Are the buildings "bad"?  Are the teachers "bad"?  Are the textbooks "bad"?  Or is it just that the school is full of kids from socio-economic backgrounds your middle-class white kids shouldn't have to mix with? 

The socio-economic flight is precisely what makes the "bad schools" theory a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

[shinatoo]

In what way are they "bad"?  Are the buildings "bad"?  Are the teachers "bad"?  Are the textbooks "bad"?  Or is it just that the school is full of kids from socio-economic backgrounds your middle-class white kids shouldn't have to mix with? 

The socio-economic flight is precisely what makes the "bad schools" theory a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

They are low achieving, filled with graft, and poor leadership (school board). Socio-economics has nothing to do with lazy teachers, theft, putting non working relatives on the payroll and firing super after super for purely self centered egotistical reasons.

If you are going to argue that KCMO schools are bad because they are poor you are going to have a lonely argument. Especially since poor urban schools all over have at least moderate success.

[KCPowercat]

Schools is just another crutch people use to leave. 65% of this metro doesn't have school aged loss in their home.

[kcmetro]

Schools is just another crutch people use to leave. 65% of this metro doesn't have school aged loss in their home.

Most people with kids want their kids to be able to attend high achieving public schools.  The high achieving public schools are very few and very far between in KCMO.

Not having enough Old Chicago's in the urban core would be a "crutch".  Schools, however, are not.  Schools are a real concern.

[KCPowercat]

Obviously better schools help a city overall but no everybody decided based on schools and demos show us households with kids are the minority and dropping

[NDTeve]

In what way are they "bad"?  Are the buildings "bad"?  Are the teachers "bad"?  Are the textbooks "bad"?  Or is it just that the school is full of kids from socio-economic backgrounds your middle-class white kids shouldn't have to mix with? 

The socio-economic flight is precisely what makes the "bad schools" theory a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

They are low achieving, filled with graft, and poor leadership (school board). Socio-economics has nothing to do with lazy teachers, theft, putting non working relatives on the payroll and firing super after super for purely self centered egotistical reasons.

If you are going to argue that KCMO schools are bad because they are poor you are going to have a lonely argument. Especially since poor urban schools all over have at least moderate success.

Ding.