Despite claims of a downtown population boom, the reality is that every demographic group is growing faster in the suburbs than the cities–and that includes poor people. According to an L.A. Times report on a new book from Brookings, between 2000 and 2011, the number of poor people living in suburbs grew by 67 percent and now outnumber poor people living in cities.
This is supposed to be a problem because antipoverty agencies are “unprepared to meet the need in suburban areas.” This being Brookings, one of the remedies is supposed to be “more (and better) transportation options” (meaning public transit) in the suburbs. But this begs the question: if antipoverty agencies and public transit are so critical to poor people, why did so many poor people move to the suburbs in the first place? The answer, of course, is that they aren’t that helpful.
Meanwhile, a report from Australia suggests that one reason why low-income populations are growing in the suburbs is that wealthy and upper-middle-class people are crowding poor people out of the inner cities. This is certainly the situation in many American urban areas, such as San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. This, of course, is what the cities wanted: to lure the high-taxpaying people away from the suburbs. In many cases, however, the way they are doing it is not by making the cities attractive to the rich but by making them unaffordable for the poor.
Some of reasons for type 2 diabetes are excess weight, poor diet cialis viagra for women and physical inactivity. They will treat their patient in an effective way so that the students are groomed like on line cialis their full-time counterparts. Male sex hormone androgen is responsible for normal growth and intelligence in a child. sildenafil online Basically, they found that buy cheap viagra cute-n-tiny.com nitric oxide stemmed from L-arginine which supported good health and healing…
Ironically, a few years ago planning advocates such as those at Brookings were hysterical about the notion that suburbs were enclaves of the rich and cities were ghettos for the poor. Now that there is a better mix of incomes, this mix is supposed to be a problem because the poor aren’t concentrated in places where they can be “served” by public agencies.
The Antiplanner suggests that the fact that we haven’t won the “war on poverty” after 49 years indicates that antipoverty agencies, public transit, and other traditional tools are the wrong weapons. Instead of fighting such nebulous and expensive wars, perhaps government should get back to basics, such as providing decent schools, minimizing crime, and protecting people’s property rights.
I had the exact same thought right off the bat – I thought the liberals wanted more diverse suburbs.
I also wonder how much the fact that suburbs don’t have a hundred government agents constantly trying to make you dependent on them factors into people’s decisions to leave the cities?
How much of our poverty problems are caused by government rules on how a person can start a business? And if it is hard to start a business, it is harder to hire employees to help the poor move up in life.
The hoops that have to be gone through and rules that need to conformed to, can be overwhelming for some one starting a business and expanding it.
Transit stops next to buildings can be a major liability to the building and business creating a full time job cleaning the transit stop and repairing windows, as the transit riders scratch their mark in the picture windows. I know a business that just put another $5,000 into window repairs. If you go a block in any direction, the businesses don’t have a window problem with transit users.
The war on poverty is not helped by the war on businesses, trying to make a living.
Then we have the case where some planners appear to want more impoverished people to move in because there is hope that at least some of those poor people will ride transit.
Never mind the added burden on other county or municipal services.
The planners real concern is the voting booth.
If poor people move out to the suburbs, it will be harder to round them up on election day to keep the planners and their political frineds in power.
JOHN1000 wrote:
The planners real concern is the voting booth.
If poor people move out to the suburbs, it will be harder to round them up on election day to keep the planners and their political frineds in power.
That may well be true in some parts of the world, but probably not in the county that I’m from, the home of the “limousine liberal.”
“But this begs the question: if antipoverty agencies and public transit are so critical to poor people, why did so many poor people move to the suburbs in the first place? The answer, of course, is that they aren’t that helpful.”
Come on! You and I both know the real reason they’re moving to the fringe. Almost every post you make that isn’t about rail transit is about housing costs. For a guy with such command of data you can certainly make a better anti-planning argument.
Fact is, for many poor people transit is important, but transit has almost nothing to do with homes and services sprawling to the fringe of cities. However, In my business, every year we see major employers, doctors, hospitals and suburban communities asking transit agencies to serve their locations in the burbs. And while the level of service isn’t exactly outstanding, the transit agencies usually oblige (for a price).
“The planners real concern is the voting booth.”
The voting booth is the bane of the antiplanner’s existence. This is something that planners delight in bringing up around here.
From the LA Times approvingly linked to above:
“”The myth of suburban prosperity has been a stubborn one,” said Christopher Niedt, who as academic director of the National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University is familiar with the trend Brookings described. Even as suburban poverty emerged, “many poorer communities were so segregated from the wealthy in suburbs that many people were able to ignore it.””
But the American Dream endures!
DS
Even as suburban poverty emerged, “many poorer communities were so segregated from the wealthy in suburbs that many people were able to ignore it.””
But the American Dream endures!
Yes, Dan lives in one of the wealthy parts of the suburbs. The median income in his development is $63,000 while the median income in the rest of his suburb is $46,507. The Internets also tells us that Dan’s development is composed of Wide Open Foyers—Suburban families living in large houses. These well-off married couples with children own their own homes, and the homes are bigger than average.
Dan is living the American Dream!
In many growing cities, the suburbs of the 1970s and 1980s are now housing for lower income people, as the wealthier people have moved to newer suburbs. What does it tell you that poor people now live in houses considered wealthy 30-40 years ago (at least in growing cities)?
Wouldn’t it make sense that the financial crisis hit suburbs harder than cities? The McMansion era of leveraging bits of wealth into the image of lots of wealth is largely a suburban phenomenon. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the recession caused insolvency in suburban markets more than urban ones. The reverse also seems to be true. Property values in our strong urban markets have picked up and rebounded faster than their suburban counterparts.
Someone like Charles Marohn would probably say this is because the suburban model can’t sustain itself financially because it’s solvency is based off of the necessity of continuous growth (a big problem in a recessionary environment).
“What does it tell you that poor people now live in houses considered wealthy 30-40 years ago (at least in growing cities)?”
That the inevitability of densification is unavoidable. As new green fields are developed and older residences are occupied by more people, and new services move into older areas, our cities are growing in scale, intensity and density. One of the reason pro-planning initiatives see more success in the “voting booth” than anti-planning proposals.
My first house was around 50 years old in a older neighborhood. I was not making much more than the minimum wage in Portland. Housing was very affordable because we did not have a urban growth boundary yet and that open up older housing for starter houses for people like me. Because they were still building new housing developments. I may have been poor by the standards of the day, but I did not think of myself as poor and did not need any social services to get by, instead I allowed roommates to move in, to supplement my income. I tried the biking and transit life for a year or so but I got tired of being tied to the transit routes and schedule, that rarely went to where I was going, when I wanted to be there.
So I bought a cheap car that liberated me from the limited transit and biking life and rode my bike for pleasure instead.
Frank agrees with me that cowardly, low-watt tactics based on false premises and outdated ideologies don’t work. I’m sure he agrees that the underinformeds that use such cowardly tactics should cease their mendacity.
Right Frank? why would people act so cowardly if they could muster a decent argument?
Speaking of using false premises, one is exposed in the article Randal linked to:
DS
Dear Bennett:
You may be from an area where the smug growth faction can count a victory
at the ballot box. But here in Oregon, Clackamas County voters have been
opposing light rail by any means necessary. Voter pressure in PDX forced
minimum parking requirements down the throats of developers and bureaucrats.
I am a Democrat, and I fear the day when the libertarians and the Republicans see the potential of smug growth to divide the Dems.
Have a good day.
Question:
Did poor people migrate to the ‘burbs or did some people living in the burbs slide into poverty?
The answer to that question would seem to influence a rational transit planner i.e: effect of gov’t actions on highly personal decisions. In Oregon, city planners exist to influence citizen behavior to conform to what they say is a morally superior norm. If people are going broke in place, then transit planning may not help.
“I fear the day when the libertarians and the Republicans see the potential of smug growth to divide the Dems.”
I suppose I share this fear. My point is really about the cumulative score when it come to pro-planning vs. anti-planning initiatives. Sure wasteful light rail bonds loose from time to time at the ballot box, but pro-planning usually wins. Also, I try not to ascribe to any absolutist philosophy. While I believe in growth management and ultimately feel that people want planning (despite what they say to their friend at the Rotary Club), the smart growth movement is not my bag and is not sensitive (enough) to context.
Your concern got me thinking though. While there are many issues out there that can divide democratic voters, I think that republicans face a much tougher road. You have the rising libertarian movement vs the ever so strong wackadoodle base. While the arguments between progressives and objectivists/libertarians/etc. are always intense, I feel that they are more closely aligned, both politically and ideologically than libertarians and the American Taliban that control the republican party. On the issues that are crossing traditional political divides, I think democrats can again proclaim “SCOREBOARD” (see: the drug war, marriage equality, etc). I suppose the real concern for democrats is that the libertarians will completely break free from the republicans and be taken seriously. This would likely suck away a substantive amount of democratic voters.
Did poor people migrate to the ‘burbs or did some people living in the burbs slide into poverty?
Both.
DS
“The myth of suburban prosperity has been a stubborn one,” said Christopher Niedt, who as academic director of the National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University is familiar with the trend Brookings described. Even as suburban poverty emerged, “many poorer communities were so segregated from the wealthy in suburbs that many people were able to ignore it.”
But the American Dream endures!
The wealthy suburban development in which Dan lives[1] is segregated from the poor suburbs.
I guess we’re just supposed to ignore that. And ignore that Dan is living the American Dream. And ignore that he chose to live in a very wealthy and economically segregated suburban development rather than a median- or low-income suburban development or a dense and walkable Smarth Growth community.
——-
[1] With a median household income of $63,000, the suburban development in which Dan lives far surpasses the national median income and even the median income of Seattle’s more affluent neighborhoods.
And if you’re going to keep lying about people lying, it’s time to find a synonym. The sesquipedalianism has grown tiresome.
But as anyone can see, that’s your M.O. across the Internets. Sesquipedalian catchphrases get you every time.
All these mad Google skillz, and I’m only on my third glass of Merlot!
Frank, all you’ve proven is that Dan apparently likes the “Big Daddy” character in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof.
When they have uncontrollable paroxysms, something isn’t right. Do they deserve our concern over their wellbeing?
Nevertheless, how come we aren’t asking why there is so much poverty in this country?
DS
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
Force the fishermen to give their fish to everyone who doesn’t fish and no one eats..
Another factor is that today’s young voters may not feel the same identification with a major political party.
I was raised a Democrat, and when I find myself thinking of registering as an independent, there is a real deep-seated conflict. But smug growth really has lots of Portland liberals ticked off. A Republican who was pro-pot, pro-choice and anti-smug growth might cause me to defect. We might have that type of republican out west.
In Portland, we let the city planners decide when the fish will jump into our nets, and what kinds.
“In many growing cities, the suburbs of the 1970s and 1980s are now housing for lower income people, as the wealthier people have moved to newer suburbs. What does it tell you that poor people now live in houses considered wealthy 30-40 years ago (at least in growing cities)?” –Sandy Teal
You’re not wrong but it could be more accurate. Some would point to post-WWII bedroom communities as being the ones that are falling into this problem. I would argue this has been occurring throughout American history.
Suburban and Urban don’t tell us anything. They’re just lines on a piece of paper. For example, a large part of “urban” growth has occurred not downtown but as greenfield development in “central cities” like Denver, Charlotte, Houston, Phoenix and others in the south and west. If shown a picture of it sans location, almost everyone would call it suburban. But in the oversimplified context of “urban” and “suburban” it’s “urban.”
But this is nothing new. In the old days, Denver’s Baker neighborhood or Minnepolis’ Lynhurt were “the suburbs”. They were just contained within the borders of the core city. Poverty has always been pushed to where the housing is least expensive. The suburbs normally constitute 60% to 85% of housing units in a metropolitan area. It should be no surprise that at some point a growing percentage of the cheapest housing in a metro area is being found where the majority of all housing exists.
Cities don’t need UGB’s, what they need to do is set aside more park land.