Introduction of thread removed by author.

I think South Carolina will see a lot of growth soon.  Florida, on the other hand, is starting to stagnate, primarily because of the housing bust.

Atlanta is also feeling some pain now, since the cost of living has skyrocketed while wages remain low.

North Carolina is in the middle.  On the one hand, Raleigh and Charlotte are still growing rapidly, but my town of Greensboro is slowing down now.  A lot of rural NC is poorer than ever, with parts of Western NC registering some of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

Texas is doing well economically, and it will probably continue that way.  The main problems they face are coming from Mexico (mainly organized crime), but that's another discussion.

Arizona will probably take a plunge in growth due to its skyrocketing crime.

The problem with the Southwest -- Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas -- is there's no water there.  They have to pump it all in through gigantic diverting, pumping, and damming systems, mostly via the Colorado River.  Even so, there's only so many people such a scheme can support and only a certain amount of time.  It might be 10 years, it might be 20 years, it might be 40 years, but sooner or later the Southwest is gonna start to run dry and when it does, it'll be a lot less fun to live there!

Over the past 25 years, white hipsters have been discovering cities are great places to live.  It's catching on like wildfire now.  It's gotten to the point in NYC where even Brooklyn is getting too pricey.  There's an attempt to gentrify Bronx neighborhoods such as Mott Haven, which once were left for dead.  Ever heard of Sobro?  South Bronx.  It's a play on Soho.  They're trying to make it sound chic.  I drove through, ahem, Sobro a few weeks ago.  I'd say it's going to take a little more time and effort before anyone can say "Sobro" with a straight face...but it will happen!
;D

The problem with the Southwest -- Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas -- is there's no water there.  They have to pump it all in through gigantic diverting, pumping, and damming systems, mostly via the Colorado River.  Even so, there's only so many people such a scheme can support and only a certain amount of time.  It might be 10 years, it might be 20 years, it might be 40 years, but sooner or later the Southwest is gonna start to run dry and when it does, it'll be a lot less fun to live there!

Over the past 25 years, white hipsters have been discovering cities are great places to live.  It's catching on like wildfire now.  It's gotten to the point in NYC where even Brooklyn is getting too pricey.  There's an attempt to gentrify Bronx neighborhoods such as Mott Haven, which once were left for dead.  Ever heard of Sobro?  South Bronx.  It's a play on Soho.  They're trying to make it sound chic.  I drove through, ahem, Sobro a few weeks ago.  I'd say it's going to take a little more time and effort before anyone can say "Sobro" with a straight face...but it will happen!
;D


So basically, the poor people will be driven out yet again.

So basically, the poor people will be driven out yet again.


Why not? Violence and poverty are what drove the rich people from those places to start with.  Tit for tat, so to speak.

Why not? Violence and poverty are what drove the rich people from those places to start with.  Tit for tat, so to speak.


What is "tat" and how can I exchange it for the other thing?
???

The new slums will be the first ring of suburbs outside the major cities.

What made the suburban enclave possible?  Cheap oil.  No cheap oil, no 'burbs, at least not as we have known them since the end of WWII.

Why not? Violence and poverty are what drove the rich people from those places to start with.  Tit for tat, so to speak.

Eh...  sort of...  What also drove them out were higher taxes.

While cheap oil was definitely part of the suburbanization process, so were property taxes.  People were willing to commute long distances if it meant paying less taxes on a mortgage.  At the same time, they still used the public amenities of the city, burdening the people living in the inner city more with rising taxation to keep up with public expenses.

One of the most dramatic "white flight" cities is St. Louis.  Things got so bad with things like school funding that the state of Missouri had to take over at one point.  If I'm not mistaken, the state still runs their city schools.

Detroit seems to be in a similar situation.

Either way, this is why annexation is important.  Suburbanites should have to pay the same property taxes as inner city people, since they use the same amenities (most of the time at least).

Then again, less suburbanization would occur in the first place, if less emphasis was put on property tax and more on sales tax.

Either way, this is why annexation is important.  Suburbanites should have to pay the same property taxes as inner city people, since they use the same amenities (most of the time at least).



Why not just eliminate municipalities altogether and have one single federal governmental entity? ???

Why not just eliminate municipalities altogether and have one single federal governmental entity? ???


I'm assuming you're being sarcastic.  Just in case you're not, logistically, that would be a nightmare.

Annexation is a natural process that is necessary for the health of a city as it grows.  The cities that do not properly annex neighboring territory suffer a lot of inner city decay (like Detroit and St. Louis).

Why not just eliminate municipalities altogether and have one single federal governmental entity? ???


OK, but only if we divide it up into sectors administrated by gay abortionist priests!
:P

They've been talking about the perils of the rustbelt since I was a kid.  It hasn't gotten any better.  The city government of Flint, Michigan, wants to officially close whole swaths of the city's residential zones.  Move the people out and abandon the neighborhoods so the city doesn't have to provide services.  In my state, Massachusetts, we have the old mill towns.  These have been stagnant and depressed since the 1960s.  With the exception of Lowell, parts of which were refurbished with the expansion of the university and high-tech investments in the 1970s, most of these mill towns continue to rot.  Lawrence and Holyoke are even bigger poverty pots than they were 25 years ago, and they were pretty bad then.  Sure, you get some home owners making an honest stab at re-creating community in these cities, but its a losing battle. 

Generally, if you live in a country that does not make anything, it's really hard to maintain cities. 
::)

Eh...  sort of...  What also drove them out were higher taxes.

While cheap oil was definitely part of the suburbanization process, so were property taxes.  People were willing to commute long distances if it meant paying less taxes on a mortgage.  At the same time, they still used the public amenities of the city, burdening the people living in the inner city more with rising taxation to keep up with public expenses.

One of the most dramatic "white flight" cities is St. Louis.  Things got so bad with things like school funding that the state of Missouri had to take over at one point.  If I'm not mistaken, the state still runs their city schools.

Detroit seems to be in a similar situation.

Either way, this is why annexation is important.  Suburbanites should have to pay the same property taxes as inner city people, since they use the same amenities (most of the time at least).

Then again, less suburbanization would occur in the first place, if less emphasis was put on property tax and more on sales tax.


Here's the South Bronx in the '70s and some buildings getting demolished in other cities, music by Philip Glass whose name is synonymous with minimalism.  The big housing project is Pruitt Igoe, in your St. Louis, which was demolished in 1972.  It showed a lot of promise when it was developed in the early '50s, but then once it had to be integrated...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t29fgA5M7VA