>>>>> "Rick" == Rick Mons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rick> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The problem is that the suburbs and exurbs
>> are already dumping their social problems into the cities for us to
>> pay for.
Rick> It's not clear to me how suburbs "dump their social problems
Rick> into the cities for (city taxpayers) to pay for." Can you
Rick> provide some examples?
Rick> I wholly support the fact that the vast majority of social
Rick> services are funded via state and county funds rather than
Rick> municipal funds since it amortizes those societal costs
Rick> across a broader spectrum og population. I would also agree
Rick> that there are disproportionately more impoverished who live
Rick> in the cities than the suburbs (but disagree when others
Rick> attribute this to a conscious conspiratorial set of
Rick> actions).
Rick> This is the first I've read that the suburbs have social
Rick> problems that are somehow transferred to the cities ... or
Rick> p'haps you misspoke (er, mistyped).
I can see that my rhetoric ran out ahead of me. No, I did not mean to
imply a conscious conspiratorial set of actions!
But the suburbs, and even more the exurbs, are places where there is
little or no affordable housing, little or no public transit, and (to
a somewhat lesser extent) few resources to support people with severe
chronic illnesses (both physical and psychological). Poor people
simply can't live in the suburbs (with rare exceptions)! Without
cars it's impossible to get around (a large proportion of recent
developments don't even include sidewalks, much less bus access).
This isn't really debatable --- all you have to do to confirm this is
to read business section articles about the hiring problems of big-box
retailers.
Indeed, getting away from the poor is a lot of the reason why people
move out (taxation, schooling, and affordable housing for the middle
class being others).
But, it's clear that this leaves the cities as concentrating points
for poverty, illness, and immigration.
To the extent that there's a base rate of, just to take one example,
severe chronic schizophrenia, over the population as a whole, that
burden is shifted from the suburbs and exurbs onto the cities.
Likewise, to the extent that our society benefits from the absorption
of immigrants (and I don't know who the heck else is going to foot the
bill for the upcoming bulge of retirements), that cost is being borne
by the cities.
Now, honestly, I think that's probably a good thing. A lot of these
problems couldn't be addressed well in rural, exurban, or even
suburban communities. They don't have the facilities, and it probably
wouldn't take the entitlements of many severely disabled students to
wipe out the budget of a rural school system. How would small
communities deal with each having, say, two Hmong-speaking children,
two Somali-speaking children, and five Spanish-speaking children?
But our governmental structures don't actually encourage a sharing of
revenue to offset the sharing of burdens. As a city-dweller, I am, of
course, partial. But I don't think suburban- or exurbanites would
benefit much, either, if we manage to turn Minneapolis-St. Paul into
another Detroit. No offense to suburbanites intended!
Robert
--
Robert P. Goldman
ECCO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
