| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
 Wed Jun 01, 2022 6:41 am |
|
|
I've lived in suburbs and dense urban areas. As an adult I found dense urban areas far more livable than I expected and enjoyed much of what they offer.
Life in the suburbs depends entirely on having a car.
However the little patch of green in the backyard is fantastic for parents to say to their kids , go outside and play while I make dinner.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
BigBrunyon
Member
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!! |
The Big Grill needs to go in the yard.
 mosey
mosey |
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:32 am |
|
|
| Anne Elk wrote: | | All the density increases the city could permit won't change that arithmetic. |
Why do you say that? The simplest macro-economic principle of all is price is where supply and demand converge. Build more housing and the price must go down, although there are certainly other factors at play like building supplies shortages.
I think the only solution for humanity to thrive long term is for us to be concentrated in urban areas. It's more efficient, it's more environmentally sustainable. Non urban areas should be reserved for habitat preservation, food production and resource extraction, and recreation. I don't think this way because I think urban living is somehow better, or preferred. I think it's a necessity to keep the planet from becoming scorched earth.
But I don't believe in laws that force people to live in urban environments. I believe in the fair market. The problem is, the supposed fair market is not fair. We subsidize rural and suburban living in a variety of ways, some obvious, some not so obvious. For instance, when we use tax dollars to maintain roads those dollars go much farther on urban roads, that a lot of people use, versus rural roads, which few people use. Amazon charges the same to ship to downtown Seattle as they do out to rural Washington, even though their delivery van can serve many more people in downtown Seattle than in rural Washington. Now that everything, including food, can be purchased online and delivered, rural living is even more convenient.
I spent the weekend in Mazama at a home my friends just built. Everyone there was a young professional with kids and everyone started their career in Seattle, but moved to places like Leavenworth and Wenatchee after they were able to work from home full time. Now those places are too crowded so they have moved on to the Methow Valley. Not everyone in Seattle who can work from home will move to Mazama. But it doesn't take many people moving to Mazama to dramatically alter the landscape there.
I don't blame my friends and Iron for running away from urban life. We have to make the markets truly free, and stop subsidizing rural living, so that urban living is significantly cheaper than suburban and rural living. We have to make urban living desirable so that people voluntarily chose to live in urban environments. It makes no sense that Seattle, with high property crime rates, homeless, traffic, and pollution, is one of the most expensive places to live in the state. All of Seattle's problems should make it cheaper to live. Living in Mazama, and other desirable rural locations, should be where it is expensive, and a true luxury.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist
Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 2419 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:42 pm |
|
|
| altasnob wrote: | | Anne Elk wrote: | | All the density increases the city could permit won't change that arithmetic. |
Why do you say that? The simplest macro-economic principle of all is price is where supply and demand converge. Build more housing and the price must go down, although there are certainly other factors at play like building supplies shortages. |
Builders still need to make a profit, and the fact that they're willing to pay $500K to not have to sell any units in their projects at market rate is an index of where the market is. If the city suddenly rezoned every neighborhood in Seattle for density, that wouldn't change their arithmetic, the land values aren't going to drop, nor the taxes. If the city wants "affordable" right now, they should be building their own Section 8 housing. But that's a subsidy, something you think we shouldn't be doing, at least in non-urban areas. I believe Seattle actually has a small surplus of housing right now, the problem is, it's not affordable. As a small-time landlord myself, I can tell you that I've always endeavored to be slightly under-market to retain good tenants, but local taxes and more regulation has made it extremely impossible to keep up. My last re-fi (to get the low interest rates) put and extra $700/month in my pocket. It took less than 5 years for property taxes and insurance to eat all that up. Such conditions are not going to change.
| altasnob wrote: | | I think the only solution for humanity to thrive long term is for us to be concentrated in urban areas. It's more efficient, it's more environmentally sustainable. Non urban areas should be reserved for habitat preservation, food production and resource extraction, and recreation. I don't think this way because I think urban living is somehow better, or preferred. I think it's a necessity to keep the planet from becoming scorched earth. |
It seems like that's actually something your friends who relocated to eastern Washington, don't want, and plenty of people in the city aren't keen on, either ... being squashed into little beehive boxes. As far as "solutions for humanity to thrive long term" - the real solution for humanity is to decrease the surplus population. Humans need to either stop reproducing at current rates or stop living as long. But you don't hear a peep from environmentalists these days about population control. Then there's the problem of economic model being based on principles of endless growth and profits. That's the true unsustainability; like overpopulation. The amt of unnecessary conspicuous consumption is staggering. But ... "freedom".
| altasnob wrote: | | But I don't believe in laws that force people to live in urban environments. I believe in the fair market. The problem is, the supposed fair market is not fair. We subsidize rural and suburban living in a variety of ways, some obvious, some not so obvious. For instance, when we use tax dollars to maintain roads those dollars go much farther on urban roads, that a lot of people use, versus rural roads, which few people use. Amazon charges the same to ship to downtown Seattle as they do out to rural Washington, even though their delivery van can serve many more people in downtown Seattle than in rural Washington. Now that everything, including food, can be purchased online and delivered, rural living is even more convenient.
I don't blame my friends and Iron for running away from urban life. We have to make the markets truly free, and stop subsidizing rural living, so that urban living is significantly cheaper than suburban and rural living. |
The rural folk would disagree with your reasoning there; they're always complaining about having to subsidize urban mega-transit projects, et al. Some would say that the Amazon phenomenon decreases the overall number of vehicles on the road everywhere b/c we're all not out there driving to the stores. If the work-from-home model that's become vogue during the pandemic sustains itself, there will be even less need for transit mega-projects. And pretty soon Amazon will be delivering more of their stuff via drones.
| altasnob wrote: | | We have to make urban living desirable so that people voluntarily chose to live in urban environments. |
We already do, or did. It's called "jobs". That's what drove up demand, and prices. You say the "free market isn't free"; so what's your definition?
| altasnob wrote: | | It makes no sense that Seattle, with high property crime rates, homeless, traffic, and pollution, is one of the most expensive places to live in the state. |
Well that's a bug, not a feature, that came later, on the heels of being desirable. Further increasing density isn't going to help without a serious change in neighborhood design, increased safety via more policing to deal with the now burgeoning criminal class, and what to do about those darn inconvenient homeless drug-addicted people.
| altasnob wrote: | | All of Seattle's problems should make it cheaper to live. Living in Mazama, and other desirable rural locations, should be where it is expensive, and a true luxury. |
So you're actually advocating a different type of social engineering? You're also suggesting that the city should be allowed to descend into more of the problems we're experiencing to make it less desirable? Give it time. That probably will happen; a repeat of 19th century urban blight, with a few modifications. Really rich folk living in 21st century high rise castles and enclaves like the Highlands, surrounded by subsidized, very packed-in housing. Some of their serfs will probably still be commuting.
Seattle's already well on its way with social engineering experiments: building tomorrow's segregated neighborhoods. They rezoned mine for more density, more build-out sf per lot, and are not requiring builders to provide off-street parking (and those who do charge more). Builders have to build up so that the housing unit sf's justify their prices. Nothing built on my street is really suitable for elderly folks (3-4 stories, all stairs), or families w/very small children (no yards, and, again, lots of stair-climbing), so these neighborhoods will now be highly segregated by age and family status, unless we have a sudden influx of buyers used to the lifestyle restrictions of places like Hong Kong and NYC. The city's been trying their darndest to force people into mass transit, as if people purchasing these new town homes will not own cars. But that will probably happen eventually - someday they'll all be occupied by people who can't afford cars.
I'm not saying that I disagree with your basic values, but your POV is full of contradictions. The solutions you suggest will exacerbate the social/economic divides. Our biggest problems (at least in this country) stem from the out-of-control economic disparities caused by stagnant wages since the 80's. You keep talking about "truly free markets" - well, define that, because a lot of what you're proposing includes a lot of reverse-subsidies and other government control over "cost of goods" or land or whatever, that isn't really getting at the root of the problem, which is that the price of everything has run wild, but worker salaries have been suppressed for decades, and their (formerly) good paying jobs shipped to the cheapest overseas locations.
"There are yahoos out there. It’s why we can’t have nice things." - Tom Mahood
"There are yahoos out there. It’s why we can’t have nice things." - Tom Mahood
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uww
Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2015
Posts: 318 | TRs | Pics
|
|
uww
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 3:02 pm |
|
|
| altasnob wrote: | | The simplest macro-economic principle of all is price is where supply and demand converge. Build more housing and the price must go down, although there are certainly other factors at play like building supplies shortages. |
Housing is not widgets. It is not a coincidence that from the beginning of time, urban areas have gotten more expensive as they have grown.
Anne Elk
Anne Elk |
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 3:06 pm |
|
|
Have they? Why do $8 million people chose to live in a place like Mexico City? It's not because they enjoy a walk able lifestyle surrounded by arts and fancy restaurants. They do so because they believe living in the city is the best financial choice.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uww
Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2015
Posts: 318 | TRs | Pics
|
|
uww
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 3:13 pm |
|
|
Living in the city may be the best financial choice, but it is not because the housing is less expensive than in rural villages.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiliki
Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2324 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
kiliki
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 3:31 pm |
|
|
| CC wrote: | | Chief Joseph wrote: | | This thread title should read...."Smart people are moving out of urban counties while the getting is good". |
I don't think you need to worry about smart people moving to Idaho though. What smart person would want to be driving around with license plates that say FAMOUS POTATOES? Is that really the most positive thing that can be said about Idaho? Idaho: come for the famous potatoes, stay for the lesser-know rutabagas. Of course people could tape over the "atoes" like some people in Wisconsin did with the "to" when their plates said ESCAPE TO WISCONSIN. It wouldn't be accurate but at least it wouldn't be pathetic, and it might be self-fulfilling.
Maybe it's time to think about a new motto for Idaho plates. They could have a write-in-contest like New Jersey did a few years ago, although in that case it didn't quite work out. The most-suggested motto was YOU GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT?. so they ended up keeping the old one. Anyway, my entry for Idaho's new motto is "militias to fit every budget." |
Oh, my friend, you clearly haven't seen the buttery potato Idaho license plate, which, quite objectively, I think is the best license plate of all time.
Back when I thought I wanted to move to Ketchum--when it seemed the crazies were confined to northern ID, before it became clear the whole state has gone around the bend and is headed to Handmaid's Tale territory--I was very excited at the idea of getting this license plate. Alas.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiliki
Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2324 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
kiliki
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 3:44 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | It makes no sense that Seattle, with high property crime rates, homeless, traffic, and pollution, is one of the most expensive places to live in the state. |
Well, the premise isn't correct. That doesn't reflect the reality of living here.
People do things for reasons. If those things were actually such a big issue, people wouldn't live here.
The traffic and pollution part really don't make sense. Those aren't things bound by city limits. I think I suffer a lot less from traffic as I can walk to so much or take transit.
If you are actually interested I can tell you why I think Seattle is a great place to live--not as great as it was pre-Amazon, but still very good. But I know that might not be in the hyperbolic spirit of Full Moon Saloon.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:09 pm |
|
|
| uww wrote: | | Living in the city may be the best financial choice, but it is not because the housing is less expensive than in rural villages. |
This is the problem we are facing. Work from home is here to stay. Sure, there are perks to living in a city (I have lived in Seattle for 8 years, still visit the city often, and where I live in Tacoma is Seattle 2.0). But if you are making Seattle wages, and can live anywhere on earth, it makes no financial sense to pay a massive premium for those perks. More and more people are making this realization so you are seeing all the suburbs and places like Leavenworth, Wenatchee, Bellingham, ect. blow up. I don't think it is good for humanity if we take the 4 million living in the Puget Sound metro and spread them around the state.
So how do you convince people to voluntarily remain in a city even though their dollars go much farther if they move far from the city?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiliki
Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2324 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
kiliki
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:49 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | But if you are making Seattle wages, and can live anywhere on earth, it makes no financial sense to pay a massive premium for those perks. |
Well, maybe not to you. But to plenty of people it is. Clearly. Look at what people pay to be in SF, NYC, etc. The perks of cities make it worth it for a ton of people. If my choice was to pay a premium to live in Seattle or to live in an amazing but cheap spread in Wenatchee, no contest--I'm shelling out for Seattle (all I see in Wenatchee is litter, giant loud pickups and fast food joints). Even Bellingham...zzzzzzz. Leavenworth? A Bavarian themed tourist town? To live in?
And then there are those of us that are here but aren't paying a premium. We bought in 2002. Anyone who has owned a home for a while (prices were okay through what, 2012?), or who sold a more expensive home to move here (like all the CA transplants), isn't paying a premium.
| Quote: | | So how do you convince people to voluntarily remain in a city even though their dollars go much farther if they move far from the city? |
Who said we need to? We have plenty of people, about 100K too many in fact.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7721 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:57 pm |
|
|
| Anne Elk wrote: | | As far as "solutions for humanity to thrive long term" - the real solution for humanity is to decrease the surplus population. Humans need to either stop reproducing at current rates or stop living as long. But you don't hear a peep from environmentalists these days about population control. |
It's absolutely true that there are too many humans on earth, with too much accumulated impact. I can only guess the reason you don't hear many environmentalists talking about this very much is because they think it's a losing issue and the wrong hill to die on? But you're right, it's at the core of all of this.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 5:29 pm |
|
|
One of the issues with "population control" is who gets to decide who gets to breed and who doesn't. The other issue is that in developed counties like the USA the amount of resources consumed by 1 person is many times larger than the resources consumed in less industrialized countries. So it rings a little imperialist when people from a wealthy country like the USA calls for population control in less wealthy countries.
In the USA there are also huge political issues about fertility, e.g. one of the fuels of the anti-abortion movement is the fear that White Anglo-Saxon women aren't breeding fast enough to "keep up" with immigrant women from Catholic countries or descendants of enslaved people.
Interestingly one of the strongest correlations between a lower birth rate in a country is women's literary rate. When women are treated with enough equality that they can attend school at least enough to learn to read and write, they have fewer children.
So pursuiting justice for women might be one of the most effective things that can be done to protect the ecosystem that sustains us all.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 5:38 pm |
|
|
The birth rate in the US is well below replacement level, as it is in in every wealthy country on earth. The only reason the population in the US is still going up is because of immigration, not births. Every expert analysis I have read indicates the world's population will soon plateau and then start to decline.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Thu Jun 02, 2022 5:43 pm |
|
|
| kiliki wrote: | | Well, maybe not to you. But to plenty of people it is. Clearly. Look at what people pay to be in SF, NYC, etc. The perks of cities make it worth it for a ton of people. |
This is in the past. I am talking about in the future. A massive swath of the population now has the ability to work from home. This is a massive game changer. I get why people did live in these places. But I am wondering why they will continue to do so when commute is no longer an issue to consider.
| kiliki wrote: | | And then there are those of us that are here but aren't paying a premium. We bought in 2002. |
Exactly. Why would anyone in their right mind who is trying to purchase their first home ever consider Seattle. I wouldn't even buy my house in Tacoma if I had to pay what it was worth today (bought in 2015).
Not every single person is going to flee Seattle for Bellingham or Cle Elum. But those communities are not built the handle the massive population increases they will soon experience.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
