Why raising taxes is nessecary

[MRT144]

Yes, both LA and Columbus were private money. LA's Staples is owned by a huge entertainment group and is part of a large entertainment district. Columbus's Nationwide was built by a huge financial company with a real estate arm.

Both are sucessful examples of a stadium being part of a redevelopment that adds to the tax base of the municipality.

We'll soon have a case of a partially publicly funded arena as part of a district when Edmonton's arena and district are complete, but there is already a rush to build in the area. Edmonton, like LA, Detroit, and Cbus competes for dollars and citizens with surrounding municipalities.

Yeah, the difference between public and private financing are that you can more easily recoup investment because you're taking a larger fraction of every purchase. Most states and or cities don't or wont recoup 300-500 million dollars from sales taxes in and around the stadium in any relevant lifetime metric for the stadium itself. In Seattle we finished paying off the Kingdome after the Kingdome was demolished.

Key Arena and Kingdome should be textbook examples of arenas not really doing jack **** for tax revenues.

[MRT144]

You misunderstand. Let's see it from another angle: in 1970 Detroit proper had 34% of the metro population. In 2010 it was 17%. In Chicago the numbers are 47% and 30% respectively. A shift of 17% in both cases. What the numbers indicate is that Detroitsters didn't flee to the suburbs to an unusual degree, they fled the entire metro area to an unusual degree. Assuming zero net migration Detroit metro should easily have had a million more inhabitants.



Plenty of ****holes that are or have been thriving economic centres.

Yeah, like the entire south since they moved automotive production down there. Or the HQ of Walmart. They succeed because they are in ****holes.

[DinoDoc]

Yeah, like the entire south since they moved automotive production down there. Or the HQ of Walmart. They succeed because they are in ****holes.

So what's Detroit's excuse for every auto maker leaving? It's clearly a ****hole.

[MRT144]

So what's Detroit's excuse for every auto maker leaving? It's clearly a ****hole.

Detroit had no foresight. It became too successful too quickly and didnt develop any industry outside of the auto industry. When the manufacture of automobiles wasnt hamstrung by deeper logistics problems, being an automotive center with the aging capital in place didnt matter as much.

It's much easier to start brand new plant in a relatively small city than revitalize a dying metropolis. You dont have any baggage there.

[snoopy369]

A lot of that came from the quick growth; I don't know of many cities who grew as quickly as Detroit did and did it particularly well. Detroit needs a Great Detroit Fire or somesuch to start over again (see: Chicago) with more competent planning

[notyoueither]

You misunderstand. Let's see it from another angle: in 1970 Detroit proper had 34% of the metro population. In 2010 it was 17%. In Chicago the numbers are 47% and 30% respectively. A shift of 17% in both cases. What the numbers indicate is that Detroitsters didn't flee to the suburbs to an unusual degree, they fled the entire metro area to an unusual degree. Assuming zero net migration Detroit metro should easily have had a million more inhabitants.

Debatable. People fled the City of Detroit to a larger degree than they fled the area. From 1970 to 2010 the City lost 800,286 people, the metro lost 194,652. 3 out of 4 people moved to the burbs or were replaced by entirely new arrivals.

Detroit has suffered far more severe depopulation at the same time as the metro area has been slowly decreasing overall. Furthermore, Detroit has suffered depopulation of entire classes of people as most people with any sort of income leave the City for the burbs. Tellingly, Detroit's median value of owner occupied housing is $71,100 compared to $137,300 for the state. Chicago's numbers are $260,800 for the City and $198,500 for the state.

Quite simply, Detroit's tax base has left, Chicago's has not to anywhere near the same degree (if at all). What is happening in Detroit is not revealed by it's size relative to the metro area. It is revealed in endless blocks of unihabited and demolished homes.

Plenty of ****holes that are or have been thriving economic centres.

In what countries?

[Colonâ„¢]

NYE, it seems to escape you that people reproduce naturally. Assuming a fairly low natural increase of 0.5%/year Detroit metro should be having a population of 5.4 million, so the net emigration is much larger than 200k. Again, Detroit metro is one of the few metro areas to have seen its population fall over a time span of decades. All industrial era cities have experienced flight from the core to the suburbs, but few have experienced such a flight from the entire metro area. If there had been sufficient jobs the population fall in Detroit would have been far less severe.

[notyoueither]

I considered natural increase, but didn't look at it as my assumption is that without migration the urban population of the US would be growing very slowly if at all and that has been the case for some time. Perhaps I'm mistaken about that.

[Colonâ„¢]

I see no reason to believe metro areas would have smaller natural increases than other places. And even in the early 2000's, when immigration into the US was peaking, its contribution towards national population growth was only 40%. Before that it was usually lower.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2012/us-population-growth-decline.aspx

http://www.npg.org/forum_series/images/imm&pop_growth/chart_2.gif

[notyoueither]

Hmm. OK, that has to be considered as well.