I made that term up I guess. Here is a website that lists some companies, industries and employment in Northern Kentucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy
Printable View
I made that term up I guess. Here is a website that lists some companies, industries and employment in Northern Kentucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
Ever heard of the crowding out effect?
Is that 12 Trillion dollars wealth? Is it wealth that was created by the government? Where does the government get the 12 Trillion dollars? Is it possible that left to market devices the 12 Trillion dollars would still exist but in a different and more beneficial allocation?
I don't think we would have 12 Trillion dollars less of housing in this country without the government just because the government backs 12 Trillion dollars of mortgage paper. Some of that obviously would exist anyway. It is lunacy to think that the government built all the houses because they bought up a bunch of mortgage paper.
Maybe some of that money would have gone into capital investments and research and development. Maybe the 12 Trillion would be worth a lot more by now. It is also striking how close that figure is to our national debt.
Government spending crowds out private spending. For one thing, the government has to take the property away from people in the first place, taking away their ability to spend it. For another they use scarce resources, including human resources like Doctors and Scientists. That drives up the cost of those resources to the private sector.
The British have the National Health Service. It is government run health care. Now if the NHS didn't exist, do you think that the British wouldn't have any health care? That is silly.
We didn't used to have government run schools in this country. The Government has a monopoly in education, with over 90% of the K-12 population. If we didn't have the government, would schools not exist but for less than 10% of the population? That is silly.
So the government subsidizes the mortgage industry. That doesn't mean we wouldn't have a mortgage industry, and it doesn't mean that you can make a literal dollar for dollar reduction to the mortgage industry we have now. That is silly.
I am wondering what the point was of comparing the demographics between Cincinnati and Seattle? You didn't draw any relevant conclusions, you just implied that a) black people aren't progressive enough to support a streetcar b) if they did ride the train they would bring bed bugs and make them dirty c) the street car won't work in Cincinnati due to it's proximity to blacks. I don't think that's what you meant to imply, but either way your argument about white flight seems out of place in the context of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
The progressives in places like Portland and Seattle likely built the streetcars for environmental purposes foremost, amid all the other practical reasons to do it. The environmentalism construct rules progressive thought these days, most people know that.
This is the point that many don't get in Cincinnati. Portland and Seattle are located in the immensely beautiful Pacific Northwest, which is constantly being protected by those pesky "progressives". Nothing compares with it in the US. Mountainous visages, incredible waterways, lush green forest all around, very moderate climate (it's never been below 0 in Seattle and never 100 degrees). It offers an incredibly fulfilling lifestyle before the first word about cities are mentioned. Comparing the Midwest with it is no contest. It's hard to find a local here in Seattle because they're all Big 10 engineers and computer programmers. There is a siphon sucking all the talent into this area (and others, sure) and there has been for 40 years.
I think some don't acknowledge this advantage in Cincinnati because they don't really know or because it's too harsh a reality. Cincinnati will never have the Cascades and Mt. Rainer situated among dozens of remote forested islands in an Ocean inlet where the seafood is always delicious.
Sorry.
But...the streetcar is just one thing Cincinnati can do to appeal to the many 1000's of young people nationally who think environmentally, who want to live in a dense area with lot's of people and a good social life (yes this does exist!), but don't want to live 2000 miles from home. And circumstantially, Cincinnati is one of, if not the, nicest cities in the Midwest. It's not hard to love. But, if you go to its core and there is nothing exciting to do, why would you want to move there? Why wouldn't you want to move somewhere else?
It is very important that OTR gets revitalized. The streetcar is gentrification 101. You delineate the area that needs protection, investment, and direction, then you go about watching it grow with private investment. It's not a hard concept, there is proof it can work, OTR needs to lose it's reputation of crime and poverty, the city needs another/more local flavor, it just makes sense. If it's a completely safe, viable neighborhood in 10-15 years (or sooner), what a success it would be for the city and it's people.
As for the government is too big argument, cut taxes, etc, etc. The alternative's to government regulation are what happened in the past to force regulation. If you remove the rules, the same thing will happen that needed prevention. You probably don't like Nader, but do you think automobile safety would be where it is without his efforts to regulate? The list of private corporate scandal and oversight is so hilariously long and atrocious I really can't see how anyone could miss it. You can thank government regulation for so many of the simple quality of life issues you don't have to worry about. To be outright against something like government regulation or intervention tells me you grew up watching too many cowboy flicks and must find yourself wishing you were born long ago. If you wanted to go line by line through a lot of the bureaucratic waste, I'd gladly do that too, but this streetcar/OTR vision has lots of merit and is really a decisive piece of the future of downtown.
Will it work even though it's not in a "progressive" city? I think it will at least serve it's purpose of stemming the tide of downward do-nothing-ness. It will definitely bring lots of investment and change to OTR. It already has and people have said it wouldn't. OTR has had "change" boiling under the surface for decades, now there is a further defined area to make something happen. If the connection between Clifton and downtown is a success with getting young people downtown, I think you'll see a lot more young professionals who are attracted to city life / living staying in Cincinnati. UC and downtown have so much to offer each other. XU getting in on this would be perfect as well. (I've been wanting to see a downtown campus as XU's next expansion, btw.)
The last piece that interests me (off topic) is the success of the Reds. Sounds funny, but if the Reds have a contender over the next 5-10 years, we'll finally see the lift in downtown that was promised in 1995 or whenever. Long overdue, for sure. But the Banks living arrangements are in high demand now, so that is a good sign. I like to think of it as Jay Bruce and Joey Votto carrying the city on their backs, literally. I don't like that fact, and I hate Paul Brown Stadium outright, but it's what we're stuck with when people in government have to bow to private interests, right?
It is also silly to ignore the incredible amount of equalization the government has provided where, privately that was never going to happen. Your "repeal the 14th amendment" argument was odious at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
If there was only private ownership of housing, there would be millions and millions of homeless people. Especially after the economy tanks due to deregulation in this libertarian utopia, or was that the Great Depression? Either way, yes, all things will take care of themselves when greedy rich people are left unchecked. Yes, sounds about right. At least with the government things are rightfully kept in check, in concept if nothing else. Geeze, I feel like I'm arguing HS civics here. And the tea partyers wonder why they're accused of being radical? Their vision is a total departure from today's world. It's near anarchy, which is only fun if you're drunk.
Ugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
Most companies don't own their office space. They rent. Why do they rent? One reason is that the government decided not to heavily subsidize companies to own their own place, unlike home ownership. Yet, companies find a place to do business by renting.
I think one of the better developments in DC is that both conservatives and liberals recognize that the government should not subsidize home ownership (it just took the almost meltdown of the world economy). Look for the mortgage deduction to end. Look for the government to get out of fannie and freddie. Barney Frank is even behind this.
I don't own a home, pizza. Yet, I'm not homeless. Crazy!!!
Homeless companies? I don't think I mentioned homeless companies. Anyway...The Great Depression brought on hundreds of thousands of homeless, with a much greater population now I think the homeless number would likely increase, no?
I'm sorry, I think I deleted that (I love to edit my posts...).Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
I believe that the government should provide a safety net. Section 8 housing is far from perfect. But it's a safety net to keep people off the streets.
But why should the government give cash to middle and upper class Americans to purchase homes.
I think that's why liberals are even calling for an end to subsidization. Why should the government funnel money into the hands of already relatively wealthy Americans.
Why is it very important that OTR gets revitalized? You are just going to displace the criminal element elsewhere in the city. You aren't eliminating anything. What makes OTR more important to revitalize than any other part of the city, at the expense of other parts of the city. Let's say you succeed in moving the criminal element out of OTR and into the West End. Good for OTR I guess, but bad for the West End.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
People in Cincinnati love OTR for some reason, but if it was so great why did it become such a craphole? We like to talk about how revitalizing OTR is the key to 'bringing back' downtown and luring and keeping young professionals. Why is this yet to be realized vision of some utopian OTR with rehabbed buildings and no crime the key to luring young professionals to Cincinnati?
I would rather see them continue to develop the area between the river and 7th street before worrying about OTR.
If you want to respond to another thread by all means go ahead. This thread might not the right place though.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
To correct you though, I didn't advocate repealing the 14th amendment...
I don't think that is odius, hateful or repugnant myself. I don't think the 14th amendment should be allowed for Chinese or Turkish birth tourists. I guess that goes for odius in todays climate of debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
Wow. That website is awesome. I think two of those companies are inside of 275, and the second largest (Comair) is heading for the toilet, quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
I hear from a lot of people how awesome Northern Kentucky is. I work in Northern Kentucky. It's a shithole. Covington is a shithole. Newport is a shithole. Newport on the Levee is an okay entertainment complex. That's it.
I run a fair amount through the streets of Covington. It's not at all odd to have to dodge poop on the sidewalk, and probably only about half of it is animal poop. The city of Covington doesn't have the money to make contractually obligated maintenance and repairs to the garage of the building I work in. It's a dirty, smelly, run down city.
Whenever people point to the "success" of Northern Kentucky as evidence of Cincinnati's failures, I am instantly sure they have no idea what they are talking about.