Tag Archives: local government

Discussing the rise in suburban poverty in the Pittsburgh region

Posted on by

After a recent report discussed the rise of poverty in the suburbs and the inability of many suburban governments to provide services for those in poverty, here is how this plays out in the Pittsburgh region:

In Western Pennsylvania, the increase of suburban poverty is not because poor people are moving into those areas. Instead, people living in the suburbs are becoming poor. Chris Briem, of the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Social & Urban Research, said local areas with high rates of poverty are “not necessarily places that are poor because of out-migration from the city.”…

Alexandra Murphy has been living in Penn Hills for the past three years studying the suburban poor for a doctorate in sociology from Princeton University. She said the working class, which was “on the brink of making ends meet” before the recession, found itself what she termed “poor in place,” and needing access to food banks and help with bills just like the traditional poor in the cities.

Murphy said the difference between urban poverty and suburban poverty is that the latter “doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to meet the needs.”…

Mike Irwin, associate professor and chair of the Department of Sociology at Duquesne University, said that kind of a shift can result in “social disorganization” in some communities, which can lead to increased crime. The deterioration some communities have experienced over the past few decades could soon occur in more places, he said.

More and more suburban communities will encounter these issues. Considering the budget shortfalls faced by many municipalities and other units of local governments (school districts, park districts, etc.), how can they find money for social services?

If anything, this does provide an opportunity for religious congregations and organizations to step up and not only meet subsistence needs but also to think creatively about providing jobs and housing for the long term. Instead of just sending money to the inner city or overseas, wealthy suburban churches can now help out in their own backyards and help boost local economies.

Poor in the suburbs: a growing plurality in the United States

Posted on by

After a headline earlier this week about a “suburban depression,” more data shows the suburbs contain a growing plurality of the poor in the United States:

Significantly, the 2000s also marked a turning point in the geography of American poverty. The 2010 data confirm that poor populations continued their decade-long shift toward suburban areas. From 2000 to 2010, the number of poor people in major-metro suburbs grew 53 percent (5.3 million people), compared to 23 percent in cities (2.4 million people). By 2010, suburbs were home to one-third of the nation’s poor population—outranking cities (27.5 percent), small metro areas (20.5 percent), and non-metropolitan communities (18.7 percent)…

The magnitude and pace of growth in the suburban poor population over the past decade caught many communities unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with the growing need. In many suburbs, the safety net is patchy and stretched thin to begin with. The suburban social services infrastructure is not as developed or robust as in urban centers with a longer track record of addressing the challenges of poverty, nor is it as funded. And as governments continue to tighten their belts and philanthropic resources dwindle, safety net service providers are increasingly asked to do much more with significantly less.

There is also an interesting map showing the differing rates of growth in the suburban poor population across major metropolitan regions in the United States.

What’s the long-term solution to this? From what politicians seem to be suggesting, middle-class suburbanites need help keeping/buying a home, middle-class tax breaks, and good jobs. How exactly can the typical suburban communities provide services in this era of economic crisis? I wonder how much politicians and suburban communities are willing to truly deal with this or whether the ones that can afford to (or think they will afford to) will act like the issue doesn’t really exist and can’t be allowed to threaten the image of prosperous suburbs.

New Illinois law gives many communities the ability to develop their own rules for public hearings

Posted on by

Public hearings can often be contentious and go on for hours. A new Illinois law gives communities under 500,000 the ability to develop their own rules for public hearings:

Those procedures could deal with the rights of participants to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence during a public hearing.

“It really boils down to efficiency,” said Annie Thompson, the governor’s spokeswoman. “The governor believes in getting the people’s business done in a manner that’s open and transparent but also in a manner that’s efficient. This bill will help (local) governments do that.”

State Rep. Darlene Senger of Naperville said she proposed the legislation in response to the marathon public hearings that happened when Navistar submitted plans to move its headquarters to Lisle…

“This bill allows municipalities that are interested in severely restricting who can participate in the process — under the guise of efficiency — to institute undemocratic and unfair rules,” said Terry Pastika, the center’s executive director. “When you think about the anti-democratic rules it could justify, it’s a big problem.”

I can see both sides. On one hand, a public hearing can go on for hours if a large or vociferous enough crowd wants to talk. These meetings can drag into the wee hours of the morning, making it difficult for public officials in smaller communities who work part-time as public servants. Additionally, one could argue that at some point there may be diminishing returns: jut how much does a group have to say to convince public officials that they don’t like a proposal? On the other hand, there are few official settings where citizens can interact with public officials. Public hearings allow citizens to express their opinions and make their voice heard. Citizens can feel that if they make a convincing or large enough argument, they can sway the outcome.

I would guess that this new law will have this effect: communities and citizens will now have spend some time figuring out what are appropriate rules where both sides feel like they can do what they want to do.

You shouldn’t purchase your own town, even for $800k

Posted on by

If you had a little extra cash, you might think about purchasing your own town. Scenic, South Dakota is available for $800,000:

So, what exactly do you get for your $800k? Quite a lot, actually. You’ll get a dance hall, a saloon, two jails, a train depot, two stores, and some more empty buildings…

True, the town won’t be mistaken for New York or even Green Acres. However, based on the pictures, it does have a certain Old West charm. One can almost picture John Wayne ambling down the street. It does look like a ghost town–and with fewer than 10 residents, it’s mighty close to becoming one.

But, before you rush to purchase this hotspot, you might want to consider the track record of those who purchase towns:

This isn’t the first time an entire town has gone up for sale. Some may remember actress Kim Basinger’s ill-fated purchase of Braselton, Georgia for $20 million. Basinger planned to turn the town into a tourist draw, complete with film festival. But things didn’t quite work out as she planned. She was later forced to sell the town at a huge loss due to financial problems of her own.

And Basinger isn’t alone. As an article from MSN points out, many have purchased towns only to see that the dream of “owning their own zip code” turn into a nightmare. It’s one thing to be a landlord and have to fix a renter’s leaky faucet. It’s another to be responsible for an entire town of faucets (and toilets, and electricity, and crime prevention, and, and, and…)

This article makes owning a town sound difficult. While this story suggests owners get tripped up by infrastructure, I would think the interactions with residents and other people might even be more problematic. Think back to the experience of company towns in America: places like Pullman, Illinois may have been efficient (and profitable?) but eventually didn’t work. Even in a small place like Scenic, the owner would have to interact with existing residents and take full responsibility for decisions.

Perhaps the gameplay of SimCity would help illustrate the issue: in the early days of the game, it was easy to grow a community and Simcity 2000 offered well-known cheat codes that allowed the mayor to do whatever you want (with unlimited money). But with more recent iterations of the game, it is easier to get bogged down in real matters: paying for infrastructure like roads and water and dealing with the concerns of your citizens and advisers. In the end, even small communities have a lot to take care of in order to get up and running and the services and amenities (and taxes/fees) have to be agreeable to residents.

Are there any “successful” examples of wealthy individuals purchasing a town and maintaining or improving the community? Are there any management companies that would handle these responsibilities for a wealthy owner?

Homeowners’ associations and flying flags

Posted on by

An Arizona man is fighting his homeowners’ association over flying a “Don’t Tread On Me Flag.” While this may appear to be a political situation, it is a broader issue: there have been numerous battles over the years between residents and homeowners’ associations over things like flying flags.

On one hand, homeowners’ associations are trying to maintain a certain image in the neighborhood. On the other hand, their rules are extensive and can often appear heavy-handed. However, this Arizona man and many others have a few options that would limit situations like these: don’t move into neighborhoods with such associations (and they are quite common) and know what the restrictions are before purchasing or become involved with the local association and change the rules. As in this situation, two American desires are in conflict: the desire to maintain some local control (and perhaps boost property values) and the desire to be individuals who can express themselves.

Overall, homeowners’ associations are common today in America. According to the Community Associations Institute, there are over 305,000 “association-governed communities” with over 60 million residents.