Telling Rural People To Move Won’t Solve Poverty

[wxtransit]

Government should incentivize living in an urban area and disincentivize living in rural areas unless you're actual farmers or need to be there for some reason.

Are you of a fan of Ceausescu's Systematization?

These things have a way of coming back to bite you in the ass.  The birth rate in Romania doubled from 1966 to 1967 thanks to his decree... but then fell generally back to rates slightly higher than the 1966 levels.

Then, when those "decretei" babies reached adulthood, they were an integral part of removing Ceausescu from this earth.

In the US at least getting people to live in urban areas would be a good thing. Overall consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl. We could build much better effective public transit systems that would hopefully decrease car use. Would provide easier access to jobs and concentration of labor for businesses. No real reason for people to live in rural areas.

Wait...what?

I'm all for more public transit and a better environment, but this argument doesn't make sense at all.

Urban areas are the sprawl. Dallas-Fort Worth is one example of many. Our urban area has sprawled so large that it now takes over an hour to get from one part to the other. Is that a good example of "consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl" and "decreased car use"? No. What you are likely refering to is people moving to the cities. The problem with that; however, is that in many urban cores the cities are already packed. For this reason, people move to the sprawling suburbs in the same urban area when they want to move away from a rural area.

Making more people move to an urban area won't solve the problem. It'll become the problem.

[wxtransit]

Government should incentivize living in an urban area and disincentivize living in rural areas unless you're actual farmers or need to be there for some reason.

Are you of a fan of Ceausescu's Systematization?

These things have a way of coming back to bite you in the ass.  The birth rate in Romania doubled from 1966 to 1967 thanks to his decree... but then fell generally back to rates slightly higher than the 1966 levels.

Then, when those "decretei" babies reached adulthood, they were an integral part of removing Ceausescu from this earth.

In the US at least getting people to live in urban areas would be a good thing. Overall consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl. We could build much better effective public transit systems that would hopefully decrease car use. Would provide easier access to jobs and concentration of labor for businesses. No real reason for people to live in rural areas.

Wait...what?

I'm all for more public transit and a better environment, but this argument doesn't make sense at all.

Urban areas are the sprawl. Dallas-Fort Worth is one example of many. Our urban area has sprawled so large that it now takes over an hour to get from one part to the other. Is that a good example of "consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl" and "decreased car use"? No. What you are likely referring to is people moving to the cities. The problem with that; however, is that in many urban cores the cities are already packed. For this reason, people move to the sprawling suburbs in the same urban area when they want to move away from a rural area.

Making more people move to an urban area won't solve the problem. It'll become the problem.

I don't mean urban area as in how the census department defines it, so no, suburban isn't urban. I mean dense city cores with condo/apartment towers or inner ring burbs, not the sprawl you're describing.

Read the bold.

[wxtransit]

Government should incentivize living in an urban area and disincentivize living in rural areas unless you're actual farmers or need to be there for some reason.

Are you of a fan of Ceausescu's Systematization?

These things have a way of coming back to bite you in the ass.  The birth rate in Romania doubled from 1966 to 1967 thanks to his decree... but then fell generally back to rates slightly higher than the 1966 levels.

Then, when those "decretei" babies reached adulthood, they were an integral part of removing Ceausescu from this earth.

In the US at least getting people to live in urban areas would be a good thing. Overall consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl. We could build much better effective public transit systems that would hopefully decrease car use. Would provide easier access to jobs and concentration of labor for businesses. No real reason for people to live in rural areas.

Wait...what?

I'm all for more public transit and a better environment, but this argument doesn't make sense at all.

Urban areas are the sprawl. Dallas-Fort Worth is one example of many. Our urban area has sprawled so large that it now takes over an hour to get from one part to the other. Is that a good example of "consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl" and "decreased car use"? No. What you are likely referring to is people moving to the cities. The problem with that; however, is that in many urban cores the cities are already packed. For this reason, people move to the sprawling suburbs in the same urban area when they want to move away from a rural area.

Making more people move to an urban area won't solve the problem. It'll become the problem.

I don't mean urban area as in how the census department defines it, so no, suburban isn't urban. I mean dense city cores with condo/apartment towers or inner ring burbs, not the sprawl you're describing.

Read the bold.

There is nothing "packed" about Dallas (3,876/sq mi), Fort Worth (2,181.0/sq mi), or Houston (3,660/sq mi). The contention that these places are congested entirely because of car-centered sprawl is entirely correct.

The "urban areas" he speaks of, at least according to him, sound like Downtown, Uptown, Park Cities, Midtown, the Central corridor, and basically the rest of Dallas in the 635 loop. Unless you advocate demoloshing decades old homes that people don't want to move from, you don't have very many options to build the many hundreds of homes or apartment/condo units that will be needed. There are only a few unbuilt parcels left in the inner city and inner suburb ring.

And yes, the assumption "that these places are congested entirely because of car-centered sprawl is entirely correct." Why should we expand this sprawl? That is what forcing the entire rural population into cities will do.

Also, of note: many Sunbelt cities also include many suburbs inside the city limits. While I do not contest the fact that these cities are spread out, these density figures are misleading.

[wxtransit]

Government should incentivize living in an urban area and disincentivize living in rural areas unless you're actual farmers or need to be there for some reason.

Are you of a fan of Ceausescu's Systematization?

These things have a way of coming back to bite you in the ass.  The birth rate in Romania doubled from 1966 to 1967 thanks to his decree... but then fell generally back to rates slightly higher than the 1966 levels.

Then, when those "decretei" babies reached adulthood, they were an integral part of removing Ceausescu from this earth.

In the US at least getting people to live in urban areas would be a good thing. Overall consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl. We could build much better effective public transit systems that would hopefully decrease car use. Would provide easier access to jobs and concentration of labor for businesses. No real reason for people to live in rural areas.

Wait...what?

I'm all for more public transit and a better environment, but this argument doesn't make sense at all.

Urban areas are the sprawl. Dallas-Fort Worth is one example of many. Our urban area has sprawled so large that it now takes over an hour to get from one part to the other. Is that a good example of "consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl" and "decreased car use"? No. What you are likely referring to is people moving to the cities. The problem with that; however, is that in many urban cores the cities are already packed. For this reason, people move to the sprawling suburbs in the same urban area when they want to move away from a rural area.

Making more people move to an urban area won't solve the problem. It'll become the problem.

I don't mean urban area as in how the census department defines it, so no, suburban isn't urban. I mean dense city cores with condo/apartment towers or inner ring burbs, not the sprawl you're describing.

Read the bold.

There is nothing "packed" about Dallas (3,876/sq mi), Fort Worth (2,181.0/sq mi), or Houston (3,660/sq mi). The contention that these places are congested entirely because of car-centered sprawl is entirely correct.

The "urban areas" he speaks of, at least according to him, sound like Downtown, Uptown, Park Cities, Midtown, the Central corridor, and basically the rest of Dallas in the 635 loop. Unless you advocate demoloshing decades old homes that people don't want to move from, you don't have very many options to build the many hundreds of homes or apartment/condo units that will be needed. There are only a few unbuilt parcels left in the inner city and inner suburb ring.

And yes, the assumption "that these places are congested entirely because of car-centered sprawl is entirely correct." Why should we expand this sprawl? That is what forcing the entire rural population into cities will do.

It kinda just sounds like you hate cities. But in reality we can build excellent, world class public transportation. There are millions of people that would give up that car commute if given the chance but the US is worse than third world countries for public transportation, mostly due to conservative opposition.

And I see we've started the ad hominem attacks.

It's actually quite funny you think I hate cities, while in reality I live in the urbanized city, love it, and am a huge advocate for public transportation (see my username, wxtransit). However, forcing millions to uproot their generations-old livelihoods and displacing those that currently live in the city to accomplish this is not the way to go.