I am generally not one to see or shout racism at the drop of a hat, however, I came across an anti-environmental pro-road commercial currently running in Atlanta that I do find plays up the racism and fear angle.
It is the second commerical on this link and to summarize it first shows a white family in the suburbs with a SUV, then cuts to a city projects style housing apartment building. Then shows african americans getting off a bus. The message I get from it is: suburbs safe and white, while city is unsafe, unpleasant and black, and that the two should not mix. I know this summary is not much, but I would like to know what others think of this commercial and do they have the same reaction I do.
Chimaera, I see what you mean. It seems to me to be an attempt at inducing xenophobic reactions in suburban Atlantans (Atlantians? Atlantanites? Atlantish?). “You have the right to protect your family by living far, far away from the scary city full of black people.” Part of the reason I have no desire to move to the suburbs. The advertisers obviously know their target audience - the (small, I’m sure) sect of suburbanites who moved away from “downtown” to get away from the “urban” element.
It seems to discriminate against black people about as much as it discriminates against soccer players.
Are the majority of bus riders in Atlanta black? If so, filming two people getting off the bus is most likely to show black people. That they ride the bus isn’t racist, neither is filming it.
I’m much more concerned about the fact the suburbs were shot in color, but the city was shot in black & white, with a circular effect like they were using a hidden camera. That’s just mean.
It looks like all the different parties involved in this issue are pointing the finger of blame and telling their own small cross-section of the story. It’s hard to tell the players in this story, and what they really want.
Nobody’s going to change anybody’s opinion on this kind of thing by being vague & wishy-washy. They want to sway public opinion, they have to play hardball.
Atlanta, Georgia area residents drive the most miles per year (100 million miles a day) and the most miles per person per day (34 miles) in the United States. http://www.eli.org/pdf/rrsoutheast99.pdf
Average household transportation expenditures by Houston, Texas and Atlanta, Georgia residents in 1997 - 1998 were $8,840 and $8,513 respectively, or slightly more than 20 percent of total household expenditures. http://www.transact.org/Reports/driven/default.htm
From a municipal government perspective, sprawl development often does not produce enough revenue to cover the expense of providing services to the area. Numerous studies have shown that for every dollar of tax revenue generated by farms and forests, municipalities spend between 15 cents and 80 cents in services. In contrast, for each dollar of revenue generated by commercial development, between 15 cents and 47 cents is spent in services, but spending on services for residential development ranges from $1.04 to $1.55 per dollar of revenue collected. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae/scatter/
There is a social cost that is often overlooked when folks talk about sprawl development: resources diverted to providing services and infrastructure to fringe areas reduces the amount available for similar actions in city centers. This accelerates business out-migration from these areas while isolating poorer and less-educated residents in stagnating or declining metropolitan zones. In some instances, low-skilled, blue-collar workers cannot afford to commute to suitable jobs available in suburban areas. http://www.brook.edu/press/REVIEW/spring2000/katz.htm
Playing the race card, however subtly, and painting mass transit plans as “pinko” might win the highway lobby some points with some people, but the fact of the matter is that their agenda is socially and environmentally harmful. Hopefully, folks are starting to see the true costs of commuter culture.
I take it this includes the actual cost of the automobile?
**
I don’t understand how that works. I’m not saying it isn’t true I’m just saying I don’t understand how that works. In the Dallas area we have a fairly decent sized metroplex with all sorts of cities surrounding the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. Just about each one of those cities pays for their own services out of taxes collected by the city/county. I don’t think the city of Plano or Richardson is running at a deficit.
**
Now I’m confused by the wording. Are you comparing the revenue generated by farms and forest to the revenue generated by developing residential areas? Also I’m wondering how much tax revenue cities might collect from businesses that wish to move into areas with a lot of residents.
**
Irrelevant. During the industrial revolution all sorts of people left the farm to move into the cities. Some times the work force likes to move around for whatever reason.
**
So we should all move to the city and isolate the poorer and less-educated residents of the suburbs? Hard is it might be to believe not everyone in the suburbs is wealthy. Also I wonder what would happen if there was a mass migration to urban centers. How many people would be displaced when wealthy suburbanites drove up the prices of real estate in the inner city? Seems to me that all those poor uneducated people would have to find homes outside the shining walls of Emerald City.
I think you're unlikely to see a lot of people moving back into the cities any time soon. The cost of living in some cities is ridiculously expensive. New York City and San Francisco are two examples I can think of. And there are people working on some of the problems created by urban sprawl. Folks are working on alternative fuels for vehicles and an exciting computer system which will control automobiles during rush hour making commuting less time consuming. I understand it isn't an overnight solution but then neither is moving people back into the cities.
**
I’m talking specifically about areas that are currently in rural land use: farms and forests. The municipal and county governments get more in tax revenue from these areas than they spend to provide police, ambulance, fire, water, sewer, etc., to residents of those areas. However, when a new subdivision is put in, municipal and county governments spend more to provide services to those new homes than the homeowners pay in taxes.
**
Does my paragraph above clear things up? If not, LMK.
**
That would make an interesting study: I don’t have any information on that at the present.
**
And I’m pointing out some of the environmental and social costs of that movement.
I’m not advocating that people move anywhere. I’m providing information that points to the social and environmental costs of sprawl development. If advocating anything, it’s that people, municipal government representatives, developers, and the highway lobby would all benefit from “smart-growth” planning programs.
Clears things up just fine, thanks. I don’t see a problem with new developments costing more in the short term then they do in the long term. I would expect new businesses and new people to move into the area and in the long term generate positive tax revenue for the city.
**
I do believe most city planners take into account businesses moving into their area. I think any valid study would have to include tax revenue generated by businesses in the suburbs.
**
Fair enough, I just don’t see the social cost as being all that expensive.
Well, duh. It’s going to cost more to provide services to places where many people live than it is to provide services to places where few people live. That sort of goes without saying. I would think it’s a GOOD sign that government is spending more money where more people live. It’s the job of government to serve people.
It is hardly a surprise that areas that exploit natural resources but have few residents are high-profit areas. That is exactly what you would expect. A diamond mine makes lots of money but few people live there. Sadly, people do have to live SOMEWHERE, and wherever they live is where cities will be forced to spend their money.
As to whether or not tax revenues make up for it, I would submit that that’s the job of a city to determine. Suburban dwellers are often the people who work in urban businesses, who in turn pay massive property taxes. It’s the nasty, selfish people with the modest sururban bungalow who are helping to run the corporation that pays your city $3 million a year in property tax.
Cities do seem to be in a rush to allow suburban development, so I would submit that they must have a financial interest in doing so.
Your two statements are contradictory, if you think about it. Obviously, if the cost of living in some cities is high, people are indeed in a rush to move back there. Supply & demand.
Not only that, your statement is wrong on purely statistical grounds - New York City is now growing faster than the suburbs.
Face it. People want to live in the city. When the live near a livable city like New York or San Francisco, they go back in droves.
Nonsense. The advertisers know exactly what they are doing. Their mission is to show the most effective images possible. Ask yourself if it is merely coincidence that they showed the kinds of images that would best speak to a white Atlantans racist fears. This commercial certainly seems racist to me.
Fair enough, RickJay . However, let’s consider two things. In areas where urban sites are sprawling (my experience is in the Southern U.S.) it takes a while for the major metropolitan area to catch-up and annex new suburbs and bedroom communities. Furthermore, developers seldom (if ever) are required by zoning or other ordinances to assist communities, municipalities, and counties with the costs of extending services to new developments. Now whether they should pay is fodder for another thread: it is irrefutable, however, that in the time it takes for an area to be annexed, residents and governments are going to be paying the price of development, and sometimes keep paying even after being annexed.
Examples: taxpayers in Prince William County Virginia, on average spent $3,838 to provide services to a single family home while the same home generated $2,150 in revenue. Also in Virginia, Fairfax County had only $700 million of the estimated $1 billion needed to provide schools, fire stations, libraries, and other infrastructure to growing fringe areas while Loudon County expects to build 22 new schools in the next six years. http://www.heyhon.com/Sprawl/1997/Vol1/Cost/cost/cost.html
Non monetary costs include overcrowded schools, increased response time for emergency units, time spent in suburb-to-city traffic jams, etc…
Now the questions: (1) should we ignore that these costs are a part of growth, develop anyway, and pay the price later, often at a deficit? (2) should we require developers to fund some of the costs of providing services to these developments (pay as we go)? (3) and/or should we invest in light rail rather than more roads?
**
Well, if you think it’s sad that people have to live somewhere, that’s your business. It makes sense to me, however, to move toward policies that help reduce the social and environmental costs of urban growth.
**
Italics mine. Your turn to provide the cites.
**
Your tone seems to suggest you think I’m down on suburbia when I’ve merely pointed out some of the costs of suburban sprawl and suggested that society might want to address these issues in a manner differently than Atlanta’s highway lobby is currently doing. Cities are going to grow. How they grow is up to us.