Find me a good place to live for cycling

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by weisan

Strange...or maybe not. I was just thinking that exact same thought earlier today when I was out enjoying a very nice sunny day here in Austin riding on the local trail.

Brilliant minds think alike.. In some fashion, I guess it speaks well to the ideal of home ownership, which is still looked at as part of the American dream. Owning as opposed to renting allows participation in capital growth which is IMO not to leverage against that asset as many did during the housing bubble/crash but rather as a means of stabilizing living expenses against rising popularity in attractive neighborhoods & cities. Renters are forever at the mercy of the prevailing market.

Originally Posted by Tandem Rider

Ok, I'll play

We sold our house and are moving, partly because things are starting to "suck" here.
1. Large population of people without employment, or the possibility of future employment, has moved into the area. Bringing with them a drain on the social services provided to longer term residents experiencing a round of "hard times". Along with this has come a documented increase in drug arrests, assaults, burglaries, etc.
2. Lower performance from school system, attributable to many causes, some of which are linked directly back to #1 above.
3. Increased property taxes with no corresponding increase in services provided, ours have gone up 120% in the last 3 years.
4. Increased congestion on the roads, higher daily traffic count, guessing this is due primarily to the increase in population. Arterial road construction has not happened, we are squeezing more through the same funnels.
5. This is a perception, not empirically derived, the general attitude is much more aggressive and significantly less friendly. This opinion is shared by our friends who have lived here for a long time.

Granted, we are a large university town, therefore, having a large portion of the population as transient is inherent, but these changes are new in the last few years.

I have very little understanding of how areas go through these kind of changes. Although I lived in NYC during the 1970's and experienced the neighborhood of my boyhood home undergo wrenching changes and to put it bluntly, "white flight" that completely changed its character in less than 1 or 2 years. Most of the volatility, influx and outflow from the large rental apartment complex in the area. That really sucked but a lotta homeowners held on and today enjoy property values that recovered in step with the rest of NYC.

But as politically incorrect as it may sound, that experience always left a lasting impression on me of the sheer pathos and disgust of people that have no remorse or compunction in destroying what and where they themselves live. Goddamn animals. Ah, the NYC of the 70's that some may look back on fondly while probably never having lived it.

What you describe above sounds more like a rise in homeless which I couldn't explain as other than from economic dislocation and hardship in the area. Between income inequality and the rise in the cost of housing in many areas, there is the inevitable squeeze going on and that is some very real problems all local governments have to deal with.

BTW I Googled for homeless statistics and looked at the first hit: Poverty: 10 Cities With the Most Homeless People. NYC has the highest number of homeless in the nation. A lot of homeless kids make their way in and out of the NYC Public School system although not in the NYC public schools located in the desirable zip codes.

Originally Posted by ojingoh

I live in Seattle, don't move here, it's starting to suck.

HaHa! Define suck. If it is sitting in traffic with other Mini Coopers then maybe things aren't quite so bad. See the link above on homeless - NYC has 6 times the homeless population that Seattle does. It is what it is.

[notsew]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

NYC has 6 times the homeless population that Seattle does. It is what it is.

And six times the population (and area for that matter). So not that different really.

Seattle peaked in like 2005. Its been a long downhill slog to gentrification - which I get happens, that doesn't mean you have to like it - and its absolutely unaffordable for most people. And it has subpar public transit. Its lost its soul.

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by notsew

And six times the population (and area for that matter). So not that different really.

I checked the Wiki page summary for NYC and Seattle and did a back of the envelope calc:

• NYC has 12.5 times greater population than Seattle
• NYC has 3.6 times greater land area than Seattle
• NYC has 6.85 times greater homeless population than Seattle

What does this mean? Nuthin', other than we NY'ers don't have as many homeless as Seattle does on a per capita basis but we NY'ers pack 'em in tighter proportionate to the land we've got.

Look, there are no braggin' rights here, this is a problem we, as a nation, have to address and fix. And local governments cannot deficit spend as can the Federal government so we all cannot avoid dealing with this problem indefinitely. All politics is local.

Seattle peaked in like 2005. Its been a long downhill slog to gentrification - which I get happens, that doesn't mean you have to like it - and its absolutely unaffordable for most people. And it has subpar public transit. Its lost its soul.

Gentrification is a good thing especially when considering the opposite. Nothing stays the same and it is foolish to expect that things should "be as they used to be". That's simply not how life works and frankly, is anathema to the inherent desire and instinct of mankind to progress and improve. But I don't advocate letting people get crushed by the wheels of progress either and for that you need government in, to my political persuasion, a very (VERY) limited form to aid in keeping a balance and stability in the local communities. The average person has no chance against the free market and I'd never choose free markets over Christian charity. We are the richest, most powerful nation state on earth and I don't deign it as part of American DNA to be blind to the cruelties of the free market.

I'll say one last thing on this topic of finding a better place to live. I think that the job & career prospects always drive the choices on where to live. For me, that is the only thing I'm looking for or care about. Bikes, as important as they are to me, aren't more important than going to a place that's best for my career. With a good job and income there will always be an opportunity to find a nice place to live.

I have no idea how I got on this tangent!

[notsew]

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone can stand in the way of progress. On top of that, its something that is incredibly hard to mitigate with public policy.

After following the NYC in the 1970s discussion (which was very interesting), I can see the argument for the type of changes NYC has experienced. There's a lot to be said for public safety.

On the other hand, Seattle never had the crime or violence that NYC had. It was a small feeling town, now its more of a big city and along the way is actually loosing its areas of diversity (although its always been a highly segregated city) and character in the march towards uniformity. It is what it is and there's nothing much anyone could do about it, but for the purposes of this conversation, I think that makes it a less desirable place to live.

Then again, its probably a good thing they'll never see this sign again:

[jlwdm]

And NYC has 5" more average annual rainfall than Seattle.

Jeff