How the Suburbs Got Poor

[KamaAina]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/poverty_in_the_suburbs_places_that_thrived_in_the_era_of_two_parent_families.html

When I was a small child, something called “the suburbs” kept snatching away my friends, like a monster hiding under the bed, but worse. Over time, I’ve come to appreciate why my friends moved. The urban neighborhoods of my Brooklyn youth were a little rough around the edges, and they didn’t offer growing families much in the way of elbow room. I couldn’t fall asleep without the sweet sound of sirens blaring, but not everyone felt the same way. The suburbs have long been a welcome refuge for families looking for a safe, affordable place to live.

But for many Americans, the suburbs have become a trap. This week, Radley Balko of the Washington Post vividly described the many ways bite-sized suburban municipalities in St. Louis County prey on poor people. Towns too small or too starved of sales tax revenue to sustain their own local governments stay afloat by having local law enforcement go trawling for trumped-up traffic violations, the fines for which can be cripplingly expensive, and which only grow more onerous as low-income residents fail to pay them. Those who can afford lawyers know how to massage a big fine into a smaller one. Those who can’t dread their run-ins with local police, who often come across less like civic guardians and more like cash-thirsty pirates. The resentment and distrust that follows is, according to Balko, crucial for understanding the recent unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.

Could it be that the problems plaguing St. Louis County reflect a larger failure of fragmented local government? Would these problems go away if, say, St. Louis simply absorbed all of these petty fiefdoms? I doubt it. The deeper problem is that the low-density suburbs of single-family homes that are common in this part of Missouri, and indeed across the country, are fundamentally inhospitable to those who find themselves at the bottom of the economic ladder.

You might be wondering why poor families are moving to the suburbs in large numbers—the number of suburban poor grew more than twice as quickly as the number of urban poor between 2000 and 2011—if they are such hard places for poor people to get ahead. Part of it is that as middle- and high-income households moved to the suburbs, the low-wage workers who look after their children had little choice but to follow. Then there is the fact that as America’s most productive cities experience a revival, gentrification is displacing low-income families to outlying neighborhoods and towns.

[JCMach1]

1. St. Louis is a pretty good example... hollowed-out urban core surrounded by suburbs...

[ErikJ]

2. From the article about St Louis suburb Ferguson

"Late last month, Charles Marohn, an engineer and urban planner, wrote an essay on Ferguson that centered on, of all things, the bleakness of its many parking lots and the monotony of its buildings. One of Marohn’s central arguments is that it is far easier to finance the maintenance of a street that serves, say, multistory buildings with retail shops on the ground floor and apartments above than it is to finance a cul-de-sac that serves a small handful of houses, as the former generates far more revenue.

To be sure, if the cul-de-sac links together million-dollar homes in pristine shape, this problem is not a problem at all. If it instead serves families that struggle to maintain their homes, or houses that are abandoned, the problem can get ugly fast. Roads need upkeep. Upkeep costs money. If property or sales taxes aren’t enough to pay for upkeep, you can take on debt, you can ask for money from the state or federal government, or, like cities across St. Louis County, you can find creative new ways to leech away cash from your most vulnerable citizens."

[JCMach1]

3. Cities and suburbs built for cars... a couple of years back I spent a week in St. Louis

with my daughters. We loved the city by the way. We stayed in a hotel downtown on the river and found it almost impossible to do much of anything without driving. There were only a few good restaurants in walking distance, the arch, Busch Stadium, a museum or two and not much else...

Unless you jump in your car.

I really enjoyed the city, but it's in fragments without a lot of cohesion.

[KamaAina]

4. There is a light rail line

that would take you from downtown out to the Central West End (Washington University area).

[JCMach1]

5. Saw no sign of the rail and was completely unaware of it...

So, it was car rental to go just about anywhere.

[ErikJ]

6. Vancouver BC avoided this problem 50 yrs ago.

Now its commonly rated as the most livable city in the world.
They had to protect their very limited but rich farmland in the river valley so they prohibited any expansion into it so Van had to grow up rather than out. The higher density has kept Van more walkable and much more vibrant downtown/inner core. Any given summer night the sidewalks are still crowded with shoppers and walkers until midnight.

They also dont have any freeways dissecting the inner city, like EVERY American city, making it harder for employees to become suburban commuters. THe whole inner core is covered with low level apts and many high rise ones as well.
High density is very important to keep the city vibrant and alive. No people, no shoppers no business.

Theres not one American city in the most livable cities in the world. Yet there are 3 in Canada!

[Gormy Cuss]

7. OFFS, low income people didn't move to suburbia just because they were taken care of kids.

Jobs shifted to areas closer to suburbia too. Malls and factories moved out of core cities.