From: KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: An Observation
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:02:00 GMT
Organization: From Beyond Political Correctness
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc210-1.cl.msu.edu

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu writes:
>}>
>}>Strictly speaking, comparing two cities isn't fair since they aren't
>}>identical.
>}Quite a bit.  Here's a few differences:
>}New York (Pre-fifties portions, and Manhatten today) sprawls upward,
>}     Houston sprawls outward (a collapsing house kills off five, maybe
>}     ten at the most.  Collapsing tenaments kill off hundreds, maybe
>}thousands).
>}New York has winters.
>
>There's no statistically significant correlation between homelessness and
>climate that I know of.  There is one between rent control, between high
>median housing prices (caused by zoning), and the presence of blacks or
>hispanics in a community.  See The Excluded Americans: Homelessness and
>Housing Policies by William Tucker on this.

     Alas, I agree with you here (And without the book as reference).  In
Lansing, much of the area around the Capitol Building has been denuded of
houses.  This process started with the building of Interstate 496, and
continues with the relocation of Logan Street just west of the capital.  Guess
where the blacks used to live?
     Much worse has happened in Flint.  Here, a whole swath of land from I-475
to (and including) Saginaw Street has been utterly denuded of people.  Again,
guess where the old black neighborhoods used to be.
     I'm not talking about decrepit housing in either case.  This was old but
acceptable housing which got in the way of politician's desire to attract
and/or keep either corporations (Flint) or rich peoples (Lansing) in their
towns.  And the joke?  IT AIN'T WORKING!
>
>}Houston is younger than New York.
>
>They're both over a century old.

New York dates back to 1624 and has been a major force in U.S. politics since
around 1750.  Houston's era of importance dates back only to the 1930 (maybe
starts later), when oil became important.

>}New York's highways are crowded because of all the people around it; 
>}     Houston's highways are crowded from intentended neglect.
>
>Both are crowded due to high demand and zero tolls.

     I suggest you look at a map of NYC.  Every tunnel and Bridge from New
Jersey up to the Tappen Zee is toll, many of the bridges and tunnels connecting
the boroughs are toll, many of the expressways zipping in from upstate New York
have at least one toll gate on them, and half the expressways in New Jersey
(the cleaner, more purposeful ones methinks, because they were first IMHO) are
toll.  What sort of tolls would YOU suggest adequate for the tollways around
NYC?
     And as for the intended neglect in Houston, this was from a choice made by
the government of Houston.  They chose to hold down costs.  It does not appear
as if they've developed a mass-transit system (evidently they've spent it
trying to quash a jitney (private mass-transit) that arose because of the
city's inability or unwillingness to develope mass transit.)

>}>You could compare poverty levels before and after the Great Society
programs.
>}     Vietnam also happened during that time, draining much of the energy
>}of society from constructive activities benefiting the nation towards
>}destructive activities both here and elsewhere.  Our nation has yet to
>}recover from it.
>
>4 times as many Americans die each year in auto accidents than died in the
>entire Vietnam war.  Much more money has been spent on domestic aid to the
>poor than on the Vietnam war.

     More people died from auto accidents than from Vietnam in every year
Vietnam was active.  I've yet to see people (other than myself and a couple of
other fellow Luddites) shy away from buying and using cars.
     The Vietnam war directed much of the money, manpower and mindpower from
productive (aimed to benefit the user) purposes to destructive (aimed to
destroy what the user aims it at) purposes.  These resources have been spent in
wasteful, destructive activities since then, leaving a US "victorious over
communism" yet unable to even effect a peace dividend to its own.
     And as for domestic aide:  True, much of it has been misspent and a
sizable portion is eaten up by the bureaucracy.  That doesn't knock (in my
mind) the usefulness of aiding the poor, just the tacks taken with it.

Kamchatka Charlie          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
No commentary here.