Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 6
This is a message board. People, I assume, come here to read. If I wanted to watch television I would turn on my television.
Here's the link to Zakaria's op'ed in WAPO. The rebuttals are in the comments section.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/01/04...Yes, cities are congested, infrastructure projects are more expensive, the cost of living is far far higher because supply/demand AND real estate is far more expensive AND because the wealthy extract all the market will bear in those expensive areas.
When Texas and Florida are as congested as New York and California, the COL will also rise proportionately. By many metrics they are already worse than the 'progressive hellholes' pundits are using as punching backs on behalf of their employers.
People bought into the lies promoted by the likes of Trump and the elite tumor of billionaires. He will not bring down the cost of living this time any more than he did last time.
The cost of living - law enforcement, incarceration, homeless support, infrastructure will continue to rise. The rich will get richer. The middle and lower economic brackets will get poorer. The environment will continue to be degraded under the pressure of "growth is the only solution" proponents.
It's good to have a few 350 foot yachts and private jets to escape the reality the majority of mankind must face.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" People, I assume, come here to read. If I wanted to watch television I would turn on my television."
good morning, what you mean to say is, many here have no interest in the facts, we only read our usual sources of misinformation. Biden WILL BE the nominee, we know. Carry on.
No. of Recommendations: 8
good morning, what you mean to say is, many here have no interest in the facts, we only read our usual sources of misinformation.
No, that not what I said. I suggest many here prefer to read, not watch TV. It's much faster, allows one to re-read -QUICKLY- salient passages of an opinion piece (something one cannot do with TV and radio pundits, that radio pundits like Limbaugh exploit to great effect).
I provided the link to Zakaria's opinion.
Zakaria expressed an opinion, not facts. It can be read in a fraction of the time it takes to watch your link to a video.
No. of Recommendations: 3
When Texas and Florida are as congested as New York and California, the COL will also rise proportionately. Florida already has a higher population density than either New York or California:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_t...It is certainly true that Florida lacks any
individual cities that are as dense or congested as NYC or SF (though the Miami/South Florida metro is roughly the same density as the Bay Area). Partially that's because we're relatively new to a large population - most of the state was developed long after the invention of the automobile. But...that's also an inherent difference in the blue/red model of state and local government. Progressive areas take steps to encourage denser development patterns, promoting mass transit and walkable areas and planning systems that create specific types of urban form. Conservative areas practice more of a 'benign neglect' when it comes to urban and centralized planning, which results in more sprawling and less dense types of communities.
Places like NYC and SF bring a lot of benefits - in a "spiky" global world, they create enormous opportunities (and not just economic). But those places end up being very unwieldy in a lot of ways. They
can't function without a massive coordinated and collective (read: public government) effort to keep them running. Most red states are choosing
not to create new extremely dense urban areas, and Florida's been a red state (at the state level at least) for twenty-five years now.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But those places end up being very unwieldy in a lot of ways.
There are distinct differences in each of the regions that have now been mentioned in this thread.
The regional stages of development are very different since Europeans only subjugated the indigenous people, what, 400 years ago?
Most red states are choosing not to create new extremely dense urban areas, and Florida's been a red state (at the state level at least) for twenty-five years now.
California says "Been there, done that."
We're built out to the desert's edge, the Sierra's foothills. Except for some infill, there's nowhere to go but up in the temperate coastal strip.
Building sprawling housing tracts over the fields and valleys that supply so much of the nation's food, and exhausting our groundwater to do so, is finally becoming controversial.
Red states like Texas have the luxury of space until they do not.
Wait until everybody tries to match Musk's rate of reproduction!
No. of Recommendations: 3
Wait until everybody tries to match Musk's rate of reproduction!
12 children by three different women!?
Love those christian values!
No. of Recommendations: 2
Building sprawling housing tracts over the fields and valleys that supply so much of the nation's food, and exhausting our groundwater to do so, is finally becoming controversial.
Red states like Texas have the luxury of space until they do not.
Perhaps - but my point was that unlike Texas, Florida is already as "congested" as California is. We actually have less space than California - geographically, we're about a third the size in terms of land area. We are a little bigger than New York, but not by a ton.
So what you wrote upthread:
When Texas and Florida are as congested as New York and California, the COL will also rise proportionately.
....isn't really true for Florida. We're already as congested as New York and California.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Building sprawling housing tracts over the fields and valleys that supply so much of the nation's food, and exhausting our groundwater to do so, is finally becoming controversial.
I attended Fresno State College in CA in the mid-70's. Fresno touted itself as the "All American City". Indeed. If by all American you mean an ugly sprawling mess. Even then I was appalled by the rapid urbanization of some of the best agricultural land in the world. But maybe now the bigger problem is adequate water supplies to irrigate the lands already under production. Sustainability? Bah, onward to entropic collapse!
No. of Recommendations: 3
Perhaps - but my point was that unlike Texas, Florida is already as "congested" as California is.
How old is its infrastructure- roads, water distribution, electric grid?
Will be interesting to track maintenance costs as time goes by.
No. of Recommendations: 3
"... but my point was that unlike Texas, Florida is already as "congested" as California is. We actually have less space than California - geographically, we're about a third the size in terms of land area.
California has twice the population. We have 155 sq miles vs FLA 54 sq miles, but a lot of that is mountain, desert and ag. We're packed into the coastal strip with soul-sapping congestion.
The populated area of NYC has just gone to congestion pricing to deal with their legendary congestion, so I dunno what to say except good luck to Floridians as your new-found wonderfulness is experienced ever-growing numbers of new residents.
And, to all the people that flocked to the golden state...
Horace Greeley is dead. Head East!
No. of Recommendations: 2
But maybe now the bigger problem is adequate water supplies to irrigate the lands already under production. Sustainability? Bah, onward to entropic collapse!
No te preoccupado, amigo....
On January 21 Orange Jesus is going to turn on the big faucet in our 51st state, dontchaknow.
No. of Recommendations: 0
How old is its infrastructure- roads, water distribution, electric grid?
Will be interesting to track maintenance costs as time goes by.
Sure - that's the Strong Towns argument. But awaiting the costs that come with the passage of time is a little different than expecting congestion to bring Florida's costs into line with CA and NY, since we're already there.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Conservative areas practice more of a 'benign neglect'...
Basically, deregulation.
Build anywhere you want, do anything you want, damn the consequences.
Local city councils in the Phoenix metro long have been dominated by developers. Which is why we're sprawling rapidly. City infrastructure (in the suburbs) has struggled to keep up; one suburb actually tried to impose a moratorium on new builds because they couldn't get adequate water and/or sewage installed.
Portland is smarter about it. They allow you to build up to a line, and no further. Eventually, they move the line. Assures infrastructure and services can keep up.
Is that why lots of FL buildings get swallowed by sink-holes? The "benign neglect", so nobody bothers to survey areas that will be prone to that? Queen Creek locally has an issue with fissures (the AZ equivalent of a sink hole), in part because builders didn't care to do the work.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Portland is smarter about it. They allow you to build up to a line, and no further. Eventually, they move the line. Assures infrastructure and services can keep up.
It's not necessarily being smarter about it. Urban growth boundaries limit the amount of land available for development, which can drive up the cost of housing significantly. You intentionally create scarcity - even though there's lots of vacant land within the metro area, you limit the land that can be used to provide additional housing units.
There can be public policy reasons why you want to do that (preserving ag land, intentionally trying to promote density, or even planning the timing of infrastructure) - but it's not necessarily a smart choice in and of itself. Very few Sun Belt metros have things like that. And while there's lots to dislike about places like Houston or Dallas, they tend to be much more affordable than places like Portland.
Is that why lots of FL buildings get swallowed by sink-holes? The "benign neglect", so nobody bothers to survey areas that will be prone to that?
Not really. Almost every part of Florida is at least theoretically subject to sinkholes - the entire state is comprised of carbonate rocks - but we've got a pretty extensive survey of the areas that are most at risk (Karst regions where limestone is close to the surface). But there's no way to know in advance whether a particular lot within those areas is going to be hit with a sinkhole going forward, and it's too big to just close that whole part of the state off. It's like more like Tornado Alley than anything else - you know that the structures within that vast area have a higher than normal chance of being demolished in a tornado, but you can't know ahead of time which ones and you're not going to just avoid the entire region.
No. of Recommendations: 1
....isn't really true for Florida. We're already as congested as New York and California.
And bad drivers. People misbehave, have road rage, and just plain drive badly here. It's noticeable.
No. of Recommendations: 3
FL drivers are unbelievable. I spent only a few days there a couple years ago. One thing I noticed right away, probably at least 1/3 of the vehicles I saw had some sort of damage, from scraped door panels to obvious impacts that caused fractured (or missing) pieces.
We didn't rent a car. But while riding the Uber/Lyft, we witnessed several crazy things. The one that stands out for me was a car stopped at a rail crossing. The passenger got out, manually forced the barricade up so the car could cross the tracks, and then dropped it and got back in the car. Until I saw it, I never would have thought that anyone would do that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The passenger got out, manually forced the barricade up so the car could cross the tracks, and then dropped it and got back in the car. Until I saw it, I never would have thought that anyone would do that.
"Florida Man" isn't a meme for nothing :)
No. of Recommendations: 2
Surprised his piece hasn't been quoted yet:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/01/04...Countries with more than half of the world’s population went to the polls last year. And the basic message they sent to their governments was one of dissatisfaction and anger with the status quo. Their frustration seemed to be particularly focused on the side that has traditionally been identified with big government, the left.
...
The crisis of democratic government then, is actually a crisis of progressive government. People seem to feel that they have been taxed, regulated, bossed around and intimidated by left-of-center politicians for decades — but the results are bad and have been getting worse.Indeed. And this is the rub for the democrats:
New York with about 20 million people, Florida with 23 million. But New York state’s budget is more than double that of Florida ($239 billion vs. roughly $116 billion). New York City, which is a little more than three times the size of Miami-Dade County, has a budget of more than $100 billion, which is nearly 10 times that of Miami-Dade. New York City’s spending grew from 2012 to 2019 by 40 percent, four times the rate of inflation. Does any New Yorker feel that they got 40 percent better services during that time?This question can be repeated in just about every blue state and municipality with the answer coming back a resounding NO every. Single. Time.
At some point, you have to turn your rhetoric into actual governance. The left's usual
modus operandi is to target an institution for takeover, vivisect its living husk, then walk around wearing it as a skin suit. The voters are rejecting this sort of governing model, hopefully wholesale.
No. of Recommendations: 3
New York with about 20 million people, Florida with 23 million. But New York state’s budget is more than double that of Florida ($239 billion vs. roughly $116 billion). New York City, which is a little more than three times the size of Miami-Dade County, has a budget of more than $100 billion, which is nearly 10 times that of Miami-Dade. New York City’s spending grew from 2012 to 2019 by 40 percent, four times the rate of inflation. Does any New Yorker feel that they got 40 percent better services during that time?
This question can be repeated in just about every blue state and municipality with the answer coming back a resounding NO every. Single. Time.I'm sympathetic with Zakaria's argument, but he's being a little dodgy here. It's not meaningful to compare NYC's budget with that of Miami-Dade County, because Miami-Dade County is....well, it's a county, not a city. Most people in Miami-Dade County also live in a city, and they receive their municipal services (like police and fire and public works) from that City, and not the County. The population of Miami-Dade County that lives in the unincorporated area (and thus receives municipal services from MDC) is only about a million people. NYC is about 8.5x the size of that "city," so a budget of nearly 10x that of Miami-Dade isn't that ridiculous.
Also, while NYC's budget may have increased 40%, Miami-Dade County's has increased by about 50% over the same time period.
https://www.miamidade.gov/budget/library/FY2012-13...https://www.miamidade.gov/budget/library/fy2019-20...As for the state spending, for good or bad the lion's share of these disparities come down to Medicaid, not the type of municipal services that people think of when they imagine local government. Nearly half that big state budget is Medicaid (about $100 of $239 billion). New York state has the highest Medicaid expenditure per capita in the country; Florida's one of the lowest. That's because: i) medical costs are vastly more expensive in New York than elsewhere; and ii) New York has a very large number of people who qualify for Medicaid compared to most states. New York state has a vastly bigger budget than Florida in no small part because it has a bigger Medicaid program, not because they're providing any materially different state and local services to residents.
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-and-l...https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/new-york...https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/m...
No. of Recommendations: 2
Until I saw it, I never would have thought that anyone would do that.
I've been forced to drive on the side of the road by people pulling into my lane not seeing me there - they would've hit me if I hadn't reacted. I've had to drive into the oncoming lane of the road because someone didn't seeing me and pulled into my lane from being parked - I would have hit them otherwise. I've twice been followed by people with road rage because I honked at them to let them know I was there when they pulled out or cut me off and I honked.
No. of Recommendations: 3
We're already as congested as New York and California.
I'll deal with CA, since that is my home state. And I'm not sure that statement is really correct. At a minimum, it's a bit over simplified.
CA is really two states - the densely populated urban and suburban sprawls, and the lightly populated balance.
I can take 8 counties (roughly the LA and SF bay area, plus San Diego and Sacramento) and get a population roughly the same as FL - 21.9 million in those counties vs 22.6 mil in FL. But the areas occupied by those people are vastly different - 12,203 sq mi for the CA extract vs. 65,758 for all of FL. Those parts of CA are much more congested (measured in people per square mile) than FL. The remainder of CA has 17.0 million people and over 151,000 square miles. Population density there is less than 1/3 that of FL on average.
Looking at FL, the densest counties seem to be Broward and Orange, both a bit under 1500 people per sq mi. Seven of the 8 counties I separated out of CA have higher densities than this (from the 17,000+ in San Francisco to 1592 in Sacramento).
I'm sure I could do a similar analysis on NY. Fine. I'll just do it. NYC has 8.2 million folks crammed into 303 square miles. 27,000+ people per sq mi. The balance of NY is 11.31 million in 54253 sq miles, giving 208 people per sq mi.
Florida has a much more uniformly distributed population that either of these two states. I'd argue that FL can't hold a candle to the congestion that NY and CA have to deal with, even if that congestion is somewhat localized.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
Florida has a much more uniformly distributed population that either of these two states. I'd argue that FL can't hold a candle to the congestion that NY and CA have to deal with, even if that congestion is somewhat localized.
Sure - we don't have anything that remotely compares to the population density of someplace like Manhattan (though our densest urban areas are in Miami-Dade County, not Broward).
But that's the point I was making. At the statewide level, Florida can handle a lot of population growth, because we're not trying to fit all those extra people into Manhattan-like places. Which is part of how we've been able to grow our population to a density that already exceeds the overall density of New York or California without having very many of those pockets of ultra-high density.
So the prediction that Florida will start to have qualitatively different issues as our congestion approaches that of California or New York is just mistaken. It is very difficult and complex to have millions of humans in a very compact space at super high population densities like we see in the densest parts of the NYC and SF and LA metros. One solution to that is to develop sizable public institutions that can deal with those complexities. Another is to simply....not do that. Rather than try to make more Manhattans, you can just keep population densities low and sprawl into areas where space is available.
There are lots of reasons why such development patterns are disliked, of course - and many folks make some very strong arguments in favor of urban planning that fosters very high population densities. But that type of urban form is not inevitable for Florida. We can continue to grow and get more congested as a state, without moving into those types of urban forms, just the same way we exceeded the overall population density of NYS and CA without doing that.
No. of Recommendations: 6
So the prediction that Florida will start to have qualitatively different issues as our congestion approaches that of California or New York is just mistaken.
Excellent. We have a few thousands of folks that suddenly need new homes in a benign, welcoming location. Sounds like FLA may be the answer!
Shortly after we got off the bus, we were walked right back and evac'd from elementary school. We got offloaded at another school where we all sat in the gym watching our school burn to the ground.
Yesterday my high school (and much of the community in which I grew up) burned to the ground.
Point being, whether it's coast impacted by hurricanes, or santa ana wind-driven wildfires, the best laid plans of sprawl developers and sprawl planners are folly when nature does what nature does.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yesterday my high school (and much of the community in which I grew up) burned to the ground.
I'm sorry for you and your community. I've been watching the media coverage, but nothing compares to the reality on the ground, I'm sure. Even from thousands of miles away, it looks horrific.
Point being, whether it's coast impacted by hurricanes, or santa ana wind-driven wildfires, the best laid plans of sprawl developers and sprawl planners are folly when nature does what nature does.
Absolutely. But nature's going to do what it does regardless of whether our urban development patterns are sprawling or concentrated. That doesn't mean they're entirely outside of our ability to affect them. If you sprawl into areas that are prone to a particular natural risk (like wildfires or coastlines), you'll increase some of that risk - and if you sprawl into areas that are not (like Florida's sprawling inland areas, particularly around Orlando in the I-4 corridor), you'll reduce it.
Whether it's sprawl developers or multi-family developers or in-between developers, there's risks and benefits to every type of development pattern.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Whether it's sprawl developers or multi-family developers or in-between developers, there's risks and benefits to every type of development pattern.
Of course. And... as population increases, the options reduce such that accepted risks increase, as do the costs of the consequences.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course. And... as population increases, the options reduce such that accepted risks increase, as do the costs of the consequences.
Not necessarily. Here in Florida, our major risk is from hurricanes coming on shore. Our existing population has historically been concentrated in coastal areas. We developed the riskiest areas first and biggest. But our most recent population growth, over the last decade and a half, has been growing fastest in inland areas - especially the areas around Orlando - and slower in the coastal communities. Our population distribution has actually been improving (or at least standing still) in terms of mitigating that risk. And there's tons of room in those central areas for more population, if demand is there - our increasing population isn't going to materially foreclose the "safer" options.
And as I originally pointed out, we're already past NY and CA in that respect. Our population density is already higher than both those states. We're already as "congested" (on a statewide level) as those two states are. So whatever you think of Zakaria's snapshot analysis, it's not distorted by Florida being a lower population density state than NYS or CA.
No. of Recommendations: 1
(though our densest urban areas are in Miami-Dade County, not Broward)\
I was kind of surprised when the math showed M-D as less dense than Broward. My guess is that M-D has a bit of a bi-polar distribution, much like the ones I pointed out in CA and NY. And taking the time to look at a map, it appears that M-D includes a chunk of the Everglades, which has almost no one in it. That's a bit like LA county, with the dense city of LA, then a bunch of lightly populated outskirts in the mountains.
But then again, Broward also includes a chunk of the Everglades. If it was that important to my argument, I'd re-check my data sources.
So the prediction that Florida will start to have qualitatively different issues as our congestion approaches that of California or New York is just mistaken.
...
you can just keep population densities low and sprawl into areas where space is available.
OK. But is FL really doing that? Is there really space available?
You've got a pretty dense area on the southeast coast, from Miami through Palm beach. There's another pretty dense area across the peninsula from Fort Meyers thru Tampa/St. Pete. And once you're north of Lake Okeechobee, everything that isn't a designated wilderness area (State Park, National Park/Monument, etc.) has people in it. The population can't grow further without increasing density - whether making the existing dense cities denser, or the semi-rural areas less rural and more suburban.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
But is FL really doing that? Is there really space available?Oh, sure. There's tons of space in central Florida. Take, for example, the area near The Villages. The Villages is a
massive retirement/elderly community well northwest of Orlando, with some 150K residents. It's literally the fastest growing place in the entire country. It's
surrounded by vacant land - to the east to US 441, to the west to I-75, and almost unlimited area to the South. Which is why it's expected to nearly double in population within the next ten years or so:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Villages,+FL.......and that's just one single community in north-central Florida. That part of the state is nowhere close to full. Sure, there's lots of conservation areas and preserves scattered about - but there's also
massive amounts of land that's either just undeveloped or very marginal ag land.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sure, there's lots of conservation areas and preserves scattered about - but there's also massive amounts of land that's either just undeveloped or very marginal ag land.
How much of that is steep indefensible tinder dry scrub or Mojave/Phoenix/blistering hot desert ?
No. of Recommendations: 1
How much of that is steep indefensible tinder dry scrub or Mojave/Phoenix/blistering hot desert ?
Here in Florida? None of it.
No. of Recommendations: 3
How much of that is steep indefensible tinder dry scrub or Mojave/Phoenix/blistering hot desert ?
Here in Florida? None of it.
Awesome.
We need a Horace Greely to convince all the homeless, existing and new, about the wonderfullness of Florida.
Head east, y'all.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Awesome.
We need a Horace Greely to convince all the homeless, existing and new, about the wonderfullness of Florida.
Head east, y'all.
You don't really need a new Greely. Florida's one of the fastest growing states in the nation already, and has been for a while.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's surrounded by vacant land - to the east to US 441, to the west to I-75, and almost unlimited area to the South. Which is why it's expected to nearly double in population within the next ten years or so:Just in looking at aerial photos of those areas, that's not what I'd call vacant land. It's all subdivided and criss-crossed with roads. It's lightly populated with folks who may or may not be happy about that development spreading into their area. Some of those will become the folks who will complain about the congestion as the development spreads toward them.
Sure, there's lots of room to increase density, but that increased density is what will cause the problems that LA, SF, and NYC have been dealing with for decades.
very marginal ag land Is there any ag land in FL that *isn't* marginal. ;-)
Of course, as a CA native, I'm a bit biased as to what is and isn't good ag land. Maybe as much as 1/4 of CA is some of the best ag lands in the world. That's also a part of why comparing state wide population densities between CA and FL is a bit of a fool's errand. We've got a lot of land that needs to stay agricultural. And a lot of land in the mountains that is not suitable for any kind of development beyond the most primitive of shelters.
For reference, here's that bit of "undeveloped" land to the west of The Villages:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.9237366,-82.071716...And here's some REAL undeveloped land in CA, just north of I-10 and east of CA-177
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7551554,-115.24914...--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just in looking at aerial photos of those areas, that's not what I'd call vacant land. It's all subdivided and criss-crossed with roads. It's lightly populated with folks who may or may not be happy about that development spreading into their area. Some of those will become the folks who will complain about the congestion as the development spreads toward them.Yeah, that won't matter much. That type of development pattern is pretty common outside the urbanized development areas. You get "farm residential" in a lot of these areas, where people have 20-30 acre properties that they have a "farm house" on so that most of their land can qualify for the tax exemption. But that stuff is
super easy to assemble once it's time for development to move into the area - the spread in value on 120-140 homes vs. 30 acres with a single home is so huge that it's easy to find a deal - and a lot of those places are basically people that are land banking as an investment, but just choosing to live on it until its time to sell. They don't object when their neighbor closer in sells to developers, because that's their plan as well.
And that's not even the easiest stuff. Tons of land where you don't even have that. You can see it where the Villages is currently expanding, to the South. The tan area that you see in this link:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Villages,+FL...It's all tan because it's been cleared and graded. You can see that they've put in nearly all the roads as well - all that's ready to go and be converted into houses. About 4 square miles, just eyeballing it - probably north of 10K people, just in that area. And then all that land to the south and east of that tan area - that's all former ag land/ranch land that's gone idle, easily another 20-30 square miles more. It will all eventually be part of the Villages metro area, about 3K people per square mile, the next 100K Floridians. In just that one spot. It won't look
at all what New Urbanist planners look for - it will be very suburban sprawl - but it will be plentiful and have yards and parking and easy roadway access and lots of the stuff that Villages residents like to have.
