Downtown Revitalization = Socialism

[Hawkins]

Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

Now, that seems to be where the large national retailers want to locate. This area, including parts of Broken Arrow, seems to be enjoying solid growth.

The City, however, wants to spend money, and give tax breaks to businesses that locate downtown. They are spending millions on a stadium, and plan to spend more to move the Driller's downtown.

The City leaders seem to be fighting the economic trend here, in an attempt to revitalize a poor development area.

The quote below is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:

quote:Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

So I ask you, how is the uphill battle that is "Downtown Revitalization," not socialism?
 
Why can't our city government just let the private sector develop our community without pouring taxpayer money into a run down area?

--

[FOTD]

My conservative side sez, "reduce the size of the city government until it will drown in a detention pond."

My liberal side sez, "way to go Hawkins."

Ask the Tulsa World when their owners are going to show us the money.

[waterboy]

Yoo Hoo! We're all saved! Socialism kicks butt!

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

Now, that seems to be where the large national retailers want to locate. This area, including parts of Broken Arrow, seems to be enjoying solid growth.

The City, however, wants to spend money, and give tax breaks to businesses that locate downtown. They are spending millions on a stadium, and plan to spend more to move the Driller's downtown.

The City leaders seem to be fighting the economic trend here, in an attempt to revitalize a poor development area.

The quote below is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:

quote:Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

So I ask you, how is the uphill battle that is "Downtown Revitalization," not socialism?
 
Why can't our city government just let the private sector develop our community without pouring taxpayer money into a run down area?

--

Giving businesses subsidies to locate in an area is not socialism. Your quote stated that socialism is when business is controlled by the community or the state and these are private enterprises.

They city recognise the power of critical mass, if enough businesses, people and activities move into the downtown it will create a vibrant and dynamic centre that will create enough growth to drive itself forward. The city is just nurturing the downtown at the moment.

Other cities give subsidies in the form of infrastructure, but in downtown it’s already there. It might work out cheaper to give the odd grant to locate businesses where they will have the biggest impact and require the least new infrastructure rather than drive new roads and sewage to increasingly remote areas.

[YoungTulsan]

Right now we are in a situation where we have almost no choice but to subsidize downtown.  The problem is that the government "socialist" subsidies have for decades been going out into the suburban sprawl-fest.  While subdizing development in downtown seems a little more blatant, it is no different from the city investing in infrastructure south and east of town while letting the inner city deteriorate.

While the mantra should be "no government handouts across the board", we are now in a precarious situation with a downtown on the verge of death.  Just standing by and letting development all escape to Jenks, Owasso, and Bixby will have even worse consequences in the long term.

I consider myself extremely conservative when it comes to federal spending, but I am also fairly liberal when it comes to local spending.  When it comes to our neighborhoods, our infrastructure, our community, the private sector does not handle all of that.  We need intelligent planners in government who know how to spend money to create more opportunities, and how to increase the quality of life for everyone.

Local design and planning, when done right, can almost be like a work of art.  When the local community works together with the city planners, a beautiful community can result.  When the city planners fall asleep at the wheel and only oblige to the special interests of "the money", you get endless sprawl, poorly design communities, a downtown on the verge of death, and deteriorating infrastructure.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

Now, that seems to be where the large national retailers want to locate. This area, including parts of Broken Arrow, seems to be enjoying solid growth.

The City, however, wants to spend money, and give tax breaks to businesses that locate downtown. They are spending millions on a stadium, and plan to spend more to move the Driller's downtown.

The City leaders seem to be fighting the economic trend here, in an attempt to revitalize a poor development area.

The quote below is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:

quote:Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

So I ask you, how is the uphill battle that is "Downtown Revitalization," not socialism?
 
Why can't our city government just let the private sector develop our community without pouring taxpayer money into a run down area?

--

I think the city has a vested interest in making sure that it doesn't start to decay from the inside out.  If downtown and midtown start to crumble, it will spread like a cancer.  You call it socialism, I call it encouraging redevelopment of blighted areas and reinvesting on the infrastructure that was long ago paid for, not adding MORE to stretch the city limits further south and east, which only fuels growth of other cities like Bixby and Broken Arrow.

[RecycleMichael]

I think you are thinking too much on this. So any financial incentive leads to socialism?

How is offering a better price on land purchases or helping with infrastrucure controlling wealth?

My neighbor has three times more trash than me, but we get charged the same amount. Is that manipulating a system of distributing wealth?This same neighbor is forced to pay proprty tax to support my kids school, yet has none of his own. Is that socialism based on your definition?

Why do you feel the private sector would do everything necessary without any government oversight?

If we didn't, for example, we could have out-of-state builders making unsafe housing. If they catch fire, people will stop renting them? See the private sector rules will fix all that. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to deal with the remains...the private sector has left town.

Who pays for fire protection anyway? Charge every home a charge when the fire truck shows up. You better have cash...your house will be burning while they make sure your check or credit card will clear.

Oh, that road the fire truck took to get to your house? The private sector may have only built it to be wide enough for passenger vehicles, they didn't want the extra expense of making it wide enough for a trash truck. Better yet, make the fire truck pay a toll to get into your neighborhood.

You anti-gubmint folks crack me up. You don't want any interference, yet use government services throughout your life.

[cannon_fodder]

There is no goal of developing a socio-economic system where government controls the actions of private enterprise.  Government is merely trying to influence said entities into doing what it deems proper. The same as zoning ordinances, tax schemes, or any other government activity - government activity in and of itself is not socialist.

The best proof that it is not socialism is in your own statement:

quote: Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

In spite of best efforts, the private enterprise is ignoring the bequest of government and doing what they please.  Mussolini would be pissed.

Though one can not deny that the activities are interference in the free market.  The debate should not be phrase as "is this socialism" but rather is this interference a proper roll of government (government interference in free enterprise can be proper in free markets in a large variety of ways).  In essence, are we correcting some flaw in the market that government is preeminently qualified to do?

The best I can come up with is... maybe.  Directing orderly development has been a roll of government since Roman times and is often appreciated by the free market (residential zoning, for instance) with no other force as suitably able to dictate such policy.  In this instance the "move on" mentality of development is financially driven to continuously turn to greener pastures (literally) as repairing/redeveloping costs more than bull dozing a new field.

I am of the opinion that it better serves the community to encourage infill and redevelopment to offset the market forces that make it more profitable to abandoned and rebuild.  Thus, a firm argument can be made that it is a proper roll of government to interfere with the market to the smallest extent necessary to achieve that goal.

[Conan71]

Damn it, CF, you stole my thunder!  Great explaination.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

Now, that seems to be where the large national retailers want to locate. This area, including parts of Broken Arrow, seems to be enjoying solid growth.

The City, however, wants to spend money, and give tax breaks to businesses that locate downtown. They are spending millions on a stadium, and plan to spend more to move the Driller's downtown.

The City leaders seem to be fighting the economic trend here, in an attempt to revitalize a poor development area.

The quote below is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:

quote:Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

So I ask you, how is the uphill battle that is "Downtown Revitalization," not socialism?
 
Why can't our city government just let the private sector develop our community without pouring taxpayer money into a run down area?

--

The private sector is developing our community in the south. But whats going to happen when that area is "full up" and becomes old itself? Do we just leave the city of Tulsa all together? Why pour taxpayer money into a run down area?

Broken Arrow, like you mentioned is growing as well. But that doesnt grow Tulsa or fund tax dollars for Tulsas streets, police, etc.

You mention that Tulsa want to spend money to move the Drillers downtown. Jenks is spending money through a tif to bring the Drillers there, fix up its main street with planters, lights trees, widen and fix roads. Money was also spent to bring the aquarium there, the Bass Pro to Broken Arrow along with them spending money to build a new Convention Center, museum, Farmers Market, Parks and recreations facilities, NSU Broken Arrow Campus, etc.

There is this thing called "Competition". Competition between cities and what those cities have to offer.  We are beginning to compete with the suburbs. They want to grow and an easy target to grab tax dollars and growth from is Tulsa itself. Tulsa also has to compete with other cities and what they choose to build, other cities that have lively downtowns. If the people of one city decide to get together and build say a great riverfront, trails systems, lakes, beautiful downtown, museums, performing arts venues, arena, colleges, etc. And another city doesnt have those things. The city that has will have a competitive advantage over the one that doesnt unless there is something special about that city otherwise, (aka, tourist attractions, ocean front property, booming economy, world class_____"fill in the blank".) And usually those things are either a fluke of locality, chance, or something that takes some investment.
Plus unless you can stop other cities or states from offering tax incentives to businesses its going to be a bit hard to say no, we should never do it ourselves.

If you dont want to live in a city like Tulsa that is growing, adding jobs, not seeing huge declines in housing, has some of the lowest over all tax burden in the nation, and has booming suburbs.... Your welcome to move.  Let me know when you find some place that is less "Socialist" doing better I will help ya pack.

[waterboy]

What? Its not socializm? Damn. Wikipedia is usually so spot on with this stuff. How in the world could you people justify spending a full page on this post. We went to school, listened and read the texts. He didn't. And you dignified a stupid remark. I've made better posts and been totally ignored! What is it ...my breath? No personal offense, Hawk, but you might have thought that out a bit.

[we vs us]

This is how actual socialists describe  socialism.  I found it rather interesting, and helped clarify for me what is and is not "socialist."  I cribbed this from, where else, The Socialism Website

 

quote: Socialism in a nutshell

 In a socialist society the means of production [1] are owned by the workers rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries. Such a system of ownership is both collective and individual in nature.

It is collective because society can control production unlike the economic anarchy of capitalism and because production is for the common good rather than for individual profit.

At the same time it is individual because workers are no longer a 'collective' mob of alienated non-owners employed by a minority of owners. Work becomes a free and self-affirming activity for each worker and they receive the full fruits of their labor. The capitalists and their servants no longer control production nor grow rich from other's toil. Everybody is an owner. Socialism is genuine free enterprise.

Footnote [1]. The means of production comprise everything, except labor, that is used in production, namely, factories, plant, equipment, offices, shops, raw materials, fuel and components.

Unfortunately, it didn't really say much about how a small city in Oklahoma might, for the good of its citizens and the health of its economy, use its resources to create a favorable market for development in an ailing area of town. But then, I didn't really read the whole thing.

[TheArtist]

You can be as socialist as you want in our society. Its a choice. You can either buy stock "owning the means of production" and or pay more taxes, "collective sharing".

The problem with pure socialism is that it decreases productivity, creativity, initiative and entrepreneurship. The reason I have worked so hard to start my own business, working weekends, nights, doing without for years and struggling is so that in the end I could make a good profit.  I know danged well that there are plenty of people who wont do that and if I were in a purely socialist society, no matter how hard I worked someone else would not and thus I would never get what I wanted. However the more money I make the more taxes I now pay, the more wealth I generate,"I employ people" the more I buy helping to raise others up, the more stocks I buy enabling other companies to employ more, creativity increases productivity "productivity means less work per unit of output, in other words it takes less labor to produce a bushel of wheat, a TV, clothing, a house, etc. so everyone can now live better by doing less to get the same amount they would have had to have worked before" ... Its basically socialism on steroids. Each person potentially gets MORE than what they deserve. Plus if you make very little you pay less taxes. By earning more and spending more I pay more taxes than I used to and hope to pay more next year, and the year after...

[Hawkins]

Fair responses from everyone.

Its not obviously all-out socialism, but it is to some degree. Take the new stadium for example.

The City decides to build it in a blighted area. Will this work? Maybe. Will it bring more business downtown? Certainly.

The stadium (and the Drillers ballpark too) will generate positive economic growth for surrounding businesses.

Business in South Tulsa loses out on the benefits of this new stadium. Although they have hotels, restaurants and other establishments ready to capitalize on a nearby stadium, much of the buck gets passed to a poorer neighborhood, to 'help it out.'

So in that degree, it is socialist, even more so because the tax dollars of the city are being used toward the building of this attempted 'economic equalizer.'

In the end though, I fear that all the money and government help in the world isn't going to make downtown Tulsa the downtown some of you would like to see.

Tulsa is a unique place, and one of its unique little quirks is that it is built on an easy to understand grid, and people do not like navigating through one-way streets and searching for parking, or taking multiple expressway ramps and turns to get somewhere.

Even IF downtown Tulsa loses its 'run down' image, its still not going to become the favored destination of the city's consumer.

--

[rwarn17588]

If you don't like socialism, then you'd better not drive on tax-supported roads, shut off your tax-supported water, decline the use of your tax-supported sewer system, decline to call the tax-supported police department when you have a break-in, or refused to alert the tax-supported fire department when your attic fan wiring goes on the fritz.

A lot of people complain about socialism, but would be loathe to not have admittedly socialist services such as these.