Ask HN: Why can’t big cities buy up small towns?

10 pointsby b0ner_t0nerover 3 years ago

If big corporations can buy up smaller companies, then why can’t big cities buy up small towns?Countless dying small towns in the US have had their population numbers decline over the years with many young people and families moving to bigger cities. You see so many “Help Wanted” signs at different restaurants and shops with nobody fill these positions. Similarly, other small towns in the US South get hit by massive floods, tornadoes and hurricanes year after year and yet, they still rebuild in the same place.So why don’t big cities like New York City buy up some of these small towns, help move the people, give them priority (affordable / subsidized) housing, help them find jobs and invite them to integrate with a larger community?Wouldn’t it be a positive for everyone involved? Some of the changes:<pre><code> • People earning minimum wage in a small town with no future now have much bigger and better opportunities and choices in a big city • Small town folks who get moved to a big cities will be exposed to a much larger culture (some may not have even seen or talked to black people or Asians in person); not to mention all the different foods they’d get exposed to • The small towns are demolished and are turned back into what they were 100+ years ago fixing the environment: forests, swamps or land given back to the Aboriginals • No more re-building homes in these tornado / flooded / hurricane damaged small towns year after year; it’s not wise and it’s just a waste of time, money and resources</code></pre>

9 comments

PeterisPover 3 years ago

The simple thing is that towns (as the "organizational unit", not the individual plots of land, which are mostly owned by many private individuals/companies) aren't some property that have an owner which can sell them, the municipalities/counties/whatever are determined by the state constitution and government. Municipalities can be merged (or split) in various ways depending on the state, but it's a political decision, not a free market.Also, there's no option for people to "get moved" - you can offer incentives for them to move, but they have the right to stay on their property and to vote for people who promise to maintain their local infrastructure instead of transferring them somewhere else.Furthermore, in the specific example situation you describe, there's a significant expense to NYCity (essentially, buying up lots of valuable land and abandoning it) and no clear benefit for the citizens of NY City, which their government is supposed to represent. Why would people of NYC support spending their taxes on subsidies to some other town's people and explicitly giving housing priority to "others" over the current voters of NYC? The incentives don't seem to be aligned there.

评论 #29296790 未加载

sgtover 3 years ago

Cities don't actually have that much disposable money. Also - cities deprioritize the poor and struggling.Aside from the humaniarian aspect, does it really make much sense spending millions on trying to rescue meth and fentanyl addicts? I doubt most tax payers would agree.

评论 #29296366 未加载

phillipseamoreover 3 years ago

People live in small towns, because they want to live in small towns.

评论 #29296801 未加载

recursivedoubtsover 3 years ago

That's as ridiculous as asking "Why can't big people buy small people?" or "Why can't big countries buy small countries?"Wait...

评论 #29297360 未加载

shmattover 3 years ago

In the U.S, big cities are dealing with a huge housing crisis. There aren't enough residential units for all its residents. You would have to fix that crisis (neighborhoods and politicians banning high rises, etc.) before that could be doneWhat would actually make sense, if you want to continue your idea. Is for cities to buy said towns, take over the zoning, build 1000 x 50 floor buildings and export people from the big cities to the towns. This would be more similar to what happened in China in the last decade or soCities are busting at the seams, we need people to leave, not come in

asdfasgasdgasdgover 3 years ago

Because this wouldn't benefit voters in big cities. As a general rule, political units don't do things that are totally disconnected from the wellbeing of the people who control the leadership. That doesn't mean cities always behave optimally in the interest of their constituents, but you won't see too much in the way of making arbitrary investments that are completely disconnected and actually against the interests of city dwellers.

JaimeThompsonover 3 years ago

How many people are considered a small town? Honestly I have no idea.

dragonwriterover 3 years ago

> If big corporations can buy up smaller companies, then why can’t big cities buy up small towns?Because cities aren't property, so there is nothing to buy. In the US, they can merge, if the citizens of each agree to terms that are permissible in law and the relevant outside regulators are satisfied (e.g., currently in California, the county Local Agency Formation Commission, if the two are in the same county; if they are in neighboring counties, the county and state governments become involved.) It even happens sometimes.But, mostly, people don't want to dilute their vote in local government; so they are more likely to for some kind of Joint Powers Authority for shared purposes than to merge, unless one existing local government is completely nonviable.> So why don’t big cities like New York City buy up some of these small towns, help move the people, give them priority (affordable / subsidized) housing, help them find jobs and invite them to integrate with a larger community?Big cities don't have unlimited budgets, and have enough problems supporting their own indigent populations. Why, even if there weren't any administrative barriers, would they literally pay their money to get a giant additional set of problems, and put a whole new indigent population ahead of local citizens in need, and drive up local costs with demand pressure, making the local poor even worse off?> Wouldn’t it be a positive for everyone involved?No.> People earning minimum wage in a small town with no future now have much bigger and better opportunities and choices in a big cityWell, they'd be unemployed in a vig city competing in a market with a influx of unemployment new locals as well as all the people already competing for local jobs, in a much more expensive to live place. This is...not an improvement.> Small town folks who get moved to a big cities will be exposed to a much larger cultureWell, they'll be physically proximate to it in the shelters for which they are given priority. But I’m not sure big city shelter residents are typically exposed to much culture, and given the expenses of the big city, getting out of shelters may be difficult.> The small towns are demolished and are turned back into what they were 100+ years ago fixing the environment: forests, swamps or land given back to the AboriginalsSo, if the big city buyout is good for everyone, we are going to exclude the indigenous population because fuck them, right?But, sure, if this is a method for Land Back, indigenous people might be the one winners from it.> No more re-building homes in these tornado / flooded / hurricane damaged small townsA number of big cities are sites of recurrent natural disasters which require regular repair and revuildingt. It’s not like therr are no population centers in hurricane / tornado / earthquake / flooding areas.I’ll notice that you don't even suggest any benefits for the big city residents that are supposed to pay for the buyouts and then pay again by being deprioritized for local services in your “good for everyone” scenario.

disneygibsonover 3 years ago

About the last thing people in small towns want are arrogant city folks coming in, kicking them out, and moving them to a nightmarish megacity. It might come as a surprise to denizens of coastal cities, but no one in a small town looks at NYC or SF and thinks it’s a successful, nice place to live.If you want to help small towns, push for more remote work. There is absolutely zero reason why millions need to be crammed in a single geographic location when we all work online anyway.I’m honestly not sure if this post is satire.

评论 #29296359 未加载

评论 #29296476 未加载

评论 #29296448 未加载