Is an increased amount of municipalities going bankrupt actually a good thing?

[yllus]

As Canada is really a tiny nation where the 90% population lives in one of five major urban regions, it's easy to take notice when the other 10% makes a demand to, for instance, build a brand new hospital for a city with a population of under 1,000 people. It makes you wonder: With rising costs of everything (health care, electricity, even water and sewage treatment), how responsible and realistic is it for our governments to guarantee services to all of its citizens, no matter how far flung?

To some extent I can see the medium term future consisting of a certain amount of population migration to already-giant cities, as people abandon towns and cities sucking wind even if the cost of life in the NYCs and San Franciscos of the continent is sky-high. From the government's perspective, it is surely more affordable to provide services in a more centralized manner. And how realistic is it to bail out failing cities simply for the reason that those cities have been there for a long time?

For these reasons, I cautiously advance the argument that a certain amount of municipal bankruptcies may be the economically prudent route to take for the nation. I am curious to hear arguments otherwise, though. I think one obvious one is that with greater concentrated populations comes the ability to easier control said population, and there are certain rights you essentially give up by living in large urban areas. It's clearly not for everyone.

 

[techs]

It will make it far easier for the Iranians to nuke Canada.

 

[ShawnD1]

As Canada is really a tiny nation where the 90% population lives in one of five major urban regions, it's easy to take notice when the other 10% makes a demand to, for instance, build a brand new hospital for a city with a population of under 1,000 people. It makes you wonder: With rising costs of everything (health care, electricity, even water and sewage treatment), how responsible and realistic is it for our governments to guarantee services to all of its citizens, no matter how far flung?

Small town hospitals don't just service one town. They service a very wide area. For example, the hospital in Cold Lake, Alberta serves people for a good 100 miles in every direction. If you get hurt on the farm, you go to Cold Lake to get treated.

To some extent I can see the medium term future consisting of a certain amount of population migration to already-giant cities

From what I've seen, it's mostly young people who leave. The ones who still live in the small town at age 40 will likely live there until they die.

It will make it far easier for the Iranians to nuke Canada.

I'm sure they'll send some piece of shit fishing boat that can barely transport the missile without sinking. When asked why the Americans didn't notice it, they'll say "it looked just like a Canadian coast guard ship"

 

[desy]

link supporting that 90% live in one of the 5 major centers
Considering the urban rural split across Canada is 80/20 I don't see your numbers

 

[hal2kilo]

As Canada is really a tiny nation where the 90% population lives in one of five major urban regions, it's easy to take notice when the other 10% makes a demand to, for instance, build a brand new hospital for a city with a population of under 1,000 people. It makes you wonder: With rising costs of everything (health care, electricity, even water and sewage treatment), how responsible and realistic is it for our governments to guarantee services to all of its citizens, no matter how far flung?

To some extent I can see the medium term future consisting of a certain amount of population migration to already-giant cities, as people abandon towns and cities sucking wind even if the cost of life in the NYCs and San Franciscos of the continent is sky-high. From the government's perspective, it is surely more affordable to provide services in a more centralized manner. And how realistic is it to bail out failing cities simply for the reason that those cities have been there for a long time?

For these reasons, I cautiously advance the argument that a certain amount of municipal bankruptcies may be the economically prudent route to take for the nation. I am curious to hear arguments otherwise, though. I think one obvious one is that with greater concentrated populations comes the ability to easier control said population, and there are certain rights you essentially give up by living in large urban areas. It's clearly not for everyone.

The problem with your argument as it applies to the US, is that Scranton, PA and San Bernadino are far from being little villages out in the hinterland.

 

[bfdd]

I find it sad that our Federal Government thought it right to bail out the auto industry and various portions of the Finance Industry(aka institutionalized gambling), but finds it a-ok to let cities filled with hundreds of thousands of people fail. Not that I necessarily support bailing out cities or any of the banks or corporations that got them, just that I find it appalling that the people truly do come last to our Federal leaders.

 

[K1052]

Preferable, probably not, but definitely unavoidable.

More likely is that the regional cities and secondary urban cores in the big MSAs will gain population at the expense of rural/suburban areas.

 

[yllus]

The problem with your argument as it applies to the US, is that Scranton, PA and San Bernadino are far from being little villages out in the hinterland.

I'm not pointing at those mid-sized cities and saying, "Look, there's proof that this is happening." It's actually nearly irrelevant if it is or isn't. The question is if it's desirable: Should, driven by the reality of limited resources, we be welcoming greater centralization of population?

I find it sad that our Federal Government thought it right to bail out the auto industry and various portions of the Finance Industry(aka institutionalized gambling), but finds it a-ok to let cities filled with hundreds of thousands of people fail. Not that I necessarily support bailing out cities or any of the banks or corporations that got them, just that I find it appalling that the people truly do come last to our Federal leaders.

Isn't bailing out large corporations often the same thing as bailing out a city? There are lots of little cities in the Rust Belt that depend to a great extent on automakers or their suppliers.

 

[Infohawk]

The only concerns about continental sprawl should be environmental ones. With technology, its not that hard to govern these areas is it?

 

[K1052]

The only concerns about continental sprawl should be environmental ones. With technology, its not that hard to govern these areas is it?

Govern no, service yes. Maintaining enormous pieces of infrastructure and other municipal services that serve low density areas is going to be a real fiscal wake up call in the coming years for a lot of communities.

 

[Jaskalas]

As Canada is really a tiny nation where the 90% population lives in one of five major urban regions...

It is very expensive to live in a major American city.

 

[Infohawk]

Govern no, service yes. Maintaining enormous pieces of infrastructure and other municipal services that serve low density areas is going to be a real fiscal wake up call in the coming years for a lot of communities.

What OP is talking about seems to be cities that are away from major ones. He suggested it might be hard to know what these cities are up to and that's what I was addressing.

Low density is different and is a problem in most American cities.

 

[hal2kilo]

Govern no, service yes. Maintaining enormous pieces of infrastructure and other municipal services that serve low density areas is going to be a real fiscal wake up call in the coming years for a lot of communities.

If you watch Ice Road Truckers you can see how it's got to be ungodly expensive to live way up toward the arctic circle. Why anyone lives up there, I have no idea. Hell, I lived in Chicago about 3 years and I never ever want to live in that climate again. Canada starts another 150 miles north of that!

 

[Fern]

As Canada is really a tiny nation where the 90% population lives in one of five major urban regions, it's easy to take notice when the other 10% makes a demand to, for instance, build a brand new hospital for a city with a population of under 1,000 people.

Yeah, that would be stupid.

But as has been mentioned, that hospital would serve a few hundred thousand that live in the county, and possibly nearby counties.

Besides, down here, it's the county itself that builds and funds the hospitals, not the fed govt. (There may be some fed grants, IDK.)

It makes you wonder: With rising costs of everything (health care, electricity, even water and sewage treatment), how responsible and realistic is it for our governments to guarantee services to all of its citizens, no matter how far flung?

Yes, it's realistic.

Where do you think water comes from, only big cities?

Where I live we have more than ample access to good clean water. It's free for the city/county, they pump it from a mountain river. Laying water pipe isn't all that expensive, users can and do pay for it.

Besides, most are like me: I have my own well and purchased my pump and pipe. It costs the govt nothing.

Electricity? The electrical companies seem to make a nice profit down here. They don't get or need fed govt money. They charge us for power lines etc.

To some extent I can see the medium term future consisting of a certain amount of population migration to already-giant cities, as people abandon towns and cities sucking wind even if the cost of life in the NYCs and San Franciscos of the continent is sky-high. From the government's perspective, it is surely more affordable to provide services in a more centralized manner. And how realistic is it to bail out failing cities simply for the reason that those cities have been there for a long time?

I don't agree with the premise that "centralized" is cheaper. I think you mean servicing more people in a dense geographical area and, if so, that has limited application.

Land is a LOT cheaper out here etc. There is a reason that the cost of living is so much less out here. That metric works for govt too.

For these reasons, I cautiously advance the argument that a certain amount of municipal bankruptcies may be the economically prudent route to take for the nation. I am curious to hear arguments otherwise, though. I think one obvious one is that with greater concentrated populations comes the ability to easier control said population, and there are certain rights you essentially give up by living in large urban areas. It's clearly not for everyone.

If everybody lives in a city, who the hell is going to work the farms and dairies etc?

WTH is going to work at all the factories around here? Or do you suppose that they should be relocated too?

Now when you have all these people working the farms and factories, who is going to sell them groceries, gas, clothes or provide medical and other professional services?

There's a damn good reason we have people spread out all over, it ain't for inefficiency purposes.

It's our big cities that in some cases are literally falling apart. Visit Detroit etc.

Smaller towns aren't going bankrupt from providing basic services.

No, I think it more likely people will continue to spread out. Internet, wireless and other tech makes it feasible if not desirable.

Fern

 

[Fern]

If you watch Ice Road Truckers you can see how it's got to be ungodly expensive to live way up toward the arctic circle. Why anyone lives up there, I have no idea. Hell, I lived in Chicago about 3 years and I never ever want to live in that climate again. Canada starts another 150 miles north of that!

For the work.

Oil, diamonds, gold, fishing, timber etc. and all the people working in support jobs (physicians, pilots, welders, mechanics etc.)

There's there's the native Alaskans.

Edit: But I certainly understand your comment about the cold. I don't like heat and humidity, but below zero temps suck too.

Fern

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I find it hillarious that Canadians are dumb enough to fall for what the Baby Boomers in this country lifted up until it robbed them of half their savings. Conservatism is a lie that is used to cloak the true purpose of their ideaology, which is to rob the bottom 99% in order to make the top 1% disgustingly, and USELESSLY, rich.

 

[K1052]

No, I think it more likely people will continue to spread out. Internet, wireless and other tech makes it feasible if not desirable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577493032619987956.html

Present trends don't seem to bear that out.

Rural flight has also been a known problem for many years.

 

[ShawnD1]

Rural flight has also been a known problem for many years.

How is it a problem?

 

[Infohawk]

How is it a problem?

I believe it used to be subsidized and now it no longer is. Flights to rural areas can be quite expensive. I don't think that's that big of a deal though. If you have work in a smaller town, you can save a lot on real estate.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I find it sad that our Federal Government thought it right to bail out the auto industry and various portions of the Finance Industry(aka institutionalized gambling), but finds it a-ok to let cities filled with hundreds of thousands of people fail. Not that I necessarily support bailing out cities or any of the banks or corporations that got them, just that I find it appalling that the people truly do come last to our Federal leaders.

Good point!

How many cities have been around for more than a 100 years?

How many corporations?

Which one would you invest in?

 

[ShawnD1]

Flights to rural areas can be quite expensive.

But is anyone actually affected by this?

I ask because pretty much all of Canada is a no-fly zone. You might be able to fly from LA to NYC for $20 in the US, but a flight between Vancouver and Toronto will cost more than your car, so people don't fly unless it's business related and the company is paying for it. I've never flown in my entire life, and that's not unusual up here. While the total lack of mobility has its downsides, most people are completely unaffected by it.

 

[K1052]

I believe it used to be subsidized and now it no longer is. Flights to rural areas can be quite expensive. I don't think that's that big of a deal though. If you have work in a smaller town, you can save a lot on real estate.

I mean rural flight in the sense that over the last half century fewer people live in rural areas for a number of reasons.

 

[PokerGuy]

Younger people leaving the slower paced rural world for a more exciting urban area has been happening for at least 2000 years. There are pros and cons to each, but the reality is that both are needed. The big cities can simply not be sustained or supported without the rural areas. For starters, that's where all the food and many of the resources come from, and you need people living in rural areas to do it.

 

[Exterous]

Should, driven by the reality of limited resources, we be welcoming greater centralization of population?

Yes and no. Urban sprawl has been a big issue for America (We never studied the problem from Canada's viewpoint but I would imagine most of the same issues would apply) but the retraction won't be that great either. Few will pay to tear down abandoned structures so you'll be left with a bunch of underpopulated ghost towns.

If everybody lives in a city, who the hell is going to work the farms and dairies etc?

WTH is going to work at all the factories around here? Or do you suppose that they should be relocated too?

Now when you have all these people working the farms and factories, who is going to sell them groceries, gas, clothes or provide medical and other professional services?

There's a damn good reason we have people spread out all over, it ain't for inefficiency purposes.

It's our big cities that in some cases are literally falling apart. Visit Detroit etc.

Smaller towns aren't going bankrupt from providing basic services.

No, I think it more likely people will continue to spread out. Internet, wireless and other tech makes it feasible if not desirable.

Fern

I may have missed it but I don't think anyone said 'if everyone lives in a city' You can still have a significant transition of population to cities without removing everyone from the rural areas.

This also isn't something that would happen overnight. You could look at the migration from cities to suburban/rural areas. It used to be all the jobs/groceries/factories were in the city. Then, over time, a slow migration happened to outside the city. When a business needed a new factory they didn't renovate/build a new one in the city - they moved it to the suburbs. We aren't talking about a sudden abandonment of existing, useful structures.

Now, with the job market issues, people are moving back to the cities for a greater chance of getting a job due to the business density and market resiliency (A business is much less likely to employ the majority of the city so if it goes out of business the city is much less likely to be screwed)

Detroit is falling apart because people left the city - it is not the cause for people leaving the city. Detroit is what happens when you spread out too much. The auto industry that really built Detroit is what really started the collapse of the city. The ease and ability of acquiring a vehicle made residential mobility significantly easier for Detroit workers. White flight was part of it as well as white residents moved out of the city to avoid the blacks who were attracted to the availability of factory work.

The success of the industry made it easy to afford a house outside of the city. Just look at the 60s style ranch houses that were thrown up over hundreds of square miles. With land cheap, commuting easy and a decentralized workforce it was easy for the Big 3 to disperse their manufacturing operations. This had the side effect of encouraging more employees to disperse.

This was an issue for Detroit before the start of the millennium and already you were seeing people slowly condensing in some of the satellite cities: Ann Arbor, Novi, Gross Pointe even down town Detroit, leaving growing swaths of land only populated by abandoned buildings and those without an ability to relocate

Now that it is no longer as easy to get a job in the suburban/rural areas the attractiveness of cheap land is often outweighed by the advantages of living in a city. Commuting has also become harder and we are more culturally adverse to it than we were even 10 years ago. IMO we will see a return to a more centralized population in the near future

 

[Exterous]

I mean rural flight in the sense that over the last half century fewer people live in rural areas for a number of reasons.

Ah - that depends. If you group suburban into rural then thats not the case. If you treat subruban as its own category then yes. For the last 60ish years suburbs have been outpacing both rural and urban areas in growth. Its only in the last 1.5 years that the trend has reverted back to cities growing faster across anything more than a localized area

Younger people leaving the slower paced rural world for a more exciting urban area has been happening for at least 2000 years. There are pros and cons to each, but the reality is that both are needed. The big cities can simply not be sustained or supported without the rural areas. For starters, that's where all the food and many of the resources come from, and you need people living in rural areas to do it.

I don't think anyone is saying that no one live in the rural areas - although the industrialization of farming means that fewer people are needed in rural areas to support the cities. I would also say that since yllus is using the term 'mid sized' and 'little cities' he is talking more of a move from suburban to cities or even urban to urban than rural to urban.