Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: City definition  (Read 8439 times)

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
City definition
« on: November 06, 2002, 10:17:59 am »

I wanted to get a consensus on what we are calling a city. When I was a kid I grew up in a city of 17,000 in Idaho. All of the States we are considering have cities of 50,000 or more. I pose 2 questions.

1. What size of city do you require or want to live?

2. when people are discussing absorbing 20,000 into a state they always make it sound as if they are going to be all in the same city. Is that the plan?
Logged

SandyPrice

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
  • I'm a llama!
Re:City definition
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2002, 10:27:05 am »

After my kids left the nest, I settled into a village of 5000 people.  We had a good fire department and one sheriff.  We had no hospital facility but we had the Pacific ocean.  

We were 30 minutes to downtown San Luis Obispo so we had stores, symphony and a great CalPoly University for football and other stuff.  We wanted a movie theater until we took a look at the crap that was showing in the big city so we gave it up.  

The smaller the better for me but it would depend on how many people needed to work in a manufacuring industry.  Most of us in the village were doctors, attorneys, plumbers, electicians or merchants.  

If we try for a large city we will have EPA and zoning problems watching us 24/7.  Our kids would probably do better in larger schools and a more diverse population but we had no crime!  

We all voted in our Vet's Hall and we made it a point to vote before noon so we knew by the end of the day who won what!  Life was good!  Alas, not for everyone.
Logged

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:City definition
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2002, 12:33:33 pm »

In planning school a city is usually defined as anything over 10,000 people.  

In answer to your questions:

1.)  I would hope to live in or near a city of at least 100,000.  Manchester, NH, is the only city that fits this description, although Wilmington and Cheyenne come close.  I think having a city of this size benefits us in several ways:  it shows that libertarian principles can be applied to cities, it provides a center of commerce and jobs, and it provides a place for FSPers who actually prefer cities.

2.)  No, not at all.  I think that the state we choose should have a variety of densities so that each of us can choose the kind of area we wish to live.  To impact an entire state we would have to be spread out, anyway.  

See the urbanization thread for more discussion of this issue.
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:City definition
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2002, 12:38:38 pm »

1.)  I would hope to live in or near a city of at least 100,000.  Manchester, NH, is the only city that fits this description, although Wilmington and Cheyenne come close.  

How bout Boise??? ;-)

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:City definition
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2002, 01:21:46 pm »

If you look out East VT only has Burlington.  I have been to Burlington several times (I have family in Burlington and upsate NY).  When I was last in VT I saw several extreme left people pushing the extreme left agenda on the street (that was in May 2002) but I always see this.  VT has low crime and many cows.  Hippies are everywhere in the state.  Naturalists and nudists have changed some of the laws to make things better for them.  A few years back I went to a stream 20 miles from Burlington and everyone there was nude.  I was told this is common throughout the state (for the few warm months of the year) because VT has laws allowing nudity in some places.  Seriously, though, Burlington is not a big city.  Montreal is more of a drive than most people realize.  Also, you do have to get through boarder control and Montreal is a French (mainly) speaking city.

ME has Portland and it does have some jobs.  ME could handle 30,000 new people. However, with the high taxes and lack of a large metro area many people would likely travel to NH.  However, NH really does not even have a large metro area but it is good enough.

DE, well, it has a big enough city and is close to some large liberal cities.  If you look at PA stats you will see that most of PA is conservative while Philly is very liberal.  In many elections Philly controls the state because it is so large and so liberal.

NH  will do when it comes to jobs and extremely liberal Boston is close enough for all of us to work there.  NH just had a VERY expensive election, though.

Something that is not being said:
Northern (northeast) states might elect Republicans but lots of them are centrists and not conservative like most of the Republicans from the South and West are.
Western Republicans are conservative
Northern Republicans might be centrists
Logged

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:City definition
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2002, 01:23:49 pm »

1.)  I would hope to live in or near a city of at least 100,000.  Manchester, NH, is the only city that fits this description, although Wilmington and Cheyenne come close.  
Quote
How bout Boise??? ;-)

Good point.  Yes, Boise qualifies, and if we pick Idaho I'd live there.  


Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:City definition
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2003, 08:17:48 pm »

Quote
I wanted to get a consensus on what we are calling a city. When I was a kid I grew up in a city of 17,000 in Idaho. All of the States we are considering have cities of 50,000 or more. I pose 2 questions.
1. What size of city do you require or want to live?
2. when people are discussing absorbing 20,000 into a state they always make it sound as if they are going to be all in the same city. Is that the plan?

1. A "city" is any burg with over 1,000 people in less than a square mile.
Require or want to live?
One not over 5,000 at least ten miles away and no more than fifty miles.
One not over 50,000 at least fifty miles away and no more than two hundred.

2. If a state has only one "city" that qualifies according to the metro urban people here, then no state has more than one and many have none.  So, yes, all the city porcupines will gather together in the only city they can find.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2003, 08:21:24 pm by Hank »
Logged
There's A race of men that don't fit in,
A race that can't stay still;
So they break the hearts of kith and kin,
And they roam the world at will.
http://www.internal.org/view_poem.phtml?poemID=295

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:City definition
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2003, 09:14:34 pm »

2. If a state has only one "city" that qualifies according to the metro urban people here, then no state has more than one and many have none.  So, yes, all the city porcupines will gather together in the only city they can find.

It makes sense to assume that most FSP'ers will congregate in the larger urban areas, at least at first.  This is because they will be more likely to find employment and housing there.  I refer to this as "natural" migration (being naturally drawn to a given area), as opposed to "smart" migration (strategically picking a given area).  

States that facilitate a more natural migration are most likely to succeed (as long as there are no other major interfering factors) because one factor that we will have the least control over is where people choose to live.  We can always make recommendations, but people who are flexible enough to move across the country may prove rather inflexible over where they finally settle, particularly given spousal input.  Thus, states that require more of a strategic or "smart" approach to migration in order to succeed are, in my opinion, less likely to succeed.

States like Wyoming and Alaska facilitate natural migration the most, in my opinion, and may present us with a better chance of success for that reason (in addition to their other qualities).  Both states have just a few select areas where the bulk of the population lives and works, and, not surprisingly, these areas are where the bulk of the political power is concentrated.  Given the availability of jobs and housing, these are also the areas that are most likely to attract migrating FSP'ers.

The result is that more of us are likely to naturally locate in such areas, thereby automatically locating where the bulk of the political opportunity and power is also located.  Wyoming is particularly well suited here because the larger of its two most populated cities is also the capital.  That's where Alaska suffers a bit of a disadvantage.  Anchorage is its most populated area, but it's not the capital.

HardyMacia

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • I'm a newfy!
    • Catamount Software
Re:City definition
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2003, 10:23:59 pm »

If you look out East VT only has Burlington.  I have been to Burlington several times (I have family in Burlington and upsate NY).  When I was last in VT I saw several extreme left people pushing the extreme left agenda on the street (that was in May 2002) but I always see this.  VT has low crime and many cows.  Hippies are everywhere in the state.  Naturalists and nudists have changed some of the laws to make things better for them.  A few years back I went to a stream 20 miles from Burlington and everyone there was nude.  I was told this is common throughout the state (for the few warm months of the year) because VT has laws allowing nudity in some places.  Seriously, though, Burlington is not a big city.  Montreal is more of a drive than most people realize.  Also, you do have to get through boarder control and Montreal is a French (mainly) speaking city.

Yep, Burlington always has some extreme group pushing something extreme from bibles to communism. Freedom of speech is a great entertainment. Once in a while you'll even see some libertarian tables on Church Street in Burlington.

The only time I've seen people skinny dipping is at Lake Willoughby - the east end is a nudist beach. There are others around, but I personally haven't experienced skinny dippers near any of the rivers I swim at.

Montreal is an 1 1/2 to 2 hours from Burlington. I live north of Burlington so it's only 90 minutes for me. Montreal is mostly French speaking, but most people also speak English. I crossed the boarder about two months ago and I pulled right up to the next boarder officer and they waved me through after I told them I lived in VT and was going to Montreal to shop.

Quote
Something that is not being said:
Northern (northeast) states might elect Republicans but lots of them are centrists and not conservative like most of the Republicans from the South and West are.
Western Republicans are conservative
Northern Republicans might be centrists

I hope, when the FSP lands in a state we elect a libertarian something-or-other and dump the conservatives, centrists, and leftists.

Hardy Macia
Grand Isle, VT
Logged

guy777

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 75
  • I'm a llama!
Re:City definition
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2003, 11:52:30 pm »

MSA cities:

Metropolises = 8,000,000 and up

Very large cities = 4,000,000 to 7,999,999

large cities = 2,000,000 to 3,999,999

Mid-sized cities = 1,000,000 to 1,999,999

small cities = 500,000 to 999,999

Tiny cities = 100,000 to 499,999

Anything less is a town in my book.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:City definition
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2003, 11:27:29 pm »

10000 and under, a town.

10000 - 50000, a small city

50000 and up, a big city.

I've lived almost all my life in either a big city or out in the boonies. I'm tired of both, and would be happy with a town of from 200 or so on up to 50000 or so. 10000 sounds about perfect to me; my favorite city in Oregon, The Dalles, is right about that size.

BTW, I like my small cities separated by some distance from others or from big cities. That means they are complete in and of themselves, rather than just being bedroom communities and ill-defined suburbs.

As Joe noted elsewhere, Robert, you can add VT to that list of states that facilitate "natural concentration". However, I don't know if I buy the premise. Why is concentration in one city better than being "spread out" in two or three? I guess I don't get it. I'd think the opposite - for example, if we are mostly in 3 cities rather than one, that means our people will have influence over 3 county governments (usually) rather than one. And still have proportionately the same influence in the legislature.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2003, 11:29:12 pm by Zxcv »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:City definition
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2003, 06:52:38 am »

As Joe noted elsewhere, Robert, you can add VT to that list of states that facilitate "natural concentration". However, I don't know if I buy the premise. Why is concentration in one city better than being "spread out" in two or three? I guess I don't get it. I'd think the opposite - for example, if we are mostly in 3 cities rather than one, that means our people will have influence over 3 county governments (usually) rather than one. And still have proportionately the same influence in the legislature.

It's not necessarily so much the idea of concentrating in one city, per se, as it is the idea of choosing a state that allows us the most political opportunity in the same places that we are most likely to live (without spreading us too thin).  For example, at least in the beginning, most of us will probably settle in the more urban areas of a given state because there is simply more available there than elsewhere in terms of jobs and housing.  Well, it's a good idea if such areas also afford us greater access to the political system, so that we reap the benefits of being able to live and work in places that are also more expedient for activist functions.

In particular, I think it would be better for us to position ourselves where we would have influence over the greatest number of legislative districts because winning a majority of districts is how we will win a majority in the legislature.  For this reason, I would view being spread out over several counties as being less important than being spread out through a suitable number of districts, which would give us even more of an advantage than winning control of counties.  The key factor in the higher population areas of a state is that there are usually more districts in those areas because of the greater number of people.  Thus, if we are locating in and around such areas, we would have a greater chance of influencing who sits in the legislature.

The problem is that we should not be spread out over too many major population centers because that would dilute our influence among too many people.  This is why I noted Wyoming and Alaska in my post above.  In Wyoming, we would naturally settle in the Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie area, which is where the majority of the opportunity is located.  However, this is also where the majority of Wyoming's population and legislative districts are to be found.  Thus, if we chose Wyoming, we would be choosing a state where we would naturally settle where we would have the most potential political influence.  The same thing would hold true for Alaska since most of us would settle in either the Anchorage or panhandle areas, which is where the people, the housing, the jobs, and the most districts are as well.

Again, the key would be not spreading ourselves too thin, and I believe that states like Wyoming and Alaska protect us there because both states have only a couple of major population centers.  There would be little to worry about in terms of spreading ourselves too thin.  

States that require us to locate more strategically in order to succeed in creating a legislative majority will present a more difficult challenge for us because we will have less influence over where people ultimately decide to live.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

anything