mercredi 7 août 2013

Is the concept of incorporation of towns and city now dead?

It seems to me these days that there is very little social interest in maintaining the old concepts of cities and towns.



What I mean is that in the past higher levels of government had a personal interest to charter cities and towns. That these entities performed a valid function in greater interest of the state or nation, by being incorporated.



My own city, Indianapolis, is the only major metropolitan city in central Indiana. It's the State capitol, has numerous Federal buildings, and of course houses the big national sport teams. We have the big convention center, airport, and supply the jobs that support the booming small town suburbs outside of the city limits.



So you would think there would be more interest on a broader scale to keep the city financially stable and secure.



However, for years there has been a drift between the city and the State government. Even as the City has pulled back on expenditures, and reduced the size of its fire and police departments, handed city schools to the State-picked private entities, and replaced some with charters, the State still has shown no interest in financially backing the largest city in the State.



Whereas it used to be that cities were seen very essential for the nation, they are now seen as inconveniences. Although my city is not anywhere near of becoming Detroit, since we have strong base of large companies with little chance of moving out of the city, I do see the exact same feelings expressed about the city by the suburban and rural people, as everyone seems to have about Detroit.



There is tremendous apathy by the non-city folk towards the cities. I would admit that this has probably been a case for a long time, but the suburbanization of our society seems to have relegated the actual city as a relic of the past.



I would even make a similar argument about the small towns on the country side, because they essentially have the same problem, just miniaturized. And I say that as someone who used to live in a small town. Out of all the small towns I have lived in, or visited, there hasn't seem to have been any interest to maintain the towns by those who chose to live outside of them. Whereas in the past I could have seen a rural farmer appreciating the ability to go to the town to get services that require a greater population density to operate, that itself seems to have gone away, as they can now visit suburban shopping areas and get the same services.



One of the possible solutions to making towns and cities more relevant today would be to modernize them, but that would require an investment from the greater society that I don't think they are willing to make. We rather just take for granted that there is a city or a town near us, and then move into a house just outside of it to avoid having to share the financial burden of maintaining a city, and the all forms of life it necessarily ends up accommodating.



While I think Detroit was an exceptional case, I think there are more towns and cities moving towards that direction than away from it because of society's apathy towards the concept of a city.





via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=263421&goto=newpost

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire