Divided Cities: urban inequalities in the 21st century

Speaker: Professor Fran Tonkiss
Chair: Professor Ricky Burdett
Recorded on 6 May 2015 in New Theatre, East Building.
What kinds of cities are emerging as urbanisation grows alongside worsening inequality? Why does urban inequality matter, and what is distinctive about urban inequalities now?
Fran Tonkiss is Professor of Sociology at LSE and Director of the Cities Programme.
Ricky Burdett (@BURDETTR) is Professor of Urban Studies in the Department of Sociology, and Director of LSE Cities and the Urban Age Programme.
The Department of Sociology at LSE (@LSEsociology) was established in 1904 and remains committed to top quality teaching and leading research and scholarship today.

[@noquestionspls]

Fran Tonkiss starts at 8:54

[@nthperson]

The research by Professor Tonkiss and other misses the fundamental redistribution of income and wealth from producers to non-producers. This redistribution has always existed because of the low effective rates of taxation on the rent of land. The result is that as population increases AND as nominal household incomes increases AND as the competition for control over well-located land parcels increases among absentee investors, owners of land are able to claim an higher and higher percentage of the incomes and savings of all others. I have seen this occur in dramatic fashion over a 40 year career in the housing finance sector of the United States. During the post-second world war period of consistent improved living standards for working people, land-to-total value ratios of residential property remained fairly steady at 15-20 percent. Land cost began to climb significantly once the children born in the mid-1940s to early 1950s became adults and began to form new families. The market response was sprawling development outward from the urban centers, where land remained relatively inexpensive. Initially, new highways connected the new suburban bedroom communities with employment in the cities. However, as employers moved out of the cities, the traffic flows began to increase in all directions. There were other technological innovations that resulted in the migration of millions of people to the South, the Southwest and West Coast. Air-conditioning is, perhaps, the most important. Many U.S. cities lost population as industries moved or shut down. At the same time, cities experiencing a declining population also experiencing a declining tax base. Their options were essentially three: (1) increase taxes on all that remained; (2) seek revenue-sharing from the state and federal governments; and (3) cut services. The second option began to disappear with the appearance of Conservative majorities elected to state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. What was desperately needed was the implementation of dramatic change in how city governments raised needed revenue. What the cities need to achieve both tax fairness and economic efficiency is to collect the rent of land that has been created by aggregate public and private investment but which has been left in private hands.

[@melaniecotterell8263]

You can buy 2.5 flat acres on a paved road in Mojave, California for $3k. 36 sq. ft./$ Low taxes in Kern County.

[@nthperson]

@@melaniecotterell8263 I am not sure I understand what you are telling us. A quick check online about the city of Mohave says the median home price is $182,100, an increase of 160% over the last decade and now averaging 14% annually. So, what would a typical 1/4 acre lot sell for that is serviced with water and sewer by the city? I can imagine land that is not serviced with utilities and has no underground water source as having very low value, except, perhaps for construction of a solar farm.

[@Frederique41]

I wish to see companies moving away from unequal cities and help the poorest rather than the other way around.

[@JohnChampagne]

How long will people who raise concern about inequality persist in avoiding discussion of natural wealth and who owns it? If we all own the air and water and other natural resources equally, we should expect that industries that put pollution or deplete resources will pay some compensation to the people at large. Compensation paid should be just enough to ensure that rates of putting pollution or depleting resources do not exceed what most people think is acceptable. (This criterion assumes nothing more than equal ownership and a democratic society.) Integration of human society and the biosphere: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html Is Civilization a Success or Failure, or is it Too Soon to Tell?: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2009/12/is-civilization-success-or-failure-or.html

[@melaniecotterell8263]

how much air have you been depleted of? You yourself foul the air and purchase products that you know the production and distribution of caused fouling of the environment. Guilty. Now send me some money.

[@melaniecotterell8263]

Inequality is necessary for advancement. People are just as unequal as they want to be. Someone has to take the lead, like Elon Musk.