Is Columbus a liberal city?

[lazyfish]

In most parts of the world liberals are free market types, more libertarian than social conservatives. Liberal used to be a derivation of liberty. Most large urban centers are democratic and therefore”liberal” in the usual sense of the world. Look at the electoral maps of the last 3-4 presidential elections and you see the split is still rural/urban with the burbs being the swing areas. Hell even Dallas and Houston are liberal. What are the remaining conservative cities with population greater than 500,000?

I hope one day Columbus becomes a progressive city, we have a long way to go. Liberals bum me out almost as much as conservatives.

love me I’m a liberal, written by Columbus’ own Phil Ochs, check out the film at the gateway it is excellent and devastating. This version is Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon

[rus]

dubdave00 wrote >>
Depends on how liberal you are comrade. :-)
Honestly, I don’t like it when we label cities as liberal or conservative especially since most people can’t even define what liberal or conservative means.

Few years back I might argue the point but these days, yeah. It’s all a bit blurry.

[rus]

lazyfish wrote >>

I hope one day Columbus becomes a progressive city, we have a long way to go. Liberals bum me out almost as much as conservatives.

Just for the sake of argument, how do you define “progressive city”?

[lazyfish]

Smart growth, Coleman and Ginther receives loads of campaign cash from the developers and the remnants of the Titans. Limits to exurban growth.

Real environmental protection, Department of Utilities is still stuck in the 1950’s. Curbside recycling, bike lanes, better mass transit, disincentives to drive. Green space protection/enhancement. Daylighting streams. Removing sewers from streams and flood plains.

real elections, real public debate about the issues.

a real newspaper or at least a real alternative paper, investigative journalism is so critical and it is nowhere to be found in the city. Anyone want to bet the election petitions of the D’s and R’s were just as flawed as the disallowed petitions of the non-traditional candidates.

Social services not tax abatements

[gramarye]

Is Columbus a liberal city? As others have noted, it’s a tough question, but at the end of the day, my answer to that question would still be “yes.”

Is Columbus a liberal metro area? Now that would be a different question entirely.

[rus]

lazyfish wrote >>
Smart growth, Coleman and Ginther receives loads of campaign cash from the developers and the remnants of the Titans. Limits to exurban growth.
Real environmental protection, Department of Utilities is still stuck in the 1950’s. Curbside recycling, bike lanes, better mass transit, disincentives to drive. Green space protection/enhancement. Daylighting streams. Removing sewers from streams and flood plains.
real elections, real public debate about the issues.
a real newspaper or at least a real alternative paper, investigative journalism is so critical and it is nowhere to be found in the city. Anyone want to bet the election petitions of the D’s and R’s were just as flawed as the disallowed petitions of the non-traditional candidates.
Social services not tax abatements

Not entirely sure what you mean by some of that, but thanks.

[lakeerietransplant]

lazyfish wrote >>
Smart growth, Coleman and Ginther receives loads of campaign cash from the developers and the remnants of the Titans. Limits to exurban growth.
Real environmental protection, Department of Utilities is still stuck in the 1950’s. Curbside recycling, bike lanes, better mass transit, disincentives to drive. Green space protection/enhancement.

Sounds like a lot of regulation and taxation to me.

[Josh Lapp]

lakeerietransplant wrote >>

lazyfish wrote >>
Smart growth, Coleman and Ginther receives loads of campaign cash from the developers and the remnants of the Titans. Limits to exurban growth.
Real environmental protection, Department of Utilities is still stuck in the 1950’s. Curbside recycling, bike lanes, better mass transit, disincentives to drive. Green space protection/enhancement.

Sounds like a lot of regulation and taxation to me.

I for one am a fan of limited regulation and taxation, I’d love for all of Columbus to look like this:
and this:

Oh the beauty of the American free-market built environment

[gramarye]

lakeerietransplant wrote >>

lazyfish wrote >>
Smart growth, Coleman and Ginther receives loads of campaign cash from the developers and the remnants of the Titans. Limits to exurban growth.
Real environmental protection, Department of Utilities is still stuck in the 1950’s. Curbside recycling, bike lanes, better mass transit, disincentives to drive. Green space protection/enhancement.

Sounds like a lot of regulation and taxation to me.

There’s a reason it sounds that way.

[rus]

gramarye wrote >>

lakeerietransplant wrote >>

lazyfish wrote >>
Smart growth, Coleman and Ginther receives loads of campaign cash from the developers and the remnants of the Titans. Limits to exurban growth.
Real environmental protection, Department of Utilities is still stuck in the 1950’s. Curbside recycling, bike lanes, better mass transit, disincentives to drive. Green space protection/enhancement.

Sounds like a lot of regulation and taxation to me.

There’s a reason it sounds that way.

Yep.

[Alex Silbajoris]

In case anyone hasn’t seen it, R. Crumb’s Short History of America:

[Andrew Hall]

gramarye wrote >>

lakeerietransplant wrote >>

lazyfish wrote >>
Smart growth, Coleman and Ginther receives loads of campaign cash from the developers and the remnants of the Titans. Limits to exurban growth.
Real environmental protection, Department of Utilities is still stuck in the 1950’s. Curbside recycling, bike lanes, better mass transit, disincentives to drive. Green space protection/enhancement.

Sounds like a lot of regulation and taxation to me.

There’s a reason it sounds that way.

Because some of those issues needing addressed were directly caused by regulation and taxation?

To wit, Ohio’s method of using the cities as a cash-generator with gasoline taxes being distributed evenly among political entities rather than in accordance with usage. Further, cities were (still are?) handcuffed into using those funds in particular ways.

I am pretty libertarian/free market, but I get really annoyed at the assumptions that what exists (like sprawl) is a result of that. It is as much as result of interference and tinkering, just not as overtly as classical city planning.

A.

[gramarye]

Oh, I do *not* assume that what exists is a result of free market policies as opposed to government. There are *definitely* a number of government policies at both the state and local level that encourage sprawl. I don’t necessarily view that as a “liberal” or “conservative” issue, however, since I think a number of free market reforms (coded “conservative” in modern political-speak, for better or worse) would be urban-friendly (coded “liberal”). Some of those are the result of self-inflicted wounds by cities (anti-density or pro-paperwork zoning laws, for example); others are imposed from above, in part because of the incredible political power (relative to their population) of townships in the state legislature.

[DavidF]

gramarye wrote >>
Oh, I do *not* assume that what exists is a result of free market policies as opposed to government. There are *definitely* a number of government policies at both the state and local level that encourage sprawl. I don’t necessarily view that as a “liberal” or “conservative” issue, however, since I think a number of free market reforms (coded “conservative” in modern political-speak, for better or worse) would be urban-friendly (coded “liberal”). Some of those are the result of self-inflicted wounds by cities (anti-density or pro-paperwork zoning laws, for example); others are imposed from above, in part because of the incredible political power (relative to their population) of townships in the state legislature.

True.

[Andrew Hall]

@gramarye I know we are in the same chapter if not on the same page for most of this.

I think by their very nature cities are going to be more regulated and planned. And living in them is a consensual act based on the payoff being higher than the costs in liberties forgone. If one doesn’t want to pay that cost, one doesn’t have to live in the city. What I object to is that much of that choice has been artificially weighted against the city and the cities even pay for that. Not just gas tax allocation but the true cost of water/sewer (like runoff), emergency services and other subsidies. The anti-urbanites live in an illusory world which is willfully oblvious to how much their choices have been subsidized all the while wailing about it when it might go the other way. It is exactly entitlement mentality.

A.

A.

[Author]

Posts