I do not like bigotry in the land
I do not like it FUNKbrs I am
I don't like bigots in my town
or in the country, all around
I would not, could not, in the burbs
Bigots there are for the birds
I would not, could not, in city streets
No bigotry, it's not for me.
I would not, could not, across state lines
Nor bigots in far off forest pines
I would not, could not, on country farms
Where bigots feel most safe from harm
I would not, could not, in a church
Bigots in pulpits causing hurt
I would not, could not, in a store
Please no more bigots anymore
I would not, could not, in the schools
Miseducated bigot fools
I would not, could not, on the job
Commiserating bigot slobs
I would not, could not, west or east
I can't stand bigots in the the least
I would not, could not, north or south
No bigot words from bigot mouths
If your are a bigot, and get caught
Just stop thinking prejudged thoughts
Treat each person as separate and new
and bigotry won't influence you
No, don't prejudge by sex or race
even in your bigoted safe-space
Treat every person polite and kind
Even if bigot thoughts might cross your mind
I do not like bigotry in the land
I do not like it, FUNKbrs I am
I don't like bigots in my town
Or in the country, all around.
Funk just hates, Grover.
OK FUNK, so what is it you want? You complain that people leave when annexed, but then you say you don't want that trash in your city.
It seems to me you'd be all for de-annexation then, since you'd be removing much of that "trash" from your city. I don't get it.
I think drunken suburbanites is the equivalent of hipster white boys trying to co-opt black culture and angst.
I have enough trouble with drunken suburbanites trying to "slum it" in my neighborhood as it is. The plan is to get them to leave and stay gone, not attract more of them. If I wanted to live in Nashville, I would move there. The last thing I could possibly want is for suburban trash to destroy Memphis's culture like they've done in New York. People are fleeing New York in droves because of gentrification pricing everyone out.
Have you ever purchased a house, FUNKbrs?
Franklin and Spring Hill are in Williamson County. Murfreesboro is in Rutherford County. Just pointing out that a number of Nashville's suburbs and exburbs are outside of its taxing authority, but they do contribute positively to the Metro area. Those people may not pay property taxes to the Nashville pot, but they come in to the city for Titans games, Predators games, nice dinners, to see shows, all kinds of stuff, and when they do, they pay taxes on their purchases in the city. The more that those suburbs grow, the more that they drive growth in the city/county limits of Nashville by driving more money and jobs growth through the Nashville city area.
Interesting that you call our suburbs trash though. If you want people to leave the suburbs and move to the city center, the best way to handle it is not by force, but by making your city more attractive, so that people WANT to be a part of it. If you use the force method, it's proven that people will simply sell and move further out away from your taxing authority.
The former (making the city more attractive) happened in places in Memphis, as you see revitalization efforts, new arts districts, things of that nature that are bringing tax payers back to the city, particularly young professionals. That's the kind of growth that's actually sustainable and financially positive for the city. Growth by land grab loses money for the city and is not sustainable.
You can continue to hate on the suburbs, or you can focus on improving the product that Memphis offers. One of those things has been and will be a positive for the city of Memphis. The other does nothing but make you feel better by trashing on those "other" guys.
Take the Grizzlies as a prime example. People from Arkansas, Mississippi, the suburban areas, and Memphis city proper all go to the games and support the Grizzlies. They have 41 games downtown a year, bringing thousands of people to the city each of those nights, many of which will buy gas, food, and drinks while down there. The more you have attractions in the area, the more you'll get money from those that live outside of the city limits.
Overton Square is another. People come from outside the city to go to Iris, to Babalu, and to many other spots in that area to spend money. Growth for that area (and jobs that come with it) is at least partially helped by strong suburbs, not just by citizens that live in Memphis.
Nashville is a cancer, and anyway Memphis can be different from Nashville, it should. We will never out-Nashville Nashville; our strengths and weaknesses are different from theirs. It's would be like trying to improve an orange by making it more like an apple; the two cities are different and shouldn't be compared to each other.
Suburbs are not "country." Nashville's suburbs are inside Tennessee, and their government is county incorporated. You can't dodge Nashville taxes because the taxing is done by Davidson County, and you have to build all the way outside of the county to dodge them. Memphis's suburbs are mainly in Arkansas and Mississippi, with only a few to the North and East. Not only can you shirk your duty to Memphis, you can stiff the whole state of TN by living just across the state line.
I don't disagree that good suburbs are good for a city, but Memphis doesn't have good suburbs. We trash on the edge of town who won't pay their fair share and dump their responsibilities on others.
We are nothing like Nashville, nor should we want to be.
Question...how are people in suburban areas taking advantage of Memphis?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those outside of Memphis that get power from MLGW pay for that service.
We don't get to leverage Memphis fire and police force if we don't live in the city limits. What infrastructure do we leverage? Yes, suburban residents often work for businesses located in the city core, but you can make an argument that many of those businesses locate in an area at least partially for its ability to attract talented young professionals.
You've got a very short-sighted view of suburbs. You have to remember that not everyone wants to be part of the big city, and the healthiest big cities also have healthy suburbs. Take Nashville as an example. Nashville doesn't get to collect taxes from Brentwood, Franklin, Spring Hill, or even further out, Murfreesboro, but Nasvhille as a city is healthier with those strong suburbs.
As someone who has tried to recruit talent to the Memphis area, I can tell you that a lot of talented young professionals are looking for good suburbs where they can locate and raise a family.
Point being, good suburbs add a value to the city, just like the city adds value to the suburbs. It's a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. This idea that it's city v. suburbs only serves to weaken the entire Metro area. A strong Metro area embraces its suburbs, because it recognizes that the city needs a balance of lifestyles available in order to attract talent and thus attract and maintain businesses. In short, the stronger that Germantown, Arlington, and Collierville are, the stronger that Memphis is, and vice versa.
You need a city that attracts young, single professionals AND a city that attracts young professionals with families.
Developing properties outside the city limits as an attempt to spuriously dodge taxes is no more acceptable than using foreign back accounts to hide you assets, and just as likely to result in seizure should you be caught attempting to skirt the law. In the case of tax dodging by rural development, you get annexed when you get caught.
However, I have no sympathy for freeloaders who want to benefit from Memphis's infrastructure but not pay their fair share of the cost. How are they different from those who refuse to work to pay taxes, or those who refuse to provide their children with good homes knowing someone else will get stuck with the cost and yet they will still receive the benefit?
It's not "smart" to be deadbeat freeloader, it's trash. That's like saying cheating on your wife and not getting caught is "smart." Scumbags always think they're smarter than everyone else; jail is full of them.
Well said, Grove. Well said indeed.
Agree on a national scale Oak.
It's still a revenue v. cost deal. It's just that the return of those projects comes in the form of a growth of the total revenue pie, which is harder to measure.
That's why I'm a big fan of infrastructure spending. It's one of the few areas of government spending where you can guarantee American jobs (government funds that go into the pockets of Americans that will immediately turn around and spend that money at American stores), and simultaneously infrastructure spending helps to reduce cost and improve growth opportunities for businesses
It's one of the few areas where those on both the left and the right should agree in my opinion. You're simultaneously taking care of both corporate interests and blue collar worker interests. It's one of the areas where I think Trump has the right idea.
For local decisions though, especially with annexations, it can be a lot simpler. Rarely are annexations a catalyst for growth, unless the annexation is done to an area that's not developed, with a plan to develop it and increase the tax pie as a result of the annexation. Annexing already developed areas and annexing residents who don't want to be annexed usually ends up a net money loser for the city.
@Grove - You're forgetting about the power of the nation-state to print money. Yes, municipalities and states have to balance outlays with taxes. But infrastructure projects at the national level, when financed by speculative monetary policy, can actually cost nothing, if the subsequent increase in economic activity increases taxes taken in. So things like dams, roads, bridges, electrical grid etc. actually would be a good thing to do. We just have to be sure that there is good reason to expect an increase in the volume of the circular flow by doing them.
Per the "I before E" rule, we're Americans. We break rules. It's no surprise that we would break our spelling and grammar rules. It's our nature. The "I before E" rule is similar to banking regulation. We have rules in place, but we break them sometimes whenever we feel like it.
I'm still baffled by the mathematical argument that reducing costs actually reduces available funds.
If I pay you $1000 a year to provide services that cost you $1500 to provide, then you're losing money by serving me.
Logically, if you cut me off, yes you lose $1000 in revenue, but you also lose $1500 in cost, which is a net of $500 more money for your pocket. It's not a difficult concept.
I know government is not business, but revenue and costs work the same in government as they do in business. If a project costs more than it will provide in additional revenue, you don't do it, unless you can determine that the revenue growth potential of the project will eventually out-pace the cost in the long-run.
Most annexations for Memphis have done just the opposite. Maybe they've been a short-term win with additional revenue without the additional cost, but the costs have almost always ended up surpassing the revenue gained from the area.
@CL - It's a tease. The promise of an invisible hand job is a lie.
Wouldn't the "invisible hand" be enough to keep the riff-raff at bay?
Yes Mullins, toll gates, big heavy toll gates with guards. Of course we'll have to hire them from the city if we want to keep the pay low, but they will already possess their firearms. It is a win win.
Toll gates. Everywhere!
But you have no qualms about using my tax money to pay for your lifestyle?
Surely you are not under any false assumption that Shelby County taxes are only spent outside the city limits?
By Flyer Staff
download this issue
click here to see more »