Ah, but you are in competition with the suburbs of Nashville and Atlanta...and Austin, Dallas, OKC, Charlotte, Birmingham, Louisville, St Louis, New Orleans, etc...
One of the reasons for the local "lot shortage" is the difficulty in obtaining financing for the development of new subdivisions. That in turn is linked to sluggish local and metropolitan economic indicators. While capital is abundant, it is still a limited resource so investors and developers tend to utilize that resource in a way which provides the greatest and most assured return. Why invest in real estate in metropolitan Memphis where development costs may be low but so are the potential returns, when a slightly greater outlay in initial investment in a place like metro Nashville has an increased probability of seeing returns that are greater by several magnitudes?
Were an employer or multiple employers (from outside the region) to establish locations in Arlington or its immediate environs with thousands of job openings characterized by salaries paying an average exceeding the national average, you can be certain that the number of homes and population growth in Arlington would increase dramatically because the odds of improved returns on new development would increase.
I do not doubt that life is very pleasant in Arlington. However, similar suburbs around other cities exceed that quality in various metrics. That fact should not be interpreted as reducing Arlington's quality of life in any way.
Grove- trust me, I get it. In fact, that is exactly what I was saying. The quality of life in suburban areas of a major city can offset the lack of said quality in the central city when attracting talent. There are innumerable suburbs that have redefined at least a portion of the area within their municipal boundries as independent urban centers with all the benefits and characteristics typically found in a vibrant core city's downtown.
However, this is not the case here. As you said- and in line with the point I made originally- this is not a suburbs vs. Memphis issue. In the case of the Memphis metro, the quality of life of both the central city (Memphis) AND it's suburban areas is lacking in the appealing qualities found in peer metropolitan areas and even many of the metros much smaller than our own.
You can probably attest to the issue of a weak central city being a difficult (yet surmountable) obstacle, where a weak metropolitan area presents a nearly impossible hardship.
Agreed, the suburban ring around Detroit being a prime example. In my little burg, the lack of housing is the major factor stifling growth. There have not been many new houses built out here since the recession, although our Aldermen have recently approved development of another 800 lots. Hence, houses don't stay on the market here for very long at all. That would be the first thing to consider when evaluating growth here. As far as I can tell, no one is complaining about the our quality of life and I don't think we are in any sort of competition with the suburbs in Atlanta or Nashville.
AP- The quality of life for both "locations" can be dependent on each other. However, there are many urbanized areas in the US where the central city's economy and/or population are stagnant or in decline, yet the suburban ring is excelling at attracting both residents and employers.
I think what you're missing is that every city (Nashville, Atlanta, Denver, Portland, wherever) will have urban and suburban life. This measure looks at both as a combination and compares to other metro areas.
I don't care what kind of city you are, you're going to have young people and others who prefer urban living, or downtown living, or arts district living. Then you're going to have young professionals with young children (and some retirees) that prefer suburban living. This is not a suburbs v. Memphis discussion. When you lump them all together and compare to other Metro areas, what you're seeing is whether the Metro area is attracting jobs and/or retirees.
That's how your population grows. As a city, you either grow with new businesses or retiree population. Memphis Metro doesn't attract retirees by and large, unless they live here already, or unless they have grandkids living in the area. We aren't like Florida or Arizona, or even Oxford, MS in attracting retirees. The concerning part is the lack of business/job growth.
The reason there has been little job growth is because it's hard for businesses to recruit to Memphis. If you're a start up, and you want the best talent, you go to the cities that are popular for their activity. They've got the best nightlife, singles scene, music scene, sports teams, AND quality suburbs. When you've got all that, the talent is already looking in those cities, so you have an easier time landing those employees and then retaining them.
It's all of the above. Memphis doesn't register in comparison to Atlanta, Nashville, Portland, Seattle, Austin, Chicago, Denver, etc. when it comes to many of those things, so it's not attracting businesses and thus isn't attracting population growth.
I know first hand how difficult this is, because I've been in the process of trying to recruit external candidates, mostly in the 25-35 year old range, to the Memphis area. If you're talented and have options, you're going to get to pick and choose your job, and it's been a hard sell to try to get some of the candidates to pass up jobs in Chicago or even Houston or Nashville, so they can relocate to Memphis.
Ah, I didn't know that.
Stands to reason I guess.
Anything laking in the quality of my suburban life must surely be Memphis' fault.
Bric- thanks for clearly stating you were unable to understand my post. What I said is that a struggling central city does not necessarily equate to a struggling metropolitan area. However, in the case of the Memphis MSA, the ecocomy and population growth of the entire metro is essentially stagnant. That is due in large part to the fact that the quality of life in the suburbs of Memphis is not competitive with the suburbs of more vibrant metropolitan areas.
If I can't blame the guy that signed the law &
If I can't blame the guys that voted for the law &
If I can't blame the guys that wrote the law &
If I can't blame the companies that bankrolled all the aforementioned guys to pad their pockets,
who the eff do I blame?
I know it was all George Washington's fault. If he had just messed up that whole revolution thing, we wouldn't have to listen to arguments so ridiculous
Somewhat relevant NPR article about engineered loss of privacy in the Russian Revolution using communal kitchens.
Not really datguy. The Europeans are also all up in everyone's business, you just don't know about it yet.
I do know this, anyone that tries to blame this on the current administration, either here or what goes on in Europe, is just clueless.
I also know this, if you are trying to hide what you do on the Internet, you don't understand the problem.
That being said, I think that allowing isp's to sell this data without asking is an absurd idea that has been around for a very long time and has become inevitable. How can you expect some of the people that voted for this to respect your privacy when you don't respect theirs?
I just wanna know where I can get one of Obama's blood-stained handkerchiefs to sop my tears with. I have a need for one. Or two maybe, I think. One for each eye.
Nick some may have. It doesn't mean we have to give the rest away.
Funny thing is those horrible European leftists do a much better job of respecting individual liberty
dat, what is the significance of a tiger avatar and a species of worm as a pseudonym. Is it a literary reference?
Anyway I have to think that privacy ceased to exist quite a while ago. And we mostly gave it up for ease and comfort.
Nightcrawler forgot he wasn't on Breitbart today.
All sorts of foul language and not a single comment regarding the core of this editorial... the loss of peronal privacy.
One can only deduce privacy is unimportant too him, the pseudonym not withstanding.
@Bric--There have always been opportunists who have wanted to serve themselves first. Why not pin this blame on those brothers from Texas who tried to corner the silver market? What we didn't have in the 90s when Newt was Speaker was an insane and dangerous President who acted as facilitator for every insane legislative gouge known to man.
@timout--Thanks for the heads up.
@nightcrawler--You are in serious denial.
Shimmy She Wobble.
This so-called "editorial" (and I use the word in jest) is the biggest bunch of bovine excrement I've ever had to side-step through to read while controlling my laughing in many, many moons.
The blatant hatred and moonbat-scat lunacy is priceless and worthy of preservation.
Hell, everyone knows "the Russians" are behind all of this!
Bricabrac, let's toss our tin foil hats in the Prius and get the hell out of here! Wait the Prius has GPS. Let's take your granny's DeSoto.
Ha! It's actually a long list. I have found it best to let people do their own homework regarding this issue. There are many places that you can learn about the people that want to know about and control everything, everywhere, all the time. Start with EFF.
Just over the last few days it's been shown that a school district was secretly turning on students cameras while they were at home. You have to ask yourself why someone would do that without a legal warrant.
The USSR and Maoist China are two good examples of what happens when they get their way.
By Chris McCoy
download this issue
click here to see more »