- Federal appeals court delivers serious setback to Obama health care law
- John Kirtley’s school choice PAC raises $300K in July
- In bitter HD 74 race, Richard DeNapoli responds to attack on brief military service
- Surprised by news coverage his comments on same-sex marriage are making, U.S. Rep. David Jolly says this is no “evolution”
- Today on Context Florida: Rick Scott bangin’ beat, Terry Lewis’ ruling & appeal and medical marijuana
- Colleen Burton to file complaint against “illegal” campaign TV ad in HD 40
The inner-city upperclass and the hypocrisy of living in the suburbs
Howard Husock reviews Alan Ehrenhalt’s The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City:
Its thesis is straightforward but not uncontroversial: that a large group of “millennial young adults” prefer urban over suburban, and especially exurban, living—and that, as a result, they will push lower-income households, including new immigrants, to settle outside core cities. This shift will re-create, to some extent, the pattern of early twentieth-century Vienna and Paris. In other words, the phrase “inner city,” long a synonym (and euphemism) for American social problems, will go the way of the Berlin Wall.
This book reinforces my long-held belief that living “downtown” is where one wants to be — and should be — even if you are raising a family.
That people live dozens of miles from a city core is ridiculous, especially when they want everyone’s tax dollars to pay for the roads to connect their suburban homes to the city core. These are usually the same limited-government hypocrites who don’t want to pay a single cent more in taxes than they have to, except when those taxes would go to pave more roads.