Comments on: Midwest Miscellany

By: Paz

Paz — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:19:25 +0000

Pittsburgh is #33 on the twittering list too!

By: thundermutt

thundermutt — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:41:00 +0000

I have said for a long time that Indiana should tax income where earned, at least partially. Columbus does seem to have the advantage of catching its suburbanites either way, though.

Also, to clarify an earlier post regarding Honda: I said

"there are lots of Japanese owned or joint venture plants in Columbus"

and neglected to add

", Indiana, which is only 30 miles away and an easy commute."

By: John

John — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:18:19 +0000

Also, there seems to be some confusion regarding the Columbus tax situation. Many taxpayers come from outside the city limits because Ohio cities tax income (usually 2%) based on where you work rather than where you live. Most municipalities (not all) will forgive all of the tax paid in another city so you only have to pay once.

By: John

John — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:22:56 +0000

I think people are moving to Shelbyville for the abundant parking IN public square. Ridiculous!

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:54:39 +0000

Curitiba is building a subway, but Jaime Lerner is against subways as a matter of principle, arguing that BRT achieves the same result for lower cost.

By: thundermutt

thundermutt — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:05:01 +0000

I concur with Aaron and David but state it more strongly: Honda wouldn't have gone anywhere near Muncie and Anderson because of the UAW.

Also, there are lots of Japanese owned or joint venture plants in Columbus, so there is social infrastructure for the Japanese transplant employees. That is no small thing; a supportive expat community matters a lot.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:44:45 +0000

In your comment about Columbus:

"It isn't supporting a huge base of poor people, non-profits, non-taxpaying government institutions, and regional attractions on purely its own tax base."

Technically, isn't the opposite true? Columbus is capturing regional tax base because it annexed those areas into the city so that they are city taxpayers. Compare Columbus to Cleveland or Detroit where both are surrounded by a ring of suburbs and have no ability (except city income taxes on non-resident workers) to capture regional growth and the tax dollars that come with them.

By: The Urbanophile

The Urbanophile — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:20:57 +0000

TUP, IIRC the $50 billion would require a 50/50 state match. Not too many states are going to be about to ante up that kind of cash. We'll see.

By: The Urbanophile

The Urbanophile — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:20:20 +0000

JG, likely the location was to steer clear of UAW strongholds.

I haven't done any analysis on CTA ridership and station renovations, but IIRC ridership does dip after an extended station closing.

I think that life science employment is less of a factor than one might think, but that's pure speculation.

By: David

David — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:17:46 +0000

Columbus has actually annexed areas into the city outside of its core county. If the city provides water service, it has pretty free rein in Ohio to annex, which Columbus has done with Polaris and elsewhere. Sadly, the places they have annexed rarely fit in with the local environment and Polaris is the definition of sprawl, though it has the largest Chase Bank facility in the country (and getting bigger).

Honda aimed toward the Southeast because of less presence of unions and it was closer to their Ohio factories.