Divided Cities: urban inequalities in the 21st century 

Fran Tonkiss starts at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="534">8:54</a>

The research by Professor Tonkiss and other misses the fundamental redistribution of income and wealth from producers to non-producers. This redistribution has always existed because of the low effective rates of taxation on the rent of land. The result is that as population increases AND as nominal household incomes increases AND as the competition for control over well-located land parcels increases among absentee investors, owners of land are able to claim an higher and higher percentage of the incomes and savings of all others. I have seen this occur in dramatic fashion over a 40 year career in the housing finance sector of the United States. During the post-second world war period of consistent improved living standards for working people, land-to-total value ratios of residential property remained fairly steady at 15-20 percent. Land cost began to climb significantly once the children born in the mid-1940s to early 1950s became adults and began to form new families. The market response was sprawling development outward from the urban centers, where land remained relatively inexpensive. Initially, new highways connected the new suburban bedroom communities with employment in the cities. However, as employers moved out of the cities, the traffic flows began to increase in all directions. There were other technological innovations that resulted in the migration of millions of people to the South, the Southwest and West Coast. Air-conditioning is, perhaps, the most important. Many U.S. cities lost population as industries moved or shut down. At the same time, cities experiencing a declining population also experiencing a declining tax base. Their options were essentially three: (1) increase taxes on all that remained; (2) seek revenue-sharing from the state and federal governments; and (3) cut services. The second option began to disappear with the appearance of Conservative majorities elected to state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. What was desperately needed was the implementation of dramatic change in how city governments raised needed revenue. What the cities need to achieve both tax fairness and economic efficiency is to collect the rent of land that has been created by aggregate public and private investment but which has been left in private hands.

How long will people who raise concern about inequality persist in avoiding discussion of natural wealth and who owns it? If we all own the air and water and other natural resources equally, we should expect that industries that put pollution or deplete resources will pay some compensation to the people at large. Compensation paid should be just enough to ensure that rates of putting pollution or depleting resources do not exceed what most people think is acceptable. (This criterion assumes nothing more than equal ownership and a democratic society.) Integration of human society and the biosphere: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html Is Civilization a Success or Failure, or is it Too Soon to Tell?: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2009/12/is-civilization-success-or-failure-or.html

I wish to see companies moving away from unequal cities and help the poorest rather than the other way around.

Inequality is necessary for advancement. People are just as unequal as they want to be. Someone has to take the lead, like Elon Musk.