As is my custom I’m not going to remark on the upcoming mayoral election in New York City. Suffice it to say that I think that New Yorkers can vote for whomever they like.
The one point I do want to make is that regardless of what happens on Tuesday New York City should not be eligible for any federal bailouts whether loans, grants, or other. New York City is the State of New York’s problem.
I should add that the City of Chicago shouldn’t be considered for any bailouts, either. Or the State of Illinois for that matter. If Chicagoans are intent on driving “rich people” or employers out of the city, they can’t say they weren’t warned.
Mayor Johnson is just following the orders of his bosses—the Chicago Teachers Union. I have no idea how anyone could have expected anything different. Given that his present approval rating is 31% (up a few points from this summer and considerably higher than his nadir) I would speculate that some of his erstwhile supporters are unhappy.
Should we broaden that to no bailouts for cities that expand in areas prone to hurricanes and tornadoes? Fires?
Steve
I would have no problem with that. I don’t think the federal government should be in the business of indemnifying local governments against the adverse consequences of their own bad decisions. That includes, for example, building codes inadequate to local conditions and excessive building in disaster-prone areas.
Some cities, e.g. New York City, Chicago, and St. Louis, are in areas that have always been highly populated. For a considerable period in pre-Columbian history the St. Louis area was the most highly populated area in North America north of Mexico. Los Angeles and Miami were never highly populated until modern times. There are reasons for that and they include wildfires, drought, and hurricanes.