Showing posts with label Cities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cities. Show all posts

Monday, August 8, 2016

SENIORS | Most Livable Cities

Drum roll. Trumpets.
A group based in Austin, Tex. has developed a livability score for senior citizens. 

They say it is the first one developed specifically for seniors. That is a dangerous thing to assert since is a fairly obvious thing to do. They haven't looked very hard. I can think of several such scores that have been developed, as long as decades ago.

Meanwhile, the state with the most "top cities" in it (four) is Texas. (New York State is listed as having two cities, "New York City" and "Brooklyn". Actually, folks, since 1898 New York City has incorporated the Borough of Brooklyn.)

If you are still reading about this index, the city in Texas with the top livability score of 79 using an index developed by the group based in Austin, Tex. is...

drum roll

...Austin, Tex.!

Thursday, October 11, 2007

WEBSITES | Best Five City/County Sites

New York City's web site - http://www.nyc.gov/ - is by far the most popular local government web site in the United States, based on visits to the sites. As of August 2007, New York City's site had a 7.3 percent market share. It is more than three times as popular as the next-most-visited site, according to Hitwise.

The next most popular was Miami-Dade County, with 2.2 percent. Next, surprisingly, is not the City of Los Angeles but rather its Sheriff's Department. The City of Chicago ranks fourth and the Maricopa County (Phoenix) court system is fifth.

Rank. Name of Locality - Web Site - Market Share
1. City of New York - http://www.nyc.gov/ - 7.32%
2. Miami-Dade County - http://www.miamidade.gov/ - 2.20%
3. Los Angeles Sheriff's Department http://www.lasd.org/ 1.65%
4. City of Chicago http://www.cityofchicago.org/ 1.62%
5. Maricopa County, Arizona - Superior Court of
Arizona - http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/ 1.52%
Source: Hitwise

Friday, September 7, 2007

NYC | Just a C for Growth? (Comment)

August 31, 2007–A Business Council study compares the 2005 economy with the 1995 economy... and says NYC rates a C. The study is reported on here: New York City and State Lag in Economic Growth (NY Sun).

Comment

The Business Council has done some great work, e.g., on workers' compensation. But this study - c'mon. Who are we do believe–the Council or our own lying eyes?

Do the authors remember that the City of New York was attacked by terrorists on September 11 and the business community was on the edge of a diaspora? The fact that NYC has bounced back since 9/11 is impressive.

Perhaps NYC should be grateful to get a C since the study gives a good portion of the group to which NYC is compared (i.e., the upstate counties) an F.

But there is a deep flaw embedded in the study. It uses five variables and compares each county with the nation. Three of the five variables–population, jobs and total personal incomes–are biased against dense counties like the five boroughs of NYC, which are harder to grow from a population or jobs standpoint. It's easier for populations to grow rapidly from tiny numbers in the deserts of Arizona and Nevada counties than it is in a settled city like New York. However, NYC has its own upstate reservoir while the desert communities depend for their water on snow falling in distant states.

The value of residential and commercial real estate is one test of the City's economic magnetism. The recovery and growth of values since 9/11 speaks for itself.

What may happen in the future to Wall Street jobs and incomes and the value of real estate given the collapse of the subprime lending industry is another matter. It is as true today as it was in the 1980s that the City's economy is highly dependent for its performance on Wall Street's brains and skills. But meanwhile don't slam the City with unfair comparisons. Give it an A for its recovery from the disheartening months after 9/11.

Saturday, September 1, 2007

Nanny NYC Kicks Butts

(This blog was posted on Huffington Post on August 23. It attracted some amazing comments.)

Starting in his first year as mayor, 2002, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has sought to discourage smoking by New Yorkers. His efforts were opposed by many smokers, bars and cigarette vendors, and the City was derided by Human Events as “Nanny NYC”. But the Mayor’s efforts have paid off well. One-fifth of NYC smokers have quit smoking since 2002, a higher quit rate than in the nation. The Mayor crowed about this in his third annual public health report, noting that NYC had already reached its 2008 targets for lowering smoking and increasing colonoscopy screening – two years ahead of schedule. Unlike his predecessor Rudy Giuliani, who avoided drawing attention to his failures, the Mayor also admitted that he had failed to lower drug deaths and raise the number of breast-cancer screenings. The Mayor’s appetite for health activism was exceeded by the City Council when it voted earlier this year to ban metal baseball bats from schools. The Mayor vetoed the bill and the City Council overrode the veto. However, he is pressing on to help the great majority of City smokers who have tried to quit but have failed. The facts are in a new report, Who’s Still Smoking, which is based on the Community Health Survey, an ongoing telephone poll of New Yorkers. NYC is campaigning for better health by learning more about who is trying to quit and who is succeeding. The new report identifies emotional distress and binge drinking as obstacles to quitting. More surprising, it finds that fewer than one-fifth of NYC smokers are using nicotine-replacement therapies (such as patches and gum) to help quit, despite evidence that these therapies double the probability that a smoker will quit successfully.

Many Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the high cost of medical care – yet smokers put their health at risk while spending $2,500 a year on cigarettes if they smoke one pack per day. Studies show that the United States spends by far the highest proportion of its gross product on health care but its residents have a lower life expectancy than other large developed countries like the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and Sweden. Within the United States, how much Americans spend on health care per capita seems to have little connection with their longevity. A study by Christopher Murray and others on mortality disparities among “Eight Americas” in Public Library of Science - Medicine (Sept. 12, 2006) concludes that life expectancy is explained primarily by chronic illnesses (for example, heart disease and cancer) and injuries from alcohol-related traffic accidents in the 15-59 age group – and not by the relative mortality of infants or elderly people, incomes, violence or lack of health insurance.

Despite its high spending on health care, New York State ranks a surprisingly poor 19th out of 51 with an average life expectancy of 77.7 years. Hawaii has the highest life expectancy at 80 years, whereas Washington, D.C. residents have a life expectancy of only 72 years, a gap of eight years.

The size of the gap is even larger at the county level. Asian-American women in Bergen County, N.J. live the longest with an average life expectancy of 91 years. Native Americans in several rural counties in South Dakota have a life expectancy of under 67 years, a difference of 36 years.

These and other statistics point to the cost-effectiveness of public-health spending, the Nanny NYC derision notwithstanding. To support preemptive public-health activism against chronic illnesses worsened by smoking and poor nutrition, and against traffic accidents, NYC’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, headed by Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden:- publishes comparative data on health status in NYC's community boards,- urges colonoscopy screenings,- has alerted residents to the 75 percent increase in diabetes since 1990, and how to prevent it, - has researched safety factors for bicyclists,- has prohibited smoking in restaurants, - in a battle for better nutrition, proposes that all restaurants cut down on use of trans fats,
- proposes that 2,000 (about 10 percent) of NYC’s restaurants with standardized menu items list nutritional information, and
- is drawing attention to the fact that one million adult NYC residents do not have health insurance, even though 700,000 of them have jobs.

NYC men smoke more than women (20 percent versus 15 percent), but men and women quit at similar rates. Black and Hispanic smokers are more likely than whites to try quitting, but are significantly less likely to succeed. More low-income smokers tried to quit in 2006 than high-income smokers (68 percent versus 60 percent), but fewer succeeded. New Yorkers without a high school education were more likely to try to quit than those who have a college degree (70 percent versus 62 percent), but fewer succeeded (14 percent versus 20 percent).

Quitting rates vary by borough. Staten Island’s smoking rate has been stuck since 2002, while the citywide rate dropped by 20 percent, whereas rates in the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens have all declined more than 20 percent. So NYC’s Health Department is declaring the public health equivalent of a war on smoking in Staten Island, giving away nicotine replacements at the Staten Island ferry's Whitehall terminal Tuesdays-Thursdays, 3-6 p.m. from August 21 through September 20.

Every New Yorker should look at NYC’s surveys and alerts and should sign up for email alerts regarding health issues and emergencies. Non-New Yorkers should look at this survey as a model for what their community might do.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Cities and Innovation

Henry George, author of Progress and Poverty and onetime candidate for Mayor of New York City (he came in second, ahead of Theodore Roosevelt), argued that cities benefit from their density and that the increase in land values is unearned and should be the main place to look for tax revenues to support city services.

So why does city land become more valuable as it grows and becomes more dense? From a consumer perspective, cities offer cultural resources. But from the producer perspective, city density offers advantages for businesses.

Glenn Athey, Max Nathan, and Chris Webber have sought to explain these advantages as contributing to innovation. Their working paper, "Cities and Innovation," is in the tradition of Jane Jacobs's book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (her book The Economy of Cities is cited) and focuses on how cities contribute to innovation and why cities need innovation policies and approaches.

The paper was sponsored by the Centre for Cities of the British National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA). This organization describes itself as "the largest single endowment devoted exclusively to supporting talent, innovation and creativity in the UK."

The authors of the paper argue that cities provide three factors that contribute to innovation: proximity, density and variety. These factors help workers share knowledge. They depend on investment in communication and transportation.

Looking closely at UK cities of various sizes, the authors argue that cities obtain values through being hubs or providing links. A hub city like New York City or London has a strong infrastructure that enables markets and business networks to form. A link-oriented city - for example, a smaller university city like Cambridge, Mass. or Cambridge, England - is important because of its strong position in knowledge networks and institutional alliances.

The authors argue that intelligent city policies to encourage innovation can pay off and that local economic-development policies have an advantage over national policies in that they can be tailored to the strengths of the region.