I’d agree that growth in a more or less fully developed city like Chicago will nearly always be good for the reasons you cite but also because growth is nearly all through the process of redevelopment - replacing underutilized or outdated developments with higher density uses. It’s doubly good when the development is occurring on brownfield site and not just adding an amenity or new asset but eliminating the negative conditions that may have been associated with the site in its previous condition. Growth may not be beneficial in the case of cities like Phoenix which are growing by greatly expanding their physical footprint. I don’t have the exact numbers at hand but comparing the growth of Phoenix from 1960 to 2010 vs NYC would show it adding a million residents and 400,000 or so households while expanding its land area by 20 or so times. Meanwhile NYC’s population and land area stayed the same while it added a million or so households and probably $250 to $500 billion of tax base
To be clear, if that taking comes from higher tax rates on the people who remain, then yes, agree that raising tax rates can push people away. What I meant to refer to is the fact that if the population has higher incomes, the same tax rates raise more revenue (since it’s the same percentage of a higher number). That strikes me as unambiguously a good thing.
I’d agree that growth in a more or less fully developed city like Chicago will nearly always be good for the reasons you cite but also because growth is nearly all through the process of redevelopment - replacing underutilized or outdated developments with higher density uses. It’s doubly good when the development is occurring on brownfield site and not just adding an amenity or new asset but eliminating the negative conditions that may have been associated with the site in its previous condition. Growth may not be beneficial in the case of cities like Phoenix which are growing by greatly expanding their physical footprint. I don’t have the exact numbers at hand but comparing the growth of Phoenix from 1960 to 2010 vs NYC would show it adding a million residents and 400,000 or so households while expanding its land area by 20 or so times. Meanwhile NYC’s population and land area stayed the same while it added a million or so households and probably $250 to $500 billion of tax base
I was just thinking it this morning, growth is the whole ball game
"...while the number of filers in Chicago has been declining of late, the aggregate income of Chicago residents has still been increasing."
So taking more from fewer? That just chases the people with the most into the suburbs.
To be clear, if that taking comes from higher tax rates on the people who remain, then yes, agree that raising tax rates can push people away. What I meant to refer to is the fact that if the population has higher incomes, the same tax rates raise more revenue (since it’s the same percentage of a higher number). That strikes me as unambiguously a good thing.