20 replies to this topic

[nashvol85]

Do you think that cities and states competing for image, economic status, and growth is a positive or negative thing for the region?

The south is a very hungry region right now...a lot of major companies are moving here as well as hundreds of thousands of people per year. Each city and state wants their piece of the action...and some are willing to go to quite some measures to attract attention (like heavy tax breaks for large companies to relocate). It seems that this is especially the case in the south, or at least to my knowledge other regions aren't trying as hard to attract business like we do.

Image is another thing. Southern cities are becoming larger and more cosmopolitan (mainly due to the relocation of people from "more cosmopolitan" places)...but in doing that are these cities (like Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Memphis, Raleigh, etc) losing their "southern charm" and culture? Is all of this growth destroying the character of the old cities?

Any thoughts on whether this is a positive or negative thing for the south?

[krazeeboi]

3...........2............1..............

[erdogs]

The growth of the south is positive. Adding culture and diversity just adds to the south's appeal.

[smithc57]

Growth is essential but competition is not necessary.  There is much to competition going on in the South Eastern United States.  So many cities want to be more and more and are willing to pay the high price to get passed the next city.  Southern cities should not be viewed as rivals but as neighbors.  Each city has some special of its own to offer.  Why do so many south eastern cities strive to be dominant over all others?

[johnnydr87]

Competition is good (see: capitalism).

[kayman]

smithc57, on Jun 24 2006, 10:48 PM, said:

Growth is essential but competition is not necessary.  There is much to competition going on in the South Eastern United States.  So many cities want to be more and more and are willing to pay the high price to get passed the next city.  Southern cities should not be viewed as rivals but as neighbors.  Each city has some special of its own to offer.  Why do so many south eastern cities strive to be dominant over all others?

I couldn't agree more.  As the saying goes, bigger doesn't always mean better.  

[krazeeboi]

smithc57, on Jun 24 2006, 11:48 PM, said:

Growth is essential but competition is not necessary.  There is much to competition going on in the South Eastern United States.  So many cities want to be more and more and are willing to pay the high price to get passed the next city.  Southern cities should not be viewed as rivals but as neighbors.  Each city has some special of its own to offer.  Why do so many south eastern cities strive to be dominant over all others?

That sounds really nice and all, but the fact of the matter is that there are states in the South that have a pretty low per capita income and are willing to do whatever it takes to lure new jobs to the area. I don't think its an issue of a city thinking, "Hey, let's try to get one over on City B." The leaders of these cities simply want jobs and a better quality of life for the residents. I think it's a bit simplistic and misleading to attribute all of the great economic accomplishments of Southern cities and states to pure pride. If anything, pride was the effect, not the cause.

[davidals]

Generally I think the competition is good.

BUT I would like to see a stronger, regional mode of thought emerge in regards to a few issues - transportation definitely, as the infrastructure issues in the South have long begun to cross state lines.  A regionally planned and designed high speed rail network would be a great bit of foreward thinking, and a similar approach to highways (witness the never-ending patchwork upgrading of I-85 from Durham to Atlanta) would be good - infrastructural planning in the South is almost feudalistic, and disrupting in-state fiefdoms would be very tough (but not impossible), and would only be beneficial to residents.

Similarly, a more regionally-based way of thinking about natural preservation, historic preservation and (perhaps) education could have benefits.  If development lags in many areas, there are intense pressures in others, and many of our metros cross state lines.

[sprtsluvr8]

The competitive nature of a city really shouldn't be judged on the comments made in these forums...there are lots of people posting very aggressive comments trying to boost their city's image.  They sometimes lull me into associating the actual city with a slightly crazy forumer who goes on a rant about how his city is the best, and it really gets me when he says his city is best AND goes on to bad-mouth my city.    Any prosperous city has been and will be competitive...that's how it came to be prosperous in the first place.

I think someone already summed it up about culture...new residents with different customs and traditions only adds to the already rich culture of the city...I definitely see that as a good thing.

[depechecureguyorl]

And the point of this thread is...

[Plasticman]

I believe the competition is perceived more than actual.  By that I mean when a large corporation is looking to build some mega factory somewhere in the south, all of the cities or states "compete" for the business.  But the key is the intent of the competition.  They are competing because they want to acquire more jobs for their area, but they aren't trying to deny another area.  If nobody competed for the jobs, nobody at all would get them.  When I have applied for employement, I am "competing" against others who also want that job.  But I'm not competing to keep them from getting a job even though that is the ultimate outcome for one of us, but to acquire a job for myself so I can provide for my family.

[nashvol85]

depechecureguyorl, on Mar 29 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

And the point of this thread is...

...to discuss the pros and cons of the fact that southern states are willing to compete with one another in the economic market...i.e. giving a huge tax break to encourage businesses to locate here.

Do you have anything to add, or were you just bored and looking to post in some random thread that you didn't care about?

[depechecureguyorl]

nashvol85, on Apr 6 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

...to discuss the pros and cons of the fact that southern states are willing to compete with one another in the economic market...i.e. giving a huge tax break to encourage businesses to locate here.

Do you have anything to add, or were you just bored and looking to post in some random thread that you didn't care about?

Well, you seem to lose sight of the fact that the entire South has to compete for business from the Northeast, the Southwest, Northwest, and the Western states. Coupled with the fact that the entire USA has to compete for business from Canada, Mexico, Asia, etc. We're in an age of Free Enterprise, if that a pro or con for you, then you decide.

So again, the point of this tread is...?

[Lexy]

depechecureguyorl, on May 18 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

Well, you seem to lose sight of the fact that the entire South has to compete for business from the Northeast, the Southwest, Northwest, and the Western states. Coupled with the fact that the entire USA has to compete for business from Canada, Mexico, Asia, etc. We're in an age of Free Enterprise, if that a pro or con for you, then you decide.

So again, the point of this tread is...?

Considering that most business' are moving out of the north and west and are all moving south, I think those two regions should be more concerned about their future as they know it moreso than the south should be.  The South has it's own charm and purpose, we are just now finding that out though.  I see the point in this thread and welcome more discussion on it.

[nashvol85]

depechecureguyorl, on May 18 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

Well, you seem to lose sight of the fact that the entire South has to compete for business from the Northeast, the Southwest, Northwest, and the Western states. Coupled with the fact that the entire USA has to compete for business from Canada, Mexico, Asia, etc. We're in an age of Free Enterprise, if that a pro or con for you, then you decide.

So again, the point of this tread is...?

Perhaps you should check and see how many businesses are moving to the south from other regions (such as the west, northeast, midwest). Corporate headquarters are relocating here, new factories are being built here, hundreds of thousands of people are moving here....and the southern states are in a bidding war for all of this action. States give tax breaks and huge incentives to lure these companies here. When a car manufacturer announces that it wants to sink 10 billion dollars into a new factory somewhere in the south, states fight like piranhas in order to land the factory in their territory.

The point of this thread? Should southern states be fighting over one another like this...

If you don't like the topic, don't post.

[Alabadrock]

Competitiveness is always a good thing.  That is until a state offers TOO many incentives.  More business means a better life for residents, but, when too many incentives are offered it hurts the state.

The competition between states and cities requires the other state or city to build better.  For example, Huntsville nearly overhauled the Von Braun Center when Decatur was about to build an bigger better arena.

[depechecureguyorl]

nashvol85, on May 18 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

The point of this thread? Should southern states be fighting over one another like this...

Yes. They Should.

[nashvol85]

depechecureguyorl, on May 22 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

Yes. They Should.

Awesome contribution.

[tombarnes]

It would be good to see this thread return to topic.  Competition between states is generally good for the health of the entire region.  It is in the nature of a capitalist society to promote competition.  How is this a bad thing for the region?  It would be much worse if there were no interested parties out there.  Fortunately, the South is seeing robust growth.  Competition between states is only natural and is good for the region as a whole.  I can't see how it could be otherwise.

[Okie]

The reason this thread was doomed to begin was because no one can make the argument sanely that Southern states should not be competitive. LOL