Suburban Dreams

I've been talking a lot about Scoob and I moving at some point, and while we've had some debate over where we will move to one thing we've always been in agreement on is what type of place we will move to. We know we want cultural diversity, culture and arts, open spaces, and all those wonderful things, but we also know we want to live in the 'burbs. And while we technically already live in a suburb, the Bay Area metropolitan sprawl has really engulfed it.

It seems so strange to say we want to live in the 'burbs because the suburbs have such a negative connotation. That's why when I ran across this article on subrubiphobia in the Walls Street Journal, it caught my attention. (I don't know if that's even a word, maybe I should copyright it.) The short, short version of the article is that American art portrays the suburban experience as somehow inauthentic and homogeneous, being neither urban nor rural.

When I think of suburban portrayals in pop culture I think of The Brady Bunch, The Stepford Wives, Bewitched, and the like, images typified by late-1950s and early-1960s suburbia. (So sue me, I've never seen Desperate Housewives.) But Scoob and I wouldn't want to live in that version of the suburbs. So something doesn't match here; Either our perception of the suburbs is way off, or the suburbs have changed.

After a bit of Googling, I think it's the latter. The suburbs of today are not the homogeneous cookie-cutter developments of an earlier era. In fact, The Economist goes so far as to say the 'burbs are beginning to resemble city centers.

This article at USA Today seems to think that gas prices are driving this shift in the suburban landscape. And while I'm sure energy prices are a contributing factor, these new suburbs didn't just pop up overnight when fuel hit $4.00/gallon. I think it's been more of a matter of technology and convenience. I see this with Scoob.

He's been telecommuting for a few years now and I've seen the change in his habits. When he worked at the office, he used to go out to lunch with co-workers or take break at the coffee shop. He would swing by the bicycle repair shop and talk shop with other cyclists. Or he would just hang out at the bookstore.

Since he started telecommuting, he doesn't get together with co-workers as much as he used to even though they're also telecommuting and living nearby. When they do get together for lunch, the quality of restaurants they have to choose from is much lower. Their coffee shop option is pretty much limited to Starbucks. And the nearest bookstore is another behemoth chain and is clear across town.

As more and more people telecommute either part or full time, I think they're finding the same situations and more people are pressuring city planners for multiple use developments and sustainable communities. I think we'll continue to see this as we find new ways to apply technology.

I think another shift has been employers moving out of the city cores. In the Bay Area we've seen employers move out of high real estate areas and into the suburbs as a cost saving measure. We've also seen companies, like Sccob's, outsource so many jobs that they don't need to keep as many office parks open, and those that they do keep open don't need to be in such high rent areas. In addition to seeing tens of thousands of jobs from his company go overseas, he has also seen whole departments relocated from a first tier metro area (like San Francisco) to a second tier area (like Atlanta or Albuquerque).

This new American suburb is so popular in fact, there's growing demand from overseas, which is a good thing for builders given the current slump in new home construction.

An interesting cautionary article here, on the dilemma of repurposing suburban space once the landscape changes. I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more of this issue as the housing market shakes itself out.

A Rant, of the Economic Variety

Dudes, so that whole costume building thing didn't take nearly as long as I anticipated. I think I did it in about 3 hours. I'll post a picture once I get it all together, or from the office hoopla on Friday.

On the agenda today: swing by the craft store and pick up a couple more clumps of that grassy stuff, hit the thrift store for something blue to wear, get my hairs cut (way overdue), then hit Target and Trader Joe's. Oh, and laundry. Sunday is typically laundry day at the Wayward house.

So, like most Americans, I've been more than a bit preoccupied by this whole economic situation we have going on and I've been collecting links to share with you, dear reader, for a week or so.

So let's start with the bailout. While I hated the idea of throwing $700 billion at the banking industry, I also understood why something needed to be done. But I can't even articulate the revulsion I felt when I read that financial workers are continuing to receive $70 billion in pay deals. Keep in mind that most of this will be given out as bonuses.

Bonuses? Bonuses for what? For completely undermining the American economy to the point of collapse? Oh wait. No. You're getting the bonus for undermining the world economy. Please, allow me to wipe your a$$ with my paycheck.

Oh, and now the clamoring is beginning for a second bailout as a second round of stimulus checks. Read here, here, here, and here. I'm sorry, but I didn't want the first one, and do we even have any evidence that the first stimulus check helped bolster the economy? Mine went toward items I would have purchased with or without the extra money, so I guess you could say my first stimulus check is still sitting in the bank.

And dudes, it's not as if it's free money. We've paid this money in taxes, and if it's being given back to us instead of being used to shore up our infrastructure that money still has to come from somewhere. Issuing more checks just adds to the national debt, and that'll all need to be paid back, plus interest, at some point.

Add to this all the talk of the government buying up bad mortgages and I get even more steamed. So what, the government is going to help out those people who took on mortgages for more house than they could afford? Should the government be responsible for this? Hell no. Look, if you're in this boat, then I'm sorry. But it is simply not my responsibility to get you out of the mess you created.

You didn't crunch the numbers for yourself. You didn't read the fine print. You didn't do your due diligence. And yeah, I get it that there were predatory lenders out there, but no one put a gun to your head and made you sign on the dotted line. You did that all on your own. Oh, I'll feel the consequences of your poor decisions when my property value drops, but I do not want to finance your ability to live beyond your means while we've been making responsible decisions to live within ours.

Now I'll grant you that there are a small handful of homeowners caught up in this mess that justly deserve to get the help, but here's what's happening; a good friend of ours is trying to refinance so she can stay in he home she purchased a few years ago. At the time, she could afford the loans. Now, as property values plummet, she's upside down on her mortgage and being laid off. Her bank says, get this, her bank tells her they can't help her refinance until she misses at least two payments on her mortgage. And they counsel her to stop paying her mortgage! WTF?

I've seen the same sentiment expressed by Paul Michael here at Wise Bread, and I have to admit, the thought has crossed my mind. And like Paul, I just can't bring myself to do it. (Thanks mom, and mom, and dad, you did good.) But it pisses me off that the people who tried to do the right thing all along are the people most being left out of any recovery or let's-fix-it plan.

All this led to a rant in the car the other day about how our society rewards mediocrity and coddles under-achievers. I've got too much to do today to work up another head of steam for that rant here. So I'll stick to the one I'm currently on.

The other day I learned about another bill making its way through Congress here. It's a Credit Card Holder Bill of Rights, or House Resolution 5244. The only piece of this legislation I think I don't like is that part that requires statements be sent out 25 days before they're due. That probably means my last payment will not be posted on the statement, which I fear will allow the credit card companies wiggle room to add financing fees. We don't carry balances on our credit cards at the Wayward house, so this really won't mean much to us. But I'm betting that a lot of other people will benefit from it and that's a good thing.

I vaguely recall taking economics courses in college, and I remember being very frustrated with the whole macro and micro thing. While it was relatively easy for me to grasp the various theories, it's much easier to apply them at the micro level. I was always challenged at the macro level by the whole what should be ideal versus the reality of what is.

So back to focusing on the micro, because that's all I really have any control over, this post over at Get Rich Slowly about what it means to be rich made me feel better and I'm thankful for all that we do have.

So I'll wrap this up with a couple not-so-funny funnies. The modern bedtime story, and the Grapes of Wrath, 2008.