urbanMSP

Didn't see a thread for the city. So.

Indianapolis went on a budget cutting program that ended installing sidewalks and streetlights (but paid for sports facilities and convention centers) and saw pedestrian deaths rocket in unlit areas.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016 ... /88838610/

Since the article gives figures for Minneapolis, worth noting:

Indianapolis = 29000 lights in 352 square miles = 82(!) per square mile
Minneapolis = 48000 lights in 58 square miles = 828 per square mile

Granted, "Indianapolis" includes all of suburban Marion County, which makes that a little unfair. But look at Dallas:

Dallas = 85000 lights in 340 square miles = 250 per square mile

The best way to see the sights of Indianapolis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWruhl1qYCA

Indianapolis isn't a real city, though.

Indy has to be the worst place to walk I've ever seen. Downtown has some decent streets but it's not good overall. Outside of downtown, major streets that cross rivers and rail roads are absurdly bad. Think Broadway Avenue NE but with worse sidewalks and overgrown vegetation. Suburban areas in Hennepin and Ramsey county have at least some pedestrian accommodations. The sidewalks that do exist in suburban Indy rarely lead anywhere and crossings are very very long . It's not a good city.

Indianapolis city council approves a .25 cent income tax to support a major expansion of transit in the area.

Right now, the system is composed of many low-frequency routes with poor span of service. The tax will expand bus routes and construct 3 BRT lines.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/loca ... /98490222/

Wow, a city income tax being introduced for transit - that's...unusual. Does this mean they already have local income tax? Local income tax is quite unusual in the US (though it does exist in some places). In principle I prefer income tax over the other ways of funding transit, since unlike sales tax it's progressive, and unlike property tax it's straightforward to see how it affects everybody. But it's harder to set up and collect, and most places don't have the means to collect it.

Not that this really explains the income tax, but do note that Indianapolis did a city-county consolidation, so its land area is over 6 times that of Minneapolis.

Yes, that's why Indianapolis isn't a real city - the actual city proper is like the size of Madison, but they merged all their suburbs and inward-lying farmland into the "city" and claim a population equal to proper cities.

Is a flat income tax rate more or less progressive than a flat property tax rate dedicated to funding something (like transit)? Generally speaking, wealthier people live in more valuable houses and condos and apartments, plus in MN we also have the homestead exclusion and different tax rates as you go up in value, so I'd imagine it's less progressive than the state's income tax, but more progressive than a flat income tax (which we couldn't do anyway), which is more progressive than a sales tax.

Indianapolis is losing its ca. 2003 elevated people mover.
https://www.wishtv.com/news/local-news/ ... 1655917150