Why So Many People Died In Buffalo

Many of the people who died in the recent horrific Buffalo blizzard died because the streets were impassable and no one could get to them. Emergency vehicles couldn't get through the snow. The scandal has already begun about Buffalo being prepared for the storm. And keep in mind that snow is very familiar to Buffalo.

(Note-I know there is a grammatical rule that sentences should not begin with "And" but I don't agree with it).

The area all around Buffalo suffered from the snow and cold. What is interesting is how the deaths were heavily concentrated in Buffalo, relatively to the proportion of the population. The streets of the suburbs outside Buffalo got plowed much better than in Buffalo itself, so that emergency vehicles in the suburbs had a much better chance of getting through.

What it all came down to, of course, is money. The suburbs, where fewer people died, had money for enough snowplows to keep the streets clear enough for emergency vehicles to get through. Buffalo, where many people died, didn't have money for enough plows to keep the streets clear, and the emergency vehicles couldn't get through.

The reason is a matter of urban politics. What happens is that people who can afford it move out to the suburbs, which are separate towns and cities from Buffalo. This means that the local taxes paid by those who have moved are now paid to the suburb, and lost to Buffalo. Since living costs tend to be higher, on average, in the suburbs this means that the ones that move tend to be the ones that can afford it. This builds up wealth in the suburbs and impoverishes the city.

You might be thinking that it would be unfair to take revenue away from one city and give it to another. But what has to be understood here is that the suburbs of Buffalo are not really separate towns and cities because they likely would not exist if not for Buffalo.

Take Cheektowaga, for example, which is immediately east of Buffalo. It has no "downtown", of older buildings, of it's own, only a modern commercial strip. What this indicates is that Cheektowaga is an extension of Buffalo and wouldn't exist without Buffalo.

The same is true of Amherst and West Seneca. There is no "downtown" of older buildings in either, to indicate that it would have existed separately without Buffalo. Tonawanda, Williamsville and, Lancaster do have central business areas with older buildings, and would have existed as towns without Buffalo, but likely wouldn't have grown as they have without being part of the Buffalo metropolitan area.

Is it right for children to take wealth away, leaving their parents impoverished, forgetting that they wouldn't exist if not for their parents?

What I am thinking of is how Toronto has undergone periodic rounds of consolidation as it's metropolitan area has grown, the most recent being in 1998. Some readers may remember when Toronto was often referred to as "Metro", which was before the last consolidation. Original towns and cities keep their identity but all are under the same city government and all taxes go into the same pot. People who work for local government may naturally be opposed to it because it may mean demotion or losing their jobs.

This is not suggesting just copying Toronto but I believe that the best thing is to adapt this to work for Buffalo. Toronto's consolidations are described in the Wikipedia article " Amalgamation Of Toronto".