Sanitation Question

[Beefheart]

Specifically in regards to New York City and other major cities (like Baltimore) in the 1820’s - 1840’s (mass urbanization). There was a lot of issues with human waste (people just dumping their… excretions every which way). My history book (A People and a Nation, seventh edition) says that the government “lacked adequate taxing power” and that “The private sector, however, failed to supply the water the cities needed. Private firms lacked the capital to build adequate systems, and they laid pipe only in commercial and well-to-do residential areas, ignoring the poor. As populations grew, city governments had to take over.”

There just HAS to be more to this story than what the book is telling me. Ever since I read what it had to say about market economies and its Keynesian descriptions of the Panics of 1819 and 1837, I have no faith in this book whatsoever. Especially when considering economics and market topics.

Pretty much all other examples I know of suggest that when people demand something, the market delivers at more affordable prices. What prevented the market providing services for the poorer people when it seemed most crucial? Would it simply of “trickled down” to the lower-income areas over time? Did these cities even HAVE the time to wait? The textbook naturally spends little to no time on this topic, so I’m hoping all of you can offer me insight into what happened.

[liberty_student]

@Beefheart

My history book (A People and a Nation, seventh edition) says that the government “lacked adequate taxing power” and that “The private sector, however, failed to supply the water the cities needed. Private firms lacked the capital to build adequate systems, and they laid pipe only in commercial and well-to-do residential areas, ignoring the poor. As populations grew, city governments had to take over.”

If someone owned the land, then they would have an interest in maintaining it, and providing services to people who want to use that land.

So the first question is, who owned the land that did not receive services? Because it sounds like where property ownership existed (those nasty rich people) they were able to get access to the services they needed.

Also, it is somewhat silly to talk about things the poor do not receive. One could also say that Holiday Inn lacks the capital to build free public housing/hotels for the poor. Does this mean goverment must step in to build public housing, or should Holiday Inn not be allocating resources (entrepreneurship) to people who can pay for them?

[Stranger]

In areas where the government has established a monopoly, such as the municipal land market, it is only reasonable to expect the government to supply the services it has monopolized. If it failed to provide sanitation, then that is a case of government failure.

[Snowflake]

Assuming that the justified and probable suspicions of LS and stranger turn out to be dead ends, one can also ask: is a water sanitation system really the next step in poorer communities. Obviously they have money and are choosing to spend it on something else.

Also, its an unfashionable point, but diverting wealth from producers to non-producers harms everyone in the long term. The best any socialist can ever do is make things temporarily better for 10 seconds before producers alter their investment strategies.

Also it should be pointed out that providing sanitation to the poor free of charge is not something only the government can do. Point out that a monopoly on use of violence is not useful in any special way.

[jmorris84]

I think Beefheart is asking for some documented proof of what exactly happened during that period of time, other then what was given to him in his current reading. I am interested in the answer as well, so it would be appreciated if anyone could follow up with some reading material.

[Beefheart]

Sadly, the entry is very small and offers little insight as to what places did and did not get services. I’ll type up the part now:

By modern standards nineteenth-century cities were disorderly, unsafe, and unhealthy. Expansion occurred so rapidly that few cities could handle the problems it brought. For example, migrants from rural areas were accustomed to to relieving themselves outside and throwing refuse in vacant areas. In the city, such waste smelled, spread disease, and polluted water. New York City partially solved the problem in the 1840s by abandoning wells in favor of reservoir water piped into buildings and outdoor fountains. In some districts, scavengers and refuse collectors carted away garbage and human waste, but in much of the city it just rotted on the ground. Only one-quarter of New York City’s streets had sewers in 1857.

Cities lacked adequate taxing power to provide services for all. The best cities could do was to tax property adjoining new sewers, paved streets, and water mains. Thus new services and basic sanitation depended on residents’ ability to pay. As a result, those most in need of services got them last. Another solution was to charter private companies to sell basic services. This plan worked well with gas service used for lights. Baltimore first chartered a private gas company in 1816; New York did so in 1842. By midcentury every major city was lit by a private gas supplier. The private sector, however, failed to supply the water the cities needed. Private firms lacked the capital to build adequate systems, and they laid pipe only in commercial and well-to-do residential areas, ignoring the poor. As populations grew, city governments had to take over.

Bolded some parts.

Could this partially be an example of the parable of the broken window? When government went about taxing “new sewers, paved streets, and water mains”, wealth was taken from the people. So the private sector MAY HAVE had more capital to provide these services, and the people would have more money to pay for them… but all that is seen is the rich tossing aside the poor. Government took money and naturally didn’t use it in the most optimal manner, and then the private sector “failed”.

[liberty_student]

@Beefheart

When government went about taxing “new sewers, paved streets, and water mains”, wealth was taken from the people.

Taxes are a disincentive to produce. If you tax something, you will get less of it. If you subsidize something, you will get more of it. Generally.

@Beefheart

So the private sector MAY HAVE had more capital to provide these services, and the people would have more money to pay for them… but all that is seen is the rich tossing aside the poor. Government took money and naturally didn’t use it in the most optimal manner, and then the private sector “failed”.

That’s not unreasonable.

These are interesting portions,

@Beefheart

Cities lacked adequate taxing power to provide services for all.

Of course they did. Demand is limitless. No city can provide everything. There are even limits to how much it can tax, as the more it taxes capital, the more capital flees that tax jurisdiction. Government cannot create anything, it can only redistribute what was already there.

@Beefheart

Another solution was to charter private companies to sell basic services. This plan worked well with gas service used for lights. Baltimore first chartered a private gas company in 1816; New York did so in 1842. By midcentury every major city was lit by a private gas supplier. The private sector, however, failed to supply the water the cities needed. Private firms lacked the capital to build adequate systems, and they laid pipe only in commercial and well-to-do residential areas, ignoring the poor. As populations grew, city governments had to take over.

Without knowing more, I would assume that the people who paid for lights, were people who owned property. We’re back to the same problem of the poor not owning property, and of course not having the means to acquire sewers. We’d have to know who owned the property the poor were on, because if I own housing or land used by the very poor, I would have an interest in maintaining that land at least so far as I could continue to collect rents. Owned property is always better maintained than public property…

[david_z]

@Beefheart

By modern standards nineteenth-century cities were disorderly, unsafe, and unhealthy. Expansion occurred so rapidly that few cities could handle the problems it brought. For example, migrants from rural areas were accustomed to to relieving themselves outside and throwing refuse in vacant areas. In the city, such waste smelled, spread disease, and polluted water.

It would be interesting to find out what caused these circumstances. Theory dictates probably one or both of the following:

1. Some sort of interference encouraged the over-concentration of residence/dwellings, or
2. The over-concentration of people in these urban areas was an improvement over previous living conditions

People don’t under normal circumstances migrate to water-deprived, cholera- and smallpox-ridden cesspools. So I conclude that circumstances couldn’t have been “normal” by any stretch of the imagination. Either people were being forced into these conditions, or they were being forcibly prevented from enjoying other conditions, or (less likely IMO) these conditions were better than any alternative prevailing at the time.