Calumet City, so very sad! (Chicago, Paris: attorney, health insurance, hotel)

[skyeINIL]

Originally Posted by LIS123

It's hard to believe that the area had essentially no crime as recently as '95. On the other hand, there probably were some shifts that began in the 1980s.
Having lived in NWI for 20+ years, my sense is that the last 10 years have been very difficult for the Cal City area, including many surrounding communities. It started to decline before that time, but things have really gotten a lot worse in the recent past. It's sad how that area in general (including S Holland, Lansing, Lynwood, etc) has declined in a relatively short time span. There are a LOT of people here in NWI who used to live there and they seem very happy to have left.

No offense, but living in Northwest Indiana for 20 years doesn't automatically make you knowledgeable, especially since your only evidence seems to be anecdotal reports from "a LOT" of people in your area. Also, you mentioned three other towns that have not really "declined", they've just had changes in the racial makeup (which to some denotes a decline in itself). Have you ever been to South Holland, Lansing or Lynwood? Or even the city in question, Calumet City?

[LIS123]

I've been to all of those communities, Cal City more than the others. I'm certainly no expert, though the reports I've heard from former residents have not been particularly positive, nor am I impressed when driving through those communities.
There is a strong sentiment that many of the communities in South Suburban Chicago are less desirable now than they were in the past. There are many people here in NWI who left those areas and are happy with their decision.

[skyeINIL]

Originally Posted by LIS123

I've been to all of those communities, Cal City more than the others. I'm certainly no expert, though the reports I've heard from former residents have not been particularly positive, nor am I impressed when driving through those communities.
There is a strong sentiment that many of the communities in South Suburban Chicago are less desirable now than they were in the past. There are many people here in NWI who left those areas and are happy with their decision.

You're entitled to your opinion (as are those who ran at the first sight of color in their towns and are happy with their decisions). There are only one or two Northwestern Indiana towns that impress me (Munster, and maybe, Dyer), so I can relate. The rest are really similar to the south suburban towns over the border.

Back on topic: Is there anyone that has lived in Calumet City for a while that can tell me when the crime started rising? Since we have two different opinions, I'm really curious to know.

[Brock Landers]

Calumet City has gone down hill, there is little doubt there. The question i have, since i lived there from 1980 till 1992, then off and on after college from 96-99, is what can the city itself do? Its up to the residents to continue to assist police in community efforts, to support local business, to raise their kids so that they value education...ETC, this is much depper than just projects in Chicago being torn down.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Brock Landers

Calumet City has gone down hill, there is little doubt there. The question i have, since i lived there from 1980 till 1992, then off and on after college from 96-99, is what can the city itself do? Its up to the residents to continue to assist police in community efforts, to support local business, to raise their kids so that they value education...ETC, this is much depper than just projects in Chicago being torn down.

The easiest way is to attract people in higher income demographics to the city. Not to sound elitist but that has a tendency of reducing crime, improving school scores, and causing quality and interesting businesses to open all by itself.

Easier said than done of course, especially when a community develops a negative reputation. It's very hard to get residents not already so inclined to trust police and raise their kids to value education, and equally hard to convince those who do to want to live around those folks. Would you put your kids in a Cal City school? I doubt it. Ask yourself why you wouldn't and you'll start to understand the scope and depth of the problem.

Our society has been grappling with this for years, with mostly very limited success. Chicago's solution? Just push 'em out. Sadly, that's about the best anyone has been able to come up with in the 40+ years since the Civil Rights Movement. It's worked, for a few lucky neighborhoods, but all it has really done is simply push the problems off on smaller, poorer communities not at all equipped to deal with them.

And how can you ask residents to support "local business" when all they have are dollar stores, fast food and currency exchanges? American business is efficient, but not always "fair," as some would define that term. They go where they think they can make money. That's why Orland Park has to beat off four star restaurants and upscale retail with a stick, while a community like Robbins would be happy to get a gas station or convenience store.

The city just has to market and try to enhance its good qualities. I don't know enough about Cal City to say what those are. Each city is different. The residents who are already there also can't wait for the artists and hipsters of the world to save them via gentrification. They have to care about the little things -- neighborhood watch, parental involvement in the schools, picking up trash, etc. That's about all I can tell 'ya.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by BRU67

The easiest way is to attract people in higher income demographics to the city. Not to sound elitist but that has a tendency of reducing crime, improving school scores, and causing quality and interesting businesses to open all by itself.

Easier said than done of course, especially when a community develops a negative reputation. It's very hard to get residents not already so inclined to trust police and raise their kids to value education, and equally hard to convince those who do to want to live around those folks. Would you put your kids in a Cal City school? I doubt it. Ask yourself why you wouldn't and you'll start to understand the scope and depth of the problem.

Our society has been grappling with this for years, with mostly very limited success. Chicago's solution? Just push 'em out. Sadly, that's about the best anyone has been able to come up with in the 40+ years since the Civil Rights Movement. It's worked, for a few lucky neighborhoods, but all it has really done is simply push the problems off on smaller, poorer communities not at all equipped to deal with them.

And how can you ask residents to support "local business" when all they have are dollar stores, fast food and currency exchanges? American business is efficient, but not always "fair," as some would define that term. They go where they think they can make money. That's why Orland Park has to beat off four star restaurants and upscale retail with a stick, while a community like Robbins would be happy to get a gas station or convenience store.

The city just has to market and try to enhance its good qualities. I don't know enough about Cal City to say what those are. Each city is different. The residents who are already there also can't wait for the artists and hipsters of the world to save them via gentrification. They have to care about the little things -- neighborhood watch, parental involvement in the schools, picking up trash, etc. That's about all I can tell 'ya.

I know many areas in Chicago that were doing just fine before gentrification.
BTW-Cal City wont become gentrified until we are dead, if ever... So the residents that live there now better get to work...

[Drover]

I support business in Cal City. Strangely enough, it has one of the best beer stores in the Chicagoland area.

[HsvMike]

Originally Posted by Brock Landers

Calumet City has gone down hill, there is little doubt there. The question i have, since i lived there from 1980 till 1992, then off and on after college from 96-99, is what can the city itself do? Its up to the residents to continue to assist police in community efforts, to support local business, to raise their kids so that they value education...ETC, this is much depper than just projects in Chicago being torn down.

I agree with Brock, that is absolutely what needs to happen. And (hopefully) once the neighborhood does get safer, people will move back, it is a great location with a lot of upside.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

I know many areas in Chicago that were doing just fine before gentrification.
BTW-Cal City wont become gentrified until we are dead, if ever... So the residents that live there now better get to work...

The concept of gentrification seems to have progressed in steps. The earliest neighborhoods which gentrified were solid working class neighborhoods that were doing just fine, like much of Lakeview and parts of Lincoln Park. Then there was gentrification in marginal neighborhoods like Wicker Park and Bucktown and, more recently, Humbolt Park, Pilsen, Logan Square, Uptown, Rogers Park, et al. Then there was what I would call "artificial gentrification," for lack of a better term, in places like Cabrini Green, the Robert Taylor Homes and Stateway Gardens, where housing was destroyed and residents simply displaced.

Who knows, maybe during the next housing boom they’ll continue on to impoverished neighborhoods like Englewood and Austin via eminent domain. Why not? The majority of Chicagoians would support that I'd wager, and the City has more than enough money and resources to steamroller any critics (literally and figuratively).

Cal City would seem a major long shot for gentrification, kind of like the Devil Rays' chances of winning the World Series. It could happen, but it’s doubtful. It’s not really convenient to the Loop via public transit nor does it offer the type of quirky and hip charms that most urban pioneers would find appealing, Smiley Tower and Drover's beer store notwithstanding. Ignoring that, no community should wait for gentrification. It should clean itself internally as best as it can, and that starts with the residents.

Of course, decent businesses are not always non-existent in struggling areas but they are definitely the exceptions rather than the norm. Most low income communities are relegated to crappy fast food and convenience store fare.

[Drover]

I seriously doubt "the majority of Chicagoans would support" the gentrification of any neighborhood via eminent domain ala Kelo v. New London. Why not, you ask? Because there's a huge difference between knocking down public housing that we were funding with our own tax dollars even as they were obviously failing versus just taking someone's private property (even with "just compensation") and turning around and handing it to another private interest. Property rights is one of the most ingrained institutions in this country; and as such, people readily recognize the injustice and the threat eminent domain abuse poses to their own rights, even if it's happening to poor people. Using eminent domain to seize obviously neglected/abandoned/blighted properties for redevelopment is controversial enough. Doing it to whole neighborhoods full of still-occupied homes isn't going to fly, not even in Englewood.