Maywood, Illinois (Chicago, Oak Park, Park Ridge: transplants, rental, crime rates)

[Lookout Kid]

What many conservative diversity bashers don't realize is that the white liberal embrace of "diversity" was originally just an attempt to make the best of an uncomfortable situation. When blacks moved into most towns and neighborhoods in the Chicago region, the white residents bolted. Conversely, most white people in Oak Park decided that their town was worth staying in, and that the new black neighbors weren't that bad after all. I suspect that many white Oak Parkers would be perfectly happy if the Village were a little less "diverse" than it is today, but they're giving their black neighbors the benefit of the doubt instead of heading for the hills. Is that so wrong? Promis1, what would you prefer that white people do when blacks move in to their neighborhoods? Throw bottles and bricks? We still haven't heard any real solutions from you, other than "run further out to Orland Park"! Do you really think the "whiteness" of Orland Park will last forever? At what point should someone stop running?

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

This is a bit of a straw man. I'm not sure about other "liberals" out there but I don't know anyone who would say without qualification that a town NEEDS diversity to flourish. I've lived in several 100% white towns in other states that were extremely prosperous. My problem with a lot of these statements is that they are mischaracterizations and exaggerations that appear to lack sincerity -- ie they are more intended goad and needle people and provoke some kind of response for the voyeuristic pleasure of promis1. No serious person interested in discussing the issues would give such broad and silly characterizations of the opposing view.

If this is the case I guess I took the bait again.

back to the main topic, I do know people though who believe that a town CAN embrace diversity and still flourish nonetheless, and that this is a superior alternative to complete decimation by a refusal to integrate (e.g. white flight). Obviously this isn't for everyone, but looking at property values in e.g. Oak Park there is clearly something to it.

Your example about the crime in Oak Park doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless you demonstrate that the criminals actually live in Oak Park itself. Otherwise, if the law required minorities to live east of Austin Blvd, I don't think the crime would disappear.

No, I don't think anyone would say that a town needs diversity to flourish. Nor do I think there's anything wrong with living in a community which lacks diversity, if that's your thing. As I said in an earlier post, I just think trying to escape "urban influences" by moving further out is less reprehensible than it is risky. You just don't know what direction that safety blanket is going to go in. Some think that (white) people will keep moving further and further west. I don't think that will be the case.

I think some communities will regentrify, and some communities that are nice now will decline. Of course, it's hard to tell which will be which, unless you have psychic powers or have so much money you can afford somewhere so affluent that it has a very slim chance of decline -- like Winnetka. As such, I personally think it's better just to deal with it head on as Oak Park did but that's just me.

[bungalowdweller]

Originally Posted by BRU67

As I said in an earlier post, I just think trying to escape "urban influences" by moving further out is less reprehensible than it is risky. You just don't know what direction that safety blanket is going to go in. Some think that (white) people will keep moving further and further west. I don't think that will be the case.

As such, I personally think it's better just to deal with it head on as Oak Park did but that's just me.

Well said, Bru. Moving anywhere is risky business if you don't know anyone out that way. It's more than packing a few things and moving to a hopefully "better" place. It can mean changing one's entire way of life.

For an urbanite like myself who will probably have to move in a few years, I cannot intellectually imagine the differences. For our family it will mean a second car. Up to now we've never needed one. I have my butcher, my baker and the places I can go to get my husband his Czech food when he has a taste for it. Great beer is around the corner, etc. Most of the stores I go to are small and privately owned. I've shopped on Madison Street in Forest Park for almost 20 years. I'm on a first name basis with most of the owners I do biz with. Whether it's catching a cab to the airport or leaving one's church, everything changes. And the longer one has been in one place, the harder it is to go.

But I understand being fed up with the nonsense that passes for modern "urbanity". Crime, gangs, poor schools, etc. were simply not a predominant part of the urban scene a few decades ago. Now for younger people, they think that things have always been like that. It hurts to see neighborhoods decline. Change for the better is one thing, but decline is hard to take.

You are right about Oak Park. My family was there during the change and upheaval. It took a concerted, sustained effort. Most of the people who were there before the racial change DID move, but it was because of the costs associated with gentrification, Not because of panic selling. Oak Park prevented panic selling and thereby saved the village.

I think that Berwyn is in a good position to do the same thing. The politicians must be upfront, however, and discuss racial change as forthrightly as they did in Oak Park those many years ago.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by bungalowdweller

Crime, gangs, poor schools, etc. were simply not a predominant part of the urban scene a few decades ago.

I like your post, but this quoted section doesn't make any sense to me. Chicago (as well as the vast majority of cities in the U.S.) have been getting better in the last decade, not worse.

[ajolotl]

Yes, unless "a few decades" is taken to be five or six, that statement puzzled me also.

Originally Posted by aragx6

I like your post, but this quoted section doesn't make any sense to me. Chicago (as well as the vast majority of cities in the U.S.) have been getting better in the last decade, not worse.

[johnm68]

I'm going to piggyback on the posts made by Bru, Bungalowdweller and Lookout Kid.

promis1--you obviously have quite a bit of knowledge about the west side and suburbs. I wonder, if like myself, you are a product of the white flight from AUstin in the late 1960s and early 70s. If you are, think about the following.

The folks in Austin were hardworking, socially conservative (although not, I think, in the sense that the term is used today), tough people. Irish, Italian, Greek--many of them immigrants or the children of immigrants. In short, they weren't the type of people you'd want to mess with.

Yet these hard-working, two-fisted men (and women) saw a few black faces in Austin and left. ANd they left fast--it was almost overnight. Rather than stay and fight for their neighborhood--by working with the decent African Americans moviing in, and holding the line against the worst elements of the black and white communities--they fled. It's understandable in many ways, and I don't criticize them for it--my own parents were among them.

However, compare that response to the response of the liberals in Oak Park whom you hold in such contempt. They stayed. They did what they had to do, and worked to keep Oak Park a safe, livable community, even when it involved working with and dealing with thoise of different skin colours. And look at the 2 communities today--Oak Park is a fine place, with good schools, solid housing and thriving business. Austin is not.

I'm aware there were other issues involved, not the least of which are the fact that Oak Park is a separate town, not a City neighborhood, and that Oak Park residents had a bit more money--and therefore more of an interest in protecting their home. Still, it seems to me that the decision to stay, in the long run, was the wise one.

[promis1]

Originally Posted by johnm68

I'm going to piggyback on the posts made by Bru, Bungalowdweller and Lookout Kid.

promis1--you obviously have quite a bit of knowledge about the west side and suburbs. I wonder, if like myself, you are a product of the white flight from AUstin in the late 1960s and early 70s. If you are, think about the following.

The folks in Austin were hardworking, socially conservative (although not, I think, in the sense that the term is used today), tough people. Irish, Italian, Greek--many of them immigrants or the children of immigrants. In short, they weren't the type of people you'd want to mess with.

Yet these hard-working, two-fisted men (and women) saw a few black faces in Austin and left. ANd they left fast--it was almost overnight. Rather than stay and fight for their neighborhood--by working with the decent African Americans moviing in, and holding the line against the worst elements of the black and white communities--they fled. It's understandable in many ways, and I don't criticize them for it--my own parents were among them.

However, compare that response to the response of the liberals in Oak Park whom you hold in such contempt. They stayed. They did what they had to do, and worked to keep Oak Park a safe, livable community, even when it involved working with and dealing with thoise of different skin colours. And look at the 2 communities today--Oak Park is a fine place, with good schools, solid housing and thriving business. Austin is not.

I'm aware there were other issues involved, not the least of which are the fact that Oak Park is a separate town, not a City neighborhood, and that Oak Park residents had a bit more money--and therefore more of an interest in protecting their home. Still, it seems to me that the decision to stay, in the long run, was the wise one.

Great post overall, but is Oak park really that safe? In a town that is prosperous like this one, should violent crimes be happening here? Park Ridge borders the city also, and has nowhere near the viloent crime as Oak park And yes, one borders Edison park and the other Austin- so being that they are both very close in price, which town would you choose to live in? Park Ridge offers better schools, less crime, and same proximity to the city. The only thing that it does not offer is this valued diversity. When someone of color steps into Park Ridge, they are noticed much more. And people will be alert to not be a victim of crime. Thats my point, in Oak Park, Austin trash blends in just fine, making residents of Oak park less aware of being a victim to crime.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by promis1

When someone of color steps into Park Ridge, they are noticed much more. And people will be alert to not be a victim of crime.

And to you this is OK. For a black person to walk into town and for everyone to immediately assume that they are there to commit a crime, even though far more blacks are NOT criminals than are.

That is what bothers me maybe more than anything else you've said. That you see no problem whatsoever with judging someone based entirely on skin color alone.

[Mister Mappy]

Originally Posted by promis1

Great post overall, but is Oak park really that safe? In a town that is prosperous like this one, should violent crimes be happening here? Park Ridge borders the city also, and has nowhere near the viloent crime as Oak park And yes, one borders Edison park and the other Austin- so being that they are both very close in price, which town would you choose to live in? Park Ridge offers better schools, less crime, and same proximity to the city. The only thing that it does not offer is this valued diversity. When someone of color steps into Park Ridge, they are noticed much more. And people will be alert to not be a victim of crime. Thats my point, in Oak Park, Austin trash blends in just fine, making residents of Oak park less aware of being a victim to crime.

Oak Park, hands down. Park Ridge has some great homes in it, and a nice downtown, but it's a relatively boring area, and its neighboring areas (Edison Park in Chicago, and Niles) are pretty much the same. It would also take a lot longer from Park Ridge than Oak Park to get downtown. Plus Oak Park has 24 public transportation, whereas Park Ridge does not. I've heard many good things about Oak Park-River Forest HS, so I'm sure the schools are relatively similar education wise. I don't think I want to live in a place like Park Ridge, where you're looked at suspiciously for not being white.

[ajolotl]

I don't think I've ever been to Park Ridge. Is the only difference between it and Oak Park really less diversity, better quality of schools, less crime?
I put a high value on the walkability and size of the commercial district and the architecture of the homes. If Park Ridge is the equal of Oak Park in all of these ways then I should go check it out.

Originally Posted by promis1

Great post overall, but is Oak park really that safe? In a town that is prosperous like this one, should violent crimes be happening here? Park Ridge borders the city also, and has nowhere near the viloent crime as Oak park And yes, one borders Edison park and the other Austin- so being that they are both very close in price, which town would you choose to live in? Park Ridge offers better schools, less crime, and same proximity to the city. The only thing that it does not offer is this valued diversity. When someone of color steps into Park Ridge, they are noticed much more. And people will be alert to not be a victim of crime. Thats my point, in Oak Park, Austin trash blends in just fine, making residents of Oak park less aware of being a victim to crime.