U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2015, 09:54 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,466 posts, read 25,413,703 times
Reputation: 8936

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
What are you basing this on? The Mission was a poor, declining neighborhood that was abandoned by white ethnics over a relatively short period. The remaining Mexicans would leave the neighborhood as they became more successful.

It's actually quite simple. If you are living in a declining neighborhood, are you apt to leave? If you are living in an improving neighborhood, are you apt to leave? Gentrification retains existing populations because it makes the neighborhood more desirable. There is far more flight out of Detroit than San Francisco even though Detroit is poor, affordable and ungentrified, and SF is wealthier, expensive and gentrified.

If the scenario being supported in this thread were true, then there would be no poor people in SF or NYC. In fact there are tons of poor people. And the % poor people over time doesn't vary that much. They stay because they want to, and because there are mechanisms that allow them to stay (rent control, public housing, limited equity homeownership, etc.)
It was relatively poor but it wasn't "declining" in the sense people were fleeing. It still was full of people and vibrant. Whatever people left were replaced by poor or middle income individuals. Just because a place is poor doesn't mean it's emptying out, poor people have to live somewhere too obviously.

Sure you're going to stay in an improving neighborhood until you can no longer afford it, which is exactly what happened in the Mission and other areas of SF as well. You are seeing it in Oakland now too. Lower to middle income people are getting pushed out all the time in these areas, sometimes they get paid tens of thousands of dollars by their landlord to leave just so they can either sell the place or rent it for more money.

Gentrification happens on a neighborhood level, not city wide so I don't know why you're presenting this extreme idea that if poor people get pushed out of neighborhoods they wouldn't exist at all in cities like SF or NYC.

Last edited by sav858; 11-13-2015 at 10:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2015, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,419 posts, read 11,923,391 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Sure you're going to stay in an improving neighborhood until you can no longer afford it, which is exactly what happened in the Mission and other areas of SF as well. You are seeing it in Oakland now too. Lower to middle income people are getting pushed out all the time in these areas, sometimes they get paid tens of thousands of dollars by their landlord to leave just so they can either sell the place or rent it for more money.
Let's look at the Mission example though. If you turned back the clock to say 1950, when the Mission was still mostly working class Irish/Polish, would it have been ethical for them to form a group to lobby for the retention of the existing ethnic white composition of the neighborhood, and to block redevelopment which allowed Mexicans to move in? I'd say no. Why is it then okay today for the predominantly Latino residents to oppose the movement of techbros into the neighborhood?

IMHO setting the precedent that incumbent residents can block changes in their neighborhood which are seen as allowing more outsiders to come in almost always results in bad policy effects. Yes, in rare cases you can see the destruction of communities at the hands of greedy developers. But in many more cases you have existing homeowners (either in suburbs or in wealthy neighborhoods in core cities) acting as cartels which stop the development of new higher-density development due to various fears (lower property values, higher crime, more traffic, parking issues, etc). Last I checked, the proposed development hiatus for The Mission would actually hasten gentrification, as it limited the ability of developers to build new units, giving them even more incentive to displace low-income renters out of existing units.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 10:27 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,466 posts, read 25,413,703 times
Reputation: 8936
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Let's look at the Mission example though. If you turned back the clock to say 1950, when the Mission was still mostly working class Irish/Polish, would it have been ethical for them to form a group to lobby for the retention of the existing ethnic white composition of the neighborhood, and to block redevelopment which allowed Mexicans to move in? I'd say no. Why is it then okay today for the predominantly Latino residents to oppose the movement of techbros into the neighborhood?

IMHO setting the precedent that incumbent residents can block changes in their neighborhood which are seen as allowing more outsiders to come in almost always results in bad policy effects. Yes, in rare cases you can see the destruction of communities at the hands of greedy developers. But in many more cases you have existing homeowners (either in suburbs or in wealthy neighborhoods in core cities) acting as cartels which stop the development of new higher-density development due to various fears (lower property values, higher crime, more traffic, parking issues, etc). Last I checked, the proposed development hiatus for The Mission would actually hasten gentrification, as it limited the ability of developers to build new units, giving them even more incentive to displace low-income renters out of existing units.
That's not really the same situation. Were the Irish getting "priced-out" of the Mission in the 1950's or did they just choose to leave to go live in the suburbs because they wanted to?

I'm not against gentrification, the Mission is cleaner and safer than it was before but at the same time it's also full of a bunch of boring hipsters and techies too. SF is a much nicer and safer city all around today than it was 20-25 years ago but it's also a lot more yuppified and bland. You take the good with the bad I guess, I'm not speaking out against gentrification necessarily. My wife grew up in the Mission and talks about walking by prostitutes and drug dealers on her way to school, which obviously is terrible, but now she sees all her favorite places to go and eat disappear one by one. I just don't agree with NOLA's statement that gentrification doesn't push out existing communities, it certainly does and is part of the definition of the term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:23 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,250,419 times
Reputation: 9846
Here is the actual data on the Mission. Keep in mind that the Mission is one of the most hypergentrified parts of one of the most hypergentrified cities.

The Mission is still relatively poor, largely Hispanic, many foreign-born, not speaking English at home, and uneducated. Homeownership is very low. There are more high school grads than college grads.

http://empowersf.org/wp-content/uplo...ning-Dept..pdf

If the most gentrified neighborhood in the most gentrified city manages to retain a good deal of working class folks, I think it's fair to say that gentrification, by and large, does not displace communities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:39 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,466 posts, read 25,413,703 times
Reputation: 8936
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Here is the actual data on the Mission. Keep in mind that the Mission is one of the most hypergentrified parts of one of the most hypergentrified cities.

The Mission is still relatively poor, largely Hispanic, many foreign-born, not speaking English at home, and uneducated. Homeownership is very low. There are more high school grads than college grads.

http://empowersf.org/wp-content/uplo...ning-Dept..pdf

If the most gentrified neighborhood in the most gentrified city manages to retain a good deal of working class folks, I think it's fair to say that gentrification, by and large, does not displace communities.
This data is from 2009 and before hyper gentrification really took off in the Mission.

It would be more useful to compare today stats to 2000 to see what changes have occurred. If the area is wealthier and more educated, then would you agree that the poorer less educated must have gotten displaced?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,512 posts, read 2,972,560 times
Reputation: 2742
Ah, so you are saying that the extensive scholarship on the issue is invalid because the institutions employing such scholars tend to have growing space needs? Huh?

What a classic C-D response. Completely off-topic, no logical relationship whatsoever, factually wrong, and basically trollbait.

Lance Freeman (who is black, from Harlem, and extremely liberal) did his research on gentrification long before Columbia expanded its campus. And the Columbia expansion is 100% on non-residential land. Not one person is being displaced. And the expansion isn't even in Harlem.


What a classic C-D retort when your post is being challenged. Completely confrontational (for no reason), no logical argument being put forth, factually wrong, emotionally driven and basically immature pouting. So ONE link from a scholar EMPLOYED by the same institution widely chastised for engaging in gentrification/expansion constitutes extensive scholarship?

And the Columbia expansion is threatening to many locals. Hello? I used to literally work for Columbia and I LIVED on 125th and Broadway, at the General Grant projects. There's so much fear/distrust in the neighborhood (Manhattanville, IN Harlem) that Columbia's expansion (currently non-residential, but who knows? CU still can use eminent domain, thanks to a 2007 ruling) will drive property values sky-high and dilute the area's history/culture. How long until those rent-controlled projects are next? There was already big protests and media coverage of it, and only four more years were extended for rent-stabilized apartments.

State lawmakers agree to extend New York City rent control laws | Reuters

Housing advocates say Harlem must preserve affordable housing - Columbia Daily Spectator

https://www.slantnews.com/story/2015...ally-tone-deaf

The playing field isn't level anywhere on earth. It will never be level anywhere on earth. This has zero to do with the thread topic.

This has everything to do with the thread topic. You can't talk about current gentrification in this country, especially "ethical" gentrification, without bringing up race and racial disparities. That's just how our country is, whether you want it to be or not (and I'm not the only one bringing it up in this thread, either).

As for your nihilistic statements on the playing field, I don't subscribe to that view, nor do many others of my ilk. We may not all be born with the same abilities and we may not all be able to reach the same heights in life, but we should all have the same opportunities to achieve our best. The current playing field does not allow for this.

Gentrification has nothing to do with "people of color" and their relative access to jobs/education. And now Asians aren't "people of color" because they don't fit your ghetto stereotypes? LOL.

None of this is true. Asians have higher median incomes than whites, gentrification has zero to do with race, and whether or not the "playing field is level" (an impossible scenario) has zero to do with gentrification.


Gentrification has everything to do with color because, again, this America, a nation literally built off of subjugating and oppressing minorities. Nominally, gentrification should just be about wealth and not race, but you can't view one without the other in this country when the system (unfettered capitalism, racism, whatever you want to call it--I'm no conspiracy nut so I could care less how you label it, but something exists clear as day) has been designed for wealth to accumulate easier in certain groups' hands, to the detriment of others. And I brought in Asians precisely because they do have higher median incomes than whites. We can indeed look at work ethic and cultural values as big reasons for this (along with many Asian immigrants in this country being educated workers lured here), but you're lying to yourself if there aren't specific discrimination issues at play that target blacks/Latinos more (not to excuse personal responsibility, because that's also a big factor at play). If gentrification had nothing to with color, you wouldn't have people like Spike Lee ruffling feathers with their comments SPECIFICALLY ABOUT RACE (and this is not to say that "Asians", to include everyone from Chinese to Arab Americans, don't face discrimination, because, duh, they do. They just don't face the full brunt of it, proportionately or statistically, as much as blacks/Latinos do).

This is A. Completely fabricated and B. Completely off-topic. There is no race-based mechanism to "bully" people out of geographies, there are tons of economic reasons people stay in gentrified neighborhoods. And in fact they do stay, as the scholarship shows.

Then prepare to "disdain" gentrification for the remainder of your existence, because it isn't going away, ever. Has zero to do with "more equitable system", you made that up.


The only people who can stay in gentrified neighborhoods are those who have the means to do so. Unless there are rent controls or other measures in place, lower-income people, who are disproportionately black and Latino in this country because of historical and current oppression, are the first to go. That sounds a lot like race-based bullying to me when certain racial groups are forced to relocate because of other groups throwing money around. Indeed, it's such a concern with gentrification that organizations like CU are forced to include a ton of measures (promised jobs, housing, etc.) that may or may not work just to proceed.

And going back to Lance Freeman, since that's your 'extensive scholarship' basket, there are other academics who disagree with the stance that people aren't displaced by gentrification. From CityLab:

Tanvi Misra points to the strong link between gentrification and displacement in a high-gentrification city like San Francisco. Over a quarter of San Francisco’s neighborhoods (422 of the nearly 1,600 surveyed) are at risk of displacement. The study’s lead author, Karen Chapple, writes that by 2030, San Francisco, Oakland, “and many other Bay Area communities may realize that their neighborhood has turned the corner from displacement risk to reality.”

The Complex Relationship Between Gentrification and Displacement - CityLab

Here's another point I'm making about racial realities in America, from the Observer:

Near the end of his piece, Mr. Buntin cites a study by two Harvard sociologists showing that neighborhoods that are more than 40 percent black gentrify much more slowly than other neighborhoods and concludes that “the apparent unwillingness of other ethnic groups to move into and invest in predominantly black communities in turn perpetuates segregation and inequality in American society.”

Gentrification May Be Complicated, But It’s Not a Myth | Observer

I wonder if, since you pointed it out, the reason why Detroit is losing population/slow to gentrify and San Francisco is gaining/gentrified is because the former is over 70% black? Of course SF's booming economy has something to with it, but let's not ignore the racial issues at play here just because it makes us uncomfortable. 50 years ago, well-off white people packed their bags to the suburbs because there were too many minorities. Now, whether intentional or not, it seems not well-off minorities are packing their bags to the suburbs because well-off white folks are forcibly moving back in. Unless things are more even/fair in this country concerning race and economics (and I'm a progressive minority who thinks things are better than ever in this department so please don't peg me as ), gentrification will just be a reversal of what's already happened before. We'll be talking about the South Bronx ("SoBro" and/or the "Piano District) in 15-20 years and how all the poor minorities are spilling into New Rochelle.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2015...oard-proclaims

I hate to bring race into this thread as much as I have (to the point this could be in the P & C forum) but you can't really NOT talk about it when you're talking about gentrification, especially what constitutes "ethical" gentrification. It's a complicated and contentious issue, and this is just my point of view on the matter.

Last edited by qworldorder; 11-13-2015 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:45 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,250,419 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
This data is from 2009 and before hyper gentrification really took off in the Mission.
I knew someone was going to respond in that manner.

This is the latest data available. It's relatively recent, and it isn't like SF or the Mission wasn't gentrifying until the last couple of years. 2010 data is the best available data, and you will never get real time data (and if you did I'm sure the next complaint would be that the data was wrong).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:49 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,250,419 times
Reputation: 9846
[quote=qworldorder;41919138]
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Ah, so you are saying that the extensive scholarship on the issue is invalid because the institutions employing such scholars tend to have growing space needs? Huh?

What a classic C-D response. Completely off-topic, no logical relationship whatsoever, factually wrong, and basically trollbait.

Lance Freeman (who is black, from Harlem, and extremely liberal) did his research on gentrification long before Columbia expanded its campus. And the Columbia expansion is 100% on non-residential land. Not one person is being displaced. And the expansion isn't even in Harlem.


What a classic C-D retort when your post is being challenged. Completely confrontational (for no reason), no logical argument being put forth, factually wrong, emotionally driven and basically immature pouting. So ONE link from a scholar EMPLOYED by the same institution widely chastised for engaging in gentrification/expansion constitutes extensive scholarship?

And the Columbia expansion is threatening to many locals. Hello? I used to literally work for Columbia and I LIVED on 125th and Broadway, at the General Grant projects. There's so much fear/distrust in the neighborhood (Manhattanville, IN Harlem) that Columbia's expansion (currently non-residential, but who knows? CU still can use eminent domain, thanks to a 2007 ruling) will drive property values sky-high and dilute the area's history/culture. How long until those rent-controlled projects are next? There was already big protests and media coverage of it, and only four more years were extended for rent-stabilized apartments.

State lawmakers agree to extend New York City rent control laws | Reuters

Housing advocates say Harlem must preserve affordable housing - Columbia Daily Spectator

https://www.slantnews.com/story/2015...ally-tone-deaf

The playing field isn't level anywhere on earth. It will never be level anywhere on earth. This has zero to do with the thread topic.

This has everything to do with the thread topic. You can't talk about current gentrification in this country, especially "ethical" gentrification, without bringing up race and racial disparities. That's just how our country is, whether you want it to be or not (and I'm not the only one bringing it up in this thread, either).

As for your nihilistic statements on the playing field, I don't subscribe to that view, nor do many others of my ilk. We may not all be born with the same abilities and we may not all be able to reach the same heights in life, but we should all have the same opportunities to achieve our best. The current playing field does not allow for this.

Gentrification has nothing to do with "people of color" and their relative access to jobs/education. And now Asians aren't "people of color" because they don't fit your ghetto stereotypes? LOL.

None of this is true. Asians have higher median incomes than whites, gentrification has zero to do with race, and whether or not the "playing field is level" (an impossible scenario) has zero to do with gentrification.


Gentrification has everything to do with color because, again, this America, a nation literally built off of subjugating and oppressing minorities. Nominally, gentrification should just be about wealth and not race, but you can't view one without the other in this country when the system (unfettered capitalism, racism, whatever you want to call it--I'm no conspiracy nut so I could care less how you label it, but something exists clear as day) has been designed for wealth to accumulate easier in certain groups' hands, to the detriment of others. And I brought in Asians precisely because they do have higher median incomes than whites. We can indeed look at work ethic and cultural values as big reasons for this (along with many Asian immigrants in this country being educated workers lured here), but you're lying to yourself if there aren't specific discrimination issues at play that target blacks/Latinos more (not to excuse personal responsibility, because that's also a big factor at play). If gentrification had nothing to with color, you wouldn't have people like Spike Lee ruffling feathers with their comments SPECIFICALLY ABOUT RACE (and this is not to say that "Asians", to include everyone from Chinese to Arab Americans, don't face discrimination, because, duh, they do. They just don't face the full brunt of it, proportionately or statistically, as much as blacks/Latinos do).

This is A. Completely fabricated and B. Completely off-topic. There is no race-based mechanism to "bully" people out of geographies, there are tons of economic reasons people stay in gentrified neighborhoods. And in fact they do stay, as the scholarship shows.

Then prepare to "disdain" gentrification for the remainder of your existence, because it isn't going away, ever. Has zero to do with "more equitable system", you made that up.


The only people who can stay in gentrified neighborhoods are those who have the means to do so. Unless there are rent controls or other measures in place, lower-income people, who are disproportionately black and Latino in this country because of historical and current oppression, are the first to go. That sounds a lot like race-based bullying to me when certain racial groups are forced to relocate (aka play musical chairs) because of other groups throwing money around. Indeed, it's such a concern with gentrification that organizations like CU are forced to include a ton of measures (promised jobs, housing, etc.) that may or may not work just to proceed.

And going back to Lance Freeman, since that's your 'extensive scholarship' basket, there are other academics who disagree with the stance that people aren't displaced by gentrification. From CityLab:

Tanvi Misra points to the strong link between gentrification and displacement in a high-gentrification city like San Francisco. Over a quarter of San Francisco’s neighborhoods (422 of the nearly 1,600 surveyed) are at risk of displacement. The study’s lead author, Karen Chapple, writes that by 2030, San Francisco, Oakland, “and many other Bay Area communities may realize that their neighborhood has turned the corner from displacement risk to reality.”

The Complex Relationship Between Gentrification and Displacement - CityLab

Here's another point I'm making about racial realities in America, from the Observer:

Near the end of his piece, Mr. Buntin cites a study by two Harvard sociologists showing that neighborhoods that are more than 40 percent black gentrify much more slowly than other neighborhoods and concludes that “the apparent unwillingness of other ethnic groups to move into and invest in predominantly black communities in turn perpetuates segregation and inequality in American society.”

Gentrification May Be Complicated, But It’s Not a Myth | Observer

I wonder if, since you pointed it out, the reason why Detroit is losing population/slow to gentrify and San Francisco is gaining/gentrified is because the former is over 70% black? Of course SF's booming economy has something to with it, but let's not ignore the racial issues at play here just because it makes us uncomfortable. 50 years ago, well-off white people packed their bags to the suburbs because there were too many minorities. Now, whether intentional or not (jury's still out), it seems not well-off minorities are packing their bags to the suburbs because well-off white folks are moving back in. Unless things are more even/fair in this country concerning race and economics (and I'm a progressive minority who thinks things are better than ever in this department so please don't peg me as ), gentrification will just be a reversal of what's already happened before. We'll be talking about the South Bronx ("SoBro") in 15-20 years and how all the poor minorities are spilling into New Rochelle.

I hate to bring race into this thread as much as I have (to the point this could be in the P & C forum) but you can't really NOT talk about it when you're talking about gentrification, especially what constitutes "ethical" gentrification. It's a complicated and contentious issue, and this is just my point of view on the matter.
This entire post is stupid. It would take about 5000 words to fully respond to all the made-up nonsense in this post.

If you really worked for Columbia (uh-huh, quite a commute from the Bay Area), you would know that Columbia isn't in Harlem, the Columbia expansion isn't in Harlem, that no one is being displaced by the Columbia expansion (in fact Columbia is forced to do the opposite- building housing for poor people as part of an extortion, I mean "community benefits" agreement), and that the surrounding neighborhood in question isn't even black. But you knew all that, right?

But carry on- gentrification is evil, facts don't matter, academics are all wrong, Census-verified data are all lies, and making communities nicer is a bad thing. Detroit and Gary are awesome, that's why everyone upwardly mobile leaves; NYC and SF are super-undesirable places to live; that's why everyone upwardly mobile stays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 01:03 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,466 posts, read 25,413,703 times
Reputation: 8936
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
I knew someone was going to respond in that manner.

This is the latest data available. It's relatively recent, and it isn't like SF or the Mission wasn't gentrifying until the last couple of years. 2010 data is the best available data, and you will never get real time data (and if you did I'm sure the next complaint would be that the data was wrong).
That wasn't the only issue, you're not comparing it to anything but just taking a snapshot. And of course you left that part of my post out of your response so I'll ask it again:

It would be more useful to compare today stats to 2000 to see what changes have occurred. If the area is wealthier and more educated, then would you agree that the poorer less educated must have gotten displaced?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,512 posts, read 2,972,560 times
Reputation: 2742
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post

This entire post is stupid. It would take about 5000 words to fully respond to all the made-up nonsense in this post.

If you really worked for Columbia (uh-huh, quite a commute from the Bay Area), you would know that Columbia isn't in Harlem, the Columbia expansion isn't in Harlem, that no one is being displaced by the Columbia expansion (in fact Columbia is forced to do the opposite- building housing for poor people as part of an extortion, I mean "community benefits" agreement), and that the surrounding neighborhood in question isn't even black. But you knew all that, right?

But carry on- gentrification is evil, facts don't matter, academics are all wrong, Census-verified data are all lies, and making communities nicer is a bad thing. Detroit and Gary are awesome, that's why everyone upwardly mobile leaves; NYC and SF are super-undesirable places to live; that's why everyone upwardly mobile stays.
I don't live in the Bay Area, never have I used to live in Harlem and I used to walk 9 blocks to work every day. I know what I'm talking about.

And if YOU knew what you were actually talking about, instead of replying with your usual emotionally charged bull****, you would know that Columbia IS in Harlem:

http://www.columbia.edu/files/columb...nville-map.pdf

The majority of Columbia is in Morningside, true, directly to the south, but Columbia ALREADY HAS facilities in Harlem's borders--not to mention the gigantic new Jerome L. Green Science Center set to open next year, increasing Manhattanville's (aka Harlem's) link with the Morningside campus even further.

Renzo Piano's Columbia University Science Center to Open Next Year | ArchDaily

And if you go directly north of Harlem, to 165th St, you run into the Columbia University Medical Center

Columbia University Medical Center / NewYork-Presbyterian Map | Columbia University Medical Center

So, to wit, that's a major campus directly to the south of Manhattanville, Harlem and a major campus to the north of Manhattanville, Harlem, with other major CU facilities ALREADY in Manhattanville, AND a gigantic LEED building set to open in Manhattanville next year. But the Columbia expansion isn't into Harlem

And Harlem and/or Washington Heights aren't black and Latino neighborhoods? Lol, I don't even think I need to post Census data for this one. YOU clearly don't know what you're talking about and YOUR entire (emotional) post is stupid

Last edited by qworldorder; 11-13-2015 at 01:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top