What Makes a Neighborhood Go Downhill in 20 Years? (Houston, Pasadena: violent crime, homes)

[AK123]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

Except for in Texas and other red states. Everything he does is bad, bad, bad, wrong, wrong, wrong.

I don't know... Texas' major cities as well as the border are more blue. I've always thought of Houston proper as more blue than red, and he certainly hasn't given the impression of being very helpful to Houston lately... in fact, quite the opposite.

[crbcrbrgv]

Originally Posted by AK123

I don't know... Texas' major cities as well as the border are more blue. I've always thought of Houston proper as more blue than red, and he certainly hasn't given the impression of being very helpful to Houston lately... in fact, quite the opposite.

Why should he be helpful? Our dear governor has made it very clear that we don't need federal money. That is, unless the money is for saving jobs at Houston's favorite government program. All politicians are hypocrites, however, great politicians stay far away from those that are blatantly hypocritical.

[EasilyAmused]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

great politicians stay far away from those that are blatantly hypocritical.

Must make it hard for some of these guys to shave in the morning.

[zpsny51491]

Same thing happened where i grew up....nice, white, neighborhood.....today i wouldnt let my kids go.........gotta love the by-products of the civil rights movement, eh tstone?....

Originally Posted by alidoremi

I grew up in SW Houston, went to Fondren Junior High and Sharpstown High, graduating in '81. A few years later one of my college classes required me to do some course work at Fondren, where I discovered that within a few short years (perhaps 6-7) the whole demographics of the school had changed. 90% of the kids were on free-lunch program and (as was told to me), the surrounding neighborhood (Fondren, from Braeswood south to Airport Dr.) had become mostly Section 8 apartments. I found this so sad since there were some really nice homes in the vicinity of Fondren Southwest.

I moved out of state in '86 and my husband and I returned to visit in 2009. We got quite an earful from our old friends (who no longer live where they grew up): Westwood Mall completely wasted, Sharpstown Mall you dare not shop at for fear you'll be shot, all the once nice apartment complexes that were brand new when we left are now drug/crime infested.

All of our friends have moved further out to Sugarland or Spring, to newer communities. Yet, at one time, SW Houston WAS the new community, THE place to buy a home. What will prevent the newer areas from becoming like Sharpstown or Fondren SW?

[zpsny51491]

Oh i love it.....ur not kidding at all...lmao

Originally Posted by glorplaxy

mexicans and blacks

amirite?


just kidding.

[ElectroPlumber]

Originally Posted by orbius

Houston is a rotting dump in about half the city, and the nice parts often seem to turn into hellholes after about 20 years because of poor initial planning and little regulation on development.
Why shouldnt we demand more from the developers who are often responsible for this rot? Because it might cost them a few extra bucks. So what.

It's also because as a neighborhood ages, the residents get older, they start to be on fixed incomes and can't keep up the maintenance on their homes.

Then, the investors move in and scoop up the properties that are not keeping their value because of poor maintenance, estate situations, etc. and install tenants. Form then on it's all downhill.

[Alphalogica]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

Except for in Texas and other red states. Everything he does is bad, bad, bad, wrong, wrong, wrong. We'll see how his influence and fame affect the legislation in Arizona, although I suspect its unconstitutional nature will get it overturned rather quickly.

Okay, I shouldn't use "famous" and "influential." He is "well-known" and "notable" how about that, pretty well-known I'd say, and holds I would say a pretty prestigious position in our government whether you like it or not. There aren't too many people who get to be the POTUS. Whether you agree with him politically is irrelevant. Last I heard, the POTUS is considered the powerful man in the free world, regardless of what party he belongs to. Just because he's not popular with some of you folks doesn't take away from the fact that he is commander-in-chief of our nation's military.


BTW, AK123 posts something that I somewhat agree with. The metro areas of Texas are moderate at best and the valley is heavily Democratic. It should be noted that Hispanics (a growing demographic force) in Texas are shifting Democratic due to the Republicans stance on immigration. As for myself, I reside in Huntsville, and we have a quite liberal local city leadership to a lot of peoples' surprise.

[bowserb1]

First of all, it is widely accepted by responsible scientists that the greatest threat to the world's environment is not fossil fuels or any of the popular scapegoats, but rather overpopulation. All the other problems of the world--with the possible exception of those caused by radical Islam and its effects on the weak-minded--are just symptoms of too many people.

Now to Houston. Look at the demographics of Houston's population growth, and you'll find the answer to your question of declining neighborhoods. Especially check when the 2010 census is published. Just consider who is reproducing and moving here. Decline is inevitable.

Educated and consequently higher wage earners plan their families, generally have one or two children (or none these days). Their kids get attention and education that helps to assure their future.

The poor, on the other hand, assure that they will remain poor. Among the poor, 70% of births are out of wedlock to high school dropout (or even middle school dropout!) mothers already on some kind of government support. When those uneducated mothers have their second child, that is pretty much it for them. And there is usually a third to follow. In spite of Johnson's Great Society, this has remained the way things are. Indeed, statistics seem to support that they are worse. These children of uneducated women (who are, in case it's not obvious, not even smart enough to avoid getting pregnant) are the present and the future. None--not the mothers or the children--have much of a chance of improving their lot.

Politicians, especially at the local level, want population growth. They don't care if it's rich people they can tax, or poor people they can tax the others to care for. They want their kingdoms to be larger. So in Houston you add to the internal population growth the influx of poor from elsewhere. Our wonderful former ultraliberal mayor welcomed the poor from New Orleans, not just to stay for a while, but to stay...period. And a couple hundred thousand of the socioeconomic bottom of the New Orleans population did stay.

And, in the interest of growth at any cost, our last two mayors also made Houston a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, and there is no indication that the current mayor will be any different. Unless Texas adopts a law comparable to that just passed in Arizona, you're going to see things get even worse, as illegals take the path of least resistance--directly to Texas and Houston!

Then comes Mr. Obama. As much as I wished I could have voted against him several times, I have to say he at least recognized that the current U.S. demographics direction is unsustainable and not in the interest of the future of the poor who had such great expectations of his presidency. So what happened to his efforts to make abortions free and readily available? The ever-righteous Republicans, and others who lack the ability to think in practical terms, shut down that part of his ill-designed health care plan.

So there you have it, dear former resident who is disappointed in what has happened to her hometown. A burgeoning population of poor--who, yes, are mostly the so-called minorities--are reproducing and moving in to your old neighborhood and in the process driving down property values, driving up crime rates, and generally making once nice places into the kind where an FBI agent I know says he doesn't keep his pistol in its holster when he is in those areas. Knocking down those old run-down apartments doesn't solve the underlying problem. Overpopulation is the problem.

[glorplaxy]

I agree with bowserb1 that overpopulation does have a negative effect on SOME areas,

but, by that logic, Tokyo should be a crime-ridden warzone, and it clearly is not. Same can be said for Hong Kong and Seoul...ALL cities that are very, very overpopulated. Much moreso than Houston or even NYC, yet are incredibly safe and have very low rates of violent crime.

It also doesn't have too much to do with income, either, because you can look at a very large, overpopulated city like Bombay and you can see that violent crime is very rare compared to our large cities, including Houston, yet over %60 of that city (of about 14 million I think) lives on something like less than $1 a day. THEY aren't running around and killing each other at nearly the same rate Houstonians do.

It is mainly a matter of culture. It has nothing to do with skin color or race anymore because there are dirtbags in every shade of the rainbow, especially in a city as diverse as Houston.

I don't believe that it has anything to do with Mexicans, because I have been to Mexico City several times (which is another poorer, overpopulated city...second largest city in the world after Tokyo) and the rate of violent crime in Houston is almost 3 times as high. Anyone who just points the finger at Mexicans for violence just because they are illegal is ignorant to how Mexico and Mexicans really are. They simply judge them from afar, too scared to get close to them or understand where they came from. Some areas (like the borders) in Mexico are bad, but there are so many factors that bring problems into that area that you can't just blame it on them just being Mexicans..

[matthou]

Originally Posted by orbius

This cities last centuries, are liveable, and run well.

Please be specific. I don't know any cities from the last century that don't have slummy sections. Each city has problems.

Originally Posted by orbius

Houston is a rotting dump in about half the city, and the nice parts often seem to turn into hellholes after about 20 years because of poor initial planning and little regulation on development.
Why shouldnt we demand more from the developers who are often responsible for this rot? Because it might cost them a few extra bucks. So what.

What can developers do to prevent an area from going downhill? What development specifically has been maintained for over 100 years that is a private entity?