Pittsburgh public schools (Gap: taxes, military, design)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
I don't know of any higher-income people that want to live in a poverty stricken area.
For most, it's a matter of status and assortative mixing than the poverty of your neighbors. After all, a really wealthy person could buy an entire block of Wilkinsburg for chicken feed, enclose it with a brick wall, demolish most of the houses, install a tennis court, swiming pool and helipad, and hire a platoon of armed guards to patrol the perimeter and keep the hordes at bay. The reason this hypothetical Bruce Wayne or Emilio Largo doesn't exist in Wilkinsburg has more to do with "birds of a feather" than the existence of poor people nearby.
On the other hand, there are dozens of examples of urban gentrification in the U.S. now, and the one thing they all have in common is relatively-affluent people living in or on the margin of a poverty-stricken area, so your rule must not apply universally. If it did, Shadyside would still be what it was in 1976 - a seedy neighborhood of hippies, artists and adult bookshops.
... but I don't want to shove out all the poorer people at the same time, which is achievable because many City neighborhoods are way under capacity so you can add a lot of people without subtracting a lot of people. Achieving that would reduce concentrated poverty in the City without just recreating it in the suburbs. Conversely, your plan to force all the poor people out of the City and eliminate all housing subsidies at the same time would in fact just create suburban slums with even worse concentrated poverty than before.
Again, you are not going to grasp any of this, because you don't care about poor people. So once they leave the neighborhoods you want to turn into exclusive playgrounds for the wealthy, they stop being your concern. But I do care about ALL people, which is why you cannot grasp what I would like to see happen.
I don't look at things as "all", because I am educated. I look at general trends. I know you look at things as yes or no or black and white. Most everything I say equates to gray. I medium. East Liberty needs to be primarily well to do people for the city to excel, IMHO. All depends on what they can do with the downtown. Sure needs a clean up crew for the years and years of people not caring at all about how it looks. I don't understand people that just don't care about anything, but they sure are prevalent in that part of town. It will take years just to clean all the garbage that is flying around in the wind in that area.
I don't know of any higher-income people that want to live in a poverty stricken area. You yourself live in an area that has almost no class diversity at all (I don't have a problem with choosing that for your family). Regent Square is shielded from the poverty in the area by raised railroad tracks, a highway, and a large park, yet it is still the target of crime from the poverty stricken people in Wilkinsburg. Why do you expect people to live right next to disadvantaged people, and all of the problems that comes with it, when you chose to isolate yourself, and family from it.
PS. I hope you don't feel this is a personal attack, as I sure don't mean it that way.
I obviously isn't a personal attack to disagree with people. Goodness. You are the norm. You are a voice of reason. Your opinion is the majority of people. If you have enough money, why would you subject yourself to living next to crime, drugs, litter and noise? You won't. Maybe 1% of people with means would, but that is about it. I don't understand Brian's view at all. Guess I have lived a very diverse life and understand rich and poor well. I know people with means don't want to live in danger. No way the schools will change if it is primarily made up of 80% disadvantaged. Anyone with a third grade education can understand that. Not sure why Brian keeps going on against the obvious? Guess, I should just let it go, but it is so hard to understand someone from that far removed from reality? I miss living in a cave when I was a kid, but when you get out in the word you usually learn reality. Brain has been lucky enough to stay in youth mode. I envy him.
For most, it's a matter of status and assortative mixing than the poverty of your neighbors. After all, a really wealthy person could buy an entire block of Wilkinsburg for chicken feed, enclose it with a brick wall, demolish most of the houses, install a tennis court, swiming pool and helipad, and hire a platoon of armed guards to patrol the perimeter and keep the hordes at bay. The reason this hypothetical Bruce Wayne or Emilio Largo doesn't exist in Wilkinsburg has more to do with "birds of a feather" than the existence of poor people nearby.
On the other hand, there are dozens of examples of urban gentrification in the U.S. now, and the one thing they all have in common is relatively-affluent people living in or on the margin of a poverty-stricken area, so your rule must not apply universally. If it did, Shadyside would still be what it was in 1976 - a seedy neighborhood of hippies, artists and adult bookshops.
No rule always applies universally, but let's look at Shadyside. It didn't come back until the busway was built, and created a physical barrier between it an East Liberty. Say what you will, but people with the means to insulate themselves from poverty, will.
I don't know of any higher-income people that want to live in a poverty stricken area. You yourself live in an area that has almost no class diversity at all (I don't have a problem with choosing that for your family).
Here is the household income distribution of my Census Tract:
There is a lot more class diversity in some of these areas than some people seem to think.
Edit: By the way, I did a quick check, and that is actually quite close to the overall Allegheny County distribution--just a little more concentrated in the middle ($30-99,999) than the County, and a little lighter at the highest and lowest ends, but overall pretty close. So not that this should be all about my Census Tract, but it happens that if everyone in the County was spread out evenly, it would all look pretty close to my Census Tract. End edit.
Quote:
Regent Square is shielded from the poverty in the area by raised railroad tracks, a highway, and a large park, yet it is still the target of crime from the poverty stricken people in Wilkinsburg.
There isn't really much crime in our area, but anyway, there appears to be a real threshold effect when it comes to concentrated poverty and crime, so if you could disperse poverty, there would be less crime overall. That necessarily means more neighborhoods where there are at least some lower-income households mixed in with higher-income households, but that shouldn't be confused with neighborhoods with concentrated poverty.
Quote:
Why do you expect people to live right next to disadvantaged people, and all of the problems that comes with it, when you chose to isolate yourself, and family from it.
Again, I haven't actually done that. Moreover, again, due to threshold effects, if you can keep the percentage of poverty in any given area low enough, you will have fewer poverty-related problems overall.
Quote:
PS. I hope you don't feel this is a personal attack, as I sure don't mean it that way.
I don't take it personally, but conversely, I hope you understand I am not being defensive. It is in fact possible for mixed-income neighborhoods to exist, and there are more of them in Pittsburgh already than some people seem to think.
I don't look at things as "all", because I am educated. I look at general trends. I know you look at things as yes or no or black and white. Most everything I say equates to gray.
I respond to what you actually write. I know you have argued in the past we are not sophisticated enough to understand what you mean instead of what you actually say, but I would suggest it is not sophisticated or "educated" to communicate poorly.
Moreover, I am pointing out the known consequences of the policies you are proposing (although maybe you are not actually proposing what you seem to be proposing--who knows if we can't judge your thoughts by your words?). Your laissez-faire approach to housing and education for lower-income people would lead to suburban shantytowns with failing or non-existent schools, whether you want to admit that or not. And that would be very bad for our society, even if you think it would be good for East Liberty.
No way the schools will change if it is primarily made up of 80% disadvantaged. Anyone with a third grade education can understand that. Not sure why Brian keeps going on against the obvious?
I'm not sure why you insist on speaking for me, when you get it wrong every time.
As I explained before, the problem is that there are in fact disadvantaged children in our society. If you insist that kids with richer parents should only go to schools with percentages of poorer students that are much lower than their overall percentage in society, that means you will be forcing other schools to have much higher percentages.
The basic number in the Pittsburgh Metro you need to deal with is 34.3%--that is the percentage of school children in the Metro who qualify for free or subsidized lunches. If you are willing to agree that should be our target percentage for schools, then fine. But if you insist it should be much lower than that in your favorite areas, then you are necessarily implying it should be higher than that in your unfavored areas. Which by your own standards would be very bad for those other areas.
But we have been through all this before--if you can't grasp basic math, so much for your supposedly superior education.
Quote:
Guess, I should just let it go, but it is so hard to understand someone from that far removed from reality? I miss living in a cave when I was a kid, but when you get out in the word you usually learn reality. Brain has been lucky enough to stay in youth mode. I envy him.
Again, I understand you just fine. In fact, I understand what you are proposing better than you do. That is the whole problem: it is precisely because I understand you that I disagree with you.
You're not smarter than everyone who disagrees with you. You are just more willing to ignore the consequences of your notions.
Where in the world are you getting the 34.3%? That is WAY off PPS percentage of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. PPS in the 70-something% range. Does your number include all school aged kids in the city who go to private schools?
Brian, Where in the world are you getting the 34.3%? That is WAY off PPS percentage of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch.
I assume you are referring to this:
Quote:
The basic number in the Pittsburgh Metro you need to deal with is 34.3%--that is the percentage of school children in the Metro who qualify for free or subsidized lunches.
If you read closely, you will note that percentage is for the entire Pittsburgh Metro, not just the City of Pittsburgh or the PPS. The point I was making at the time was that if people like h_curtis insist that rich students in the Metro only go to schools with much lower percentages than that, then necessarily other schools will have percentages much higher than that, which by his own logic would make them terrible schools. And you are right that PPS would be an example of such a district which currently has a much higher percentage.
Since you are asking me for a source a year later, as it turns out I don't recall specifically. I think it might have been in a newspaper article I read around that time.
Last edited by BrianTH; 05-08-2012 at 04:30 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
