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.
There are a lot of empty foreclosure homes sitting out in the suburbs. Why not put families in them even if they have to subsidize the payment? Seems better than letting them fall apart unheated and maintained?
Because the majority of Americans (middle class) practice NIMBY.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,079,627 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
But there are those that think if you move the poor to richer neighborhoods then it will motivate them to get out of poverty.
That was the very thinking behind busing students to other schools. Didn't quite work out the way they thought though so they returned to the neighborhood school scenario.
I lived through a few months of that in Memphis at the VERY beginning and it was the catalyst for us relocating....experiment gone wrong in all ways.
Because the majority of Americans (middle class) practice NIMBY.
Exactly. We have this little town near us that tried to block any kind of progress. Highway construction, sewer construction and especially housing. Then the Met Council came up with a plan to build Sec 8 affordable housing in their community, something they could not block by law.
All of a sudden all sorts of ideas opened up and now they have new housing being build right and left. So afraid they may bump into a POOR person on the street you know.
If only everyone had the good foresight to be born into millionaire families, there wouldn't be any economic/social woes.
I only wish I would have planned my own birth better than it turned out to be.
Being born into a wealthy family does not guarantee you will remain there. Rich people make poor choices that send them back to the bottom of the ladder every day. The difference is they have the drive to return to the top.
I don't want to use the term ghetto dwellers but historically as poor people move into a community that did not have a lot of them in the past the crime rate went up and the schools went bad. Not all poor people are bad but generally if you are poor economically you will be more likely to engage in negative actions that a upper middle class community does not like.
I guess the question is should poor people be encouraged to move into RICH communities or maybe it would be more logical for them to move into high dentisty middle class communities with bus lines etc.
Many of the rich towns they are being encouraged to move into are not mass transit friendly so they would have to get to work on cabs paid by social services.
Many areas that are now "ghettos" didn't start out that way. Many were once nice, middle class neighborhoods. They were turned into ghettos by the people that moved into them. This isn't a racial issue, there are plenty of white "ghetto" areas too. Is there any wonder why people in nicer neighborhoods have some concerns with handing over properties to people that are handed them, with the properties paid for by the taxpayer? With a lack of ownership typically comes a lack of responsibility. Renters don't treat a place they rent as an owner typically does. People that are handed a place...even less so.
Seems the "poor" should encourage the "rich" to move into their neighborhood.
That's actually been suggested in palces like Newark, Nj. If you are a business and don't see an economic advantage why would you want to move in? If you can afford to live in a better location why would you stay or choose to move into a ghetto like crime riddden neighborhood.
If you think about it it is not the physical location which may be undesirable it is the human element that makes a neighborhood a pool of virulent typhoid to be avoided at all costs. so it seems disingenuous of social scientists and self promoting activists to refer to poor neighborhoods as a place rather than an attitude.
Some elements of political elite choose to maintain the status quo of cities like Newark as the ultimate disposition of mounds of guilt assauging taxpayer money to be distributed to the bottom feeders who could care less about the politically adjusted empathetic definition of 'poor'. no distinction is made between the poor in spirit and the poor in wealth. No attempt is made to comfort the despirited other than to encourage money to be distributed to local power brokers.
Humans have an innate requirement for an ideal living location which all share iregardless of wealth or social station.
As the world fills with people ideal locations become limited and available only to those who can afford it.
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.
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.
Should Rich Towns encourage POOR PEOPLE to move in?
