What do you like in PG county ? (Bowie, Clinton: lease, crime)
Washington, DC suburbs in MarylandCalvert County, Charles County, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County
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.
Likes: the black community there is income diverse, like I have friends there who are just raking it in and some barely getting by and lots inbetween. You see all the income classes of blacks rub elbows, I go to many house parties like that.
Dislikes: the very income disparity i mentioned although its less pronounced that the DC area in general. Also, horrible schools and hi crime.
about living,opportunities,diversity,education....or other things
Thanks in advance for your answers
Phil
It's more affordable than Montgomery County, DC or NoVa.
I can find churches, beauty salons and other services that are culturally competent.
It's pretty!! From Laurel to Greenbelt to Hyattsville has lots of parks and green space.
it's close enough to DC to make an evening in the District easy.
Likes: the black community there is income diverse, like I have friends there who are just raking it in and some barely getting by and lots inbetween. You see all the income classes of blacks rub elbows, I go to many house parties like that.
Dislikes: the very income disparity i mentioned although its less pronounced that the DC area in general. Also, horrible schools and hi crime.
You want socioeconomic diversity as well as ethnic diversity. I'm not sure most of us would enjoy absolute affluence or absolute poverty in a neighborhood. Every neighborhood needs low-income, middle-income, and high income residents. Hopefully, the low-income residents move up to middle and the middle moves up to high and college grads or transplants move into the low or wherever they fit in. To me that's a vibrant neighborhood with something to offer everyone. And low-income doesn't necessarily mean high crime and drugs. I'm not talking about the disenfranchised when I speak of low-income. Low income in the DC area can be considered $30,000/year.
Status:
"The Vice Grip Of Truth Hurts When You Lie"
(set 22 days ago)
4,577 posts, read 2,252,050 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
You want socioeconomic diversity as well as ethnic diversity. I'm not sure most of us would enjoy absolute affluence or absolute poverty in a neighborhood. Every neighborhood needs low-income, middle-income, and high income residents. Hopefully, the low-income residents move up to middle and the middle moves up to high and college grads or transplants move into the low or wherever they fit in. To me that's a vibrant neighborhood with something to offer everyone. And low-income doesn't necessarily mean high crime and drugs. I'm not talking about the disenfranchised when I speak of low-income. Low income in the DC area can be considered $30,000/year.
I don't know if I would agree with that. I'm not saying that they all need to be separated, but every neighborhood doesn't NEED variance in income. There is no way you can guarantee that low income residents, or people of any income, will not bring high crime or drugs. People who make a certain income and pay a certain amount for their home, more than likely want to avoid those circumstances and they believe that have a higher income neighborhood alleviates the issue. A neighborhood can be functional with a certain level of income, but I would imagine, just like with the racial enclaves, that only being around certain groups of people will groom ignorance of other lifestyles and cultures.
I don't know if I would agree with that. I'm not saying that they all need to be separated, but every neighborhood doesn't NEED variance in income. There is no way you can guarantee that low income residents, or people of any income, will not bring high crime or drugs. People who make a certain income and pay a certain amount for their home, more than likely want to avoid those circumstances and they believe that have a higher income neighborhood alleviates the issue. A neighborhood can be functional with a certain level of income, but I would imagine, just like with the racial enclaves, that only being around certain groups of people will groom ignorance of other lifestyles and cultures.
That's why I put this disclaimer in there, "And low-income doesn't necessarily mean high crime and drugs. I'm not talking about the disenfranchised when I speak of low-income. Low income in the DC area can be considered $30,000/year."
Do you realize teachers, journalists, entry -level professionals, etc. start out making just over $30,000/year? Hardly professions that drug-users and criminals would be a part of. Compared to the cost-of-living in the D.C. area, $30,000 is considered low income. Even $40,000 is on the low side. You can't raise a family on $40,000 too comfortably. That was my point. It's good to have young families and professionals who may not make $80,000/year to live in the neighborhood. Let's face it, recent college grads will be considered low-income if they work in Starbucks or the book store. To me, that brings a healthy mix to a neighborhood. Thus my point that low-income doesn't necessarily mean drugs and crime.
By disenfranchised, I mean the drugs users, the criminals, etc. They don't bring a healthy mix to any neighborhood. I wouldn't expect them to. But if there is low-income housing for the teachers, recent grads, and professionals, etc., then the drug users and criminals may be able to afford the same. You just can't help that I guess.
Status:
"The Vice Grip Of Truth Hurts When You Lie"
(set 22 days ago)
4,577 posts, read 2,252,050 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
That's why I put this disclaimer in there, "And low-income doesn't necessarily mean high crime and drugs. I'm not talking about the disenfranchised when I speak of low-income. Low income in the DC area can be considered $30,000/year."
Do you realize teachers, journalists, entry -level professionals, etc. start out making just over $30,000/year? Hardly professions that drug-users and criminals would be a part of. Compared to the cost-of-living in the D.C. area, $30,000 is considered low income. Even $40,000 is on the low side. You can't raise a family on $40,000 too comfortably. That was my point. It's good to have young families and professionals who may not make $80,000/year to live in the neighborhood. Let's face it, recent college grads will be considered low-income if they work in Starbucks or the book store. To me, that brings a healthy mix to a neighborhood. Thus my point that low-income doesn't necessarily mean drugs and crime.
By disenfranchised, I mean the drugs users, the criminals, etc. They don't bring a healthy mix to any neighborhood. I wouldn't expect them to. But if there is low-income housing for the teachers, recent grads, and professionals, etc., then the drug users and criminals may be able to afford the same. You just can't help that I guess.
You are stereotyping. You are assuming just because these people are professionals that they are incapable of committing crime or bringing bad elements to these neighborhoods. I have read about teachers, police officers and even firefighters who have been caught up in illegal activity. Being a professional does not exclude you. Certainly there are people who make even more money who do these things, but most people will play the percentages and assume because you eliminate a certain income, you will eliminate most, if not all, of the crime. Not saying it's right but that is why people move further away from places like you are describing. There is no way you can limit housing to a certain income and think that you will still be able to weed out the bad elements. There is no full proof way of doing it.
You are stereotyping. You are assuming just because these people are professionals that they are incapable of committing crime or bringing bad elements to these neighborhoods.
Really? Are you serious? lol I think we all know what crime I was referring to. Stop nitpicking. I was referring to the crimes that make people feel "unsafe" and would cause them to avoid a certain neighborhood. I'm not talking about stealing pencils from the supply cabinet at work. lol Of course there is white-collar crime. I'm just not sure that's a safety issue for most people. Perhaos I should have used the term, "violent criminals." Is that better?
Status:
"The Vice Grip Of Truth Hurts When You Lie"
(set 22 days ago)
4,577 posts, read 2,252,050 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
Really? Are you serious? lol I think we all know what crime I was referring to. Stop nitpicking. I was referring to the crimes that make people feel "unsafe" and would cause them to avoid a certain neighborhood. I'm not talking about stealing pencils from the supply cabinet at work. lol Of course there is white-collar crime. I'm just not sure that's a safety issue for most people. Perhaos I should have used the term, "violent criminals." Is that better?
What are you talking about? You've never heard of teachers or police officers being part of drug trafficking? What planet do you live on? I'm not talking about white-collar crimes. When did I ever make mention of white collar crime? Did you not hear about all of the police officers in this county that were arrested for smuggling drugs here last year???? Is that what you want in your neighborhood?
What are you talking about? You've never heard of teachers or police officers being part of drug trafficking? What planet do you live on? I'm not talking about white-collar crimes. When did I ever make mention of white collar crime? Did you not hear about all of the police officers in this county that were arrested for smuggling drugs here last year???? Is that what you want in your neighborhood?
I think you missed the spirit of my post. I was making a contrast between those low-income criminals we see on the streets (normally unemployed) and those who are low-income but hold entry-level professional jobs or service industry jobs. This is not a hard concept to grasp. Yes, multi-millionaire CEOs commit crimes as well as the homeless. Let's be real. It comes down to who would you rather have live next to you? Someone who embezzles money from their corporate job who throws awesome pool parties, or a drug dealer who draws the occasional drive-by shooting or neighborhood thefts every month? My point here is that people aren't aware of crimes that don't affect their sense of safety and security all that much. Does anyone DESIRE to live near criminals no matter what the type? Of course not.
My point was...*sigh*.... that in regards to neighborhoods and diversity, it is nice to have a good mix of low to upper income citizens in the same neighborhood. Yes, people do bad things behind closed doors and on the street. But that wasn't the spirit of my post and you know that. We can argue, and perhaps this can be another thread, about the percentage of people who commit crimes in all socioeconomic groups. But that would be off-topic in THIS thread.
That's why I put this disclaimer in there, "And low-income doesn't necessarily mean high crime and drugs. I'm not talking about the disenfranchised when I speak of low-income. Low income in the DC area can be considered $30,000/year."
Do you realize teachers, journalists, entry -level professionals, etc. start out making just over $30,000/year? Hardly professions that drug-users and criminals would be a part of. Compared to the cost-of-living in the D.C. area, $30,000 is considered low income. Even $40,000 is on the low side. You can't raise a family on $40,000 too comfortably. That was my point. It's good to have young families and professionals who may not make $80,000/year to live in the neighborhood. Let's face it, recent college grads will be considered low-income if they work in Starbucks or the book store. To me, that brings a healthy mix to a neighborhood. Thus my point that low-income doesn't necessarily mean drugs and crime.
By disenfranchised, I mean the drugs users, the criminals, etc. They don't bring a healthy mix to any neighborhood. I wouldn't expect them to. But if there is low-income housing for the teachers, recent grads, and professionals, etc., then the drug users and criminals may be able to afford the same. You just can't help that I guess.
I've lived in a few major cities where I was making 'low incomes' like that. I lived in NYC & SF.
The problem with most of those kinds of people, and I would have been one of them, is that we just assume there isn't subsidized programs for us. If we're working, we assume we have to make ends meet on what we're earning.
If there are programs like that, I'm glad I wasn't aware of them. I remember being a college graduate, making $5.50/hour, and working my butt off on that trying to get into the overtime of $9.25/hour.
I think if I'd known I could get 'nearly free housing', I'd still be doing those low-income jobs with fear of losing my 'nearly free housing'.
(The $5.50/hour I made was in Portland Oregon). It was $14/hour in SF, and later a whopping $25/hour in NYC. I also lived in Minneapolis for year and half (after Portland but before SF & NYC) on $9/hour. (All these wages were in the mid-to late 1990s).
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.
