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.
It really doesn't matter, you could have moved away last week and decided to move back this week and that is your right.
You don't owe an area or its residents anything. You have the right to move wherever you want anytime you want.
Now, if you want to start making laws saying who is allowed to live where, we can certainly do that. But I don't think poor people or black people, take your pick, are going to be the winning beneficiaries of laws like that.
Seriously, does there have to be someone out there who has to siht on every decent thing that happens? You couldn't invent a cure for cancer without someone complaining about why it is a bad thing.
To answer the question of the topic directly: no, it's not bad for Atlanta, but it's bad for the suburbs.
It's not bad for the suburbs in its urbanization, or its gentrification, but it's bad for transportation. Establishing Commuter rail service into Atlanta was hard enough before the beltline right of way was stolen for this project. With the removal of the beltline as a viable route into Atlanta, any routes along I-75 North, I-20 West and I-85 north will all have to share the stretch of track shared by CSX and Norfolk southern between Howell Junction and the gulch to access a Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal. This stretch of line is roughly analogous to the downtown connector south of Brookwood, both in geography, and function. The beltline would have allowed commuter trains from Atlanta Metro's arguably second-largest commuter market to access the MMPT, as well as allowing the Crescent to run-through Atlanta, and allowing future intercity trains to and from the Northeast to runthrough to the airport without having to make a backing move.
Using it for real railroad service, the beltline could still have been used for local transit. Since the beltline would be wholly owned by the State at that point, freight interference would not be a problem, and short Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) or even short Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) trains could have run up and down the beltline serving local stations, with a branch built to Lindbergh, and maybe a street running segment built to connect directly to the streetcar/Five Points. Commuter trains at the suburbs could stop at a northerly transfer point for the -MU service, then again only at the MMPT. This plan is more practical than ever now with the Federal Railroad Administration planning to adopt Tier-III crash standards which would allow lightweight, high-acceleration -MUs from Europe to be used on conventional U.S. rail lines. At that point, the difference between light rail and FRA-rail, is only really in the rulebook and procedures. Not only would this allow the suburban and intercity connectivity, but you could still build the gentrifying Transit-Oriented Development along the line.
And what exactly are you on about, sir? Are you offended by my statement? If so, don't be afraid to say it. I'm just speaking what's on my mind.
I'm not offended by it; I'm not in favor of reparations for American slavery and jim crow. Too much time has passed and it doesn't seem like the money would be for the good at this point.
But you really need to do your homework to have such an intense position, or to be making broad-brush insults at people engaged in the debate. Keep in mind, similar debates are happening around the world, for grievances that occurred at various points in history. Are all of these reparation proponents ignorant as well, o arbiter of black and white?
Is it ignorant to demand reparations for something that, say, happened two generations ago, and for which your parents and grandparents have been demanding reparations and have been denied the entire time? (This latter case is actually much closer to the reality of the debate on reparations for American slavery and jim crow.)
Shades of grey, my friend...shades of grey. The reason debates exist is because this isn't a black and white world. If one side of a debate seems to you to be a bunch of fools, then maybe you should do a bit more research about the issue, rather than simply sitting and calling them fools.
I'm really really sick and tired of this "it's ours" BS. It's not f'n "yours". ESPECIALLY if you're a renter. Sorry, that's how it goes. Funny about that double standard if it were the other way around, and you know exactly what I mean by that. Don't kid yourself about it not being a race thing. You can call it classism all you want if it makes you feel better though. One of my favorite things is when I had "WHITES OUT!" sprayed painted on the street in front of my house. That message is clear enough isn't it? I won't go into my background, but I've busted my ass for a long time to get what I have. I LOVE when someone stereotypes me and everything about me by how I look. Guess they know my whole life story huh? I really moved there thinking I could be part of the community. Man was I sadly mistaken. You don't want me integrating into your neighborhood? Well then, you think I really care what happens to you after that? I have no sympathy, at all.
I'm really really sick and tired of this "it's ours" BS. It's not f'n "yours". ESPECIALLY if you're a renter..
But don't you think it's natural for folks to develop a sense of identity and pride in their community? Maybe they are only renters but if they live there for decades it tends to feel like "their" turf.
I can see how it would be a bitter pill to swallow when somebody shows up out the blue -- especially somebody whose ancestors cast off your area -- and says, "Sorry folks, I'm making this mine now. Your ways are no longer acceptable."
But don't you think it's natural for folks to develop a sense of identity and pride in their community? Maybe they are only renters but if they live there for decades it tends to feel like "their" turf.
I can see how it would be a bitter pill to swallow when somebody shows up out the blue -- especially somebody whose ancestors cast off your area -- and says, "Sorry folks, I'm making this mine now. Your ways are no longer acceptable."
This is the same type of thinking many blacks have with the idea of reparation and that the whites should repay back their sins their ancestors committed over a hundred years ago.
Why people think this way, I'll never know, but it's wrong and you should not hold accountable generation or generations after the event took. It's a very naive and ignorant idea.
I'm confused why you think it is so wrong, naive, and ignorant for someone who is a long-term native of this city and region to want/choose to move to another part of town from where they grew up? In fact increasingly people have to, because they can't afford as much as mom and dad at the end of their careers as you can starting out.
That is a pretty aggressive opinion, ant, even if you disagree.
I also find interesting coming from you with all the talking up density and more people moving in town. Like it or not, the reality is these two issues directly relate. It is like a politician promising to cut taxes, reduce the deficit, and not cut spending on popular gov't programs. It can't happen as much as he promises it. If something changes... one (or two) of those things have to give.
Take downtown as an example... You won't find too many developments adding lots of units costing $250,000 or renting for $1,600, when there is a building across the street where a comparable space could be rehabilitated to be a nice unit and cost a total of 120,000 or rent at $1000. People won't just build the new units and let the existing properties stay at the same price in the long-run. Their not idiots. On one hand the trend can be gentrification, but at the same time it is the only way you're going to see a mass of new development downtown.
New stuff doesn't get built by people making an average income closer to $20,000/year... it gets built by people making closer to $40,000+/year, even then it those making making $60,000+ that make things happen faster and attract an abundance of lively retail.
That is an economic reality that has always existed with city building for most of the last 100 years. What has changed is how (where) people choose to spend their money. Sometimes they were blocked by zoning or structural challenges like Historic districts, lack of land, etc...that forced new development to be pushed out and sometimes it was trends in schools and other times it was blatant white flight.
Largely the way our society has worked for the last 75 years is one class makes new homes, moves, and leaves homes behind a bit cheaper for the next class. After another generation the prices can be even lower, albeit we have to factor for inflation so the value technically goes up...but at a slower pace. In some places they drop, some places the stay the same, and in others they increase. However, for some they aren't the builders or have the capability of producing the capital needed to build new homes and neighborhoods from scratch.
The point simply is if you want more residents in an area, you have to attract the residents that will have the money to build the new housing needed. The city doesn't just build itself. However, as interest in older areas increases, that doesn't mean people aren't removing their interest from other areas. Some suburban areas are staying strong, while others have lost their luster. The total amount of housing exists and is increasing, but what changes is where the lower price points are.
If people are willing to pay $200,000 for something a new developer can make something happen. If people can only pay 75,000 for something a new developer doesn't have much options, except perhaps tiny townhomes built on extremely cheap in a greenfield area with no added costs.
But, we are talking about existing neighborhoods... that is the catch. You can't expect people to want to move in town and make all these changes and not also want to live/rehab the buildings already in place, especially when they actually have yards and most new developments can't support that.
That is why the world is so gray, as Testa mentions, you can't expect certain changes to happen for the good and not affect the status quo or have other drawbacks. That doesn't mean different people won't have different opinions, but all the different variables and outcomes still inter-relate and we can't hold things still in a vacuum.
I'm really really sick and tired of this "it's ours" BS. It's not f'n "yours". ESPECIALLY if you're a renter. Sorry, that's how it goes. Funny about that double standard if it were the other way around, and you know exactly what I mean by that. Don't kid yourself about it not being a race thing. You can call it classism all you want if it makes you feel better though. One of my favorite things is when I had "WHITES OUT!" sprayed painted on the street in front of my house. That message is clear enough isn't it? I won't go into my background, but I've busted my ass for a long time to get what I have. I LOVE when someone stereotypes me and everything about me by how I look. Guess they know my whole life story huh? I really moved there thinking I could be part of the community. Man was I sadly mistaken. You don't want me integrating into your neighborhood? Well then, you think I really care what happens to you after that? I have no sympathy, at all.
I dealt with this when I moved into East Atlanta when I was told to "get my white a$$ back across the bridge" where I "belong" one night at the Shell just south of I-20.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
But don't you think it's natural for folks to develop a sense of identity and pride in their community? Maybe they are only renters but if they live there for decades it tends to feel like "their" turf.
I can see how it would be a bitter pill to swallow when somebody shows up out the blue -- especially somebody whose ancestors cast off your area -- and says, "Sorry folks, I'm making this mine now. Your ways are no longer acceptable."
What "ways" are you referring to Arjay? I'm sure nobody moving into these gentrifying neighborhoods has any problem with working class people trying to make a living and trying to raise families. They might have a problem with drug dealing, prostitution, dudes just hanging out at all hours of the day in front of the corner store for no reason whatsoever... These aren't "cultural traditions." These are quality of life issues.
I'm sure more often than not, the people who truly have pride in their communities welcome gentrification to an extent if they have access to some of the benefits. They are probably happy to see the positive change.
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.
