Baltimore Population Loss Study (Barclay: apartment, city hall, mortgages)

[BMoreJuice]

Originally Posted by MrRational

You can call it whatever you like and sure some should be oh so earnest dinks.
But done in isolation only produces odd enclaves like Otterbein. NOT a new city.

The point is that the onsey twosey here and there is NOT the way.
And that still takes real capital and government agency cooperation...
and wholesale displacement of populations.

So... where do YOU suppose the City can relocate the bottom 10-15% to?

Well Otterbein was a unique situation. Otterbein was the accidental result of the government trying to construct interstate 95. They cleared out the residents and were attempting to clear out Fells Point and Federal Hill too. Funny right. So the city had the brilliant idea of using federal funds to build up the already vacant Otterbein. Just think for a moment, the government wanted to demolish large chunks of Fells Point and Federal Hill.

The only way the city will progress is to create odd enclaves. The city has to start somewhere and continue building on slowly. The city has to cater to potential homebuyers. Odd enclaves will sell, building expensive townhouses down the hill will not. But neighborhood revitalization projects are a different project.

Clearing out an entire neighborhood and build wonderful townhouses for people who may or may not have jobs; or the knowledge of homeownership is foolish. There needs to be some form of gradual process when revitalizing. As for displacement of populations, I can think of several area's where their are no populations to displace. I still fail to see your argument against incremental neighborhood renewal.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

The only way the city will progress is to create odd enclaves.
The city has to start somewhere and continue building on slowly.

I disagree entirely.

There's ALSO room for a few odd enclaves around the edges...
but the City needs the larger and broader overall strategy they can attach to.

Clearing out an entire neighborhood and build(ing a variety of home styles) for people
who may or may not have jobs; or the knowledge of homeownership is foolish.

Indeed that would be foolish.

Those people c/would NOT be moving back in ...why would you assume they would?
The operative question is where they will be moving to.

I still fail to see your argument against incremental...

It doesn't work. That should be obvious by now.

Without the drag of policies and costs to accommodate that bottom end 10-15%...
there's no need to be incremental.

[prospectheightsresident]

I'd never move to Baltimore. Too much crime/criminal element. Plus, I wouldn't want to have to live in fear of what rioters might do if they feel like they've been slighted, regardless of whether the evidence actually supports them or not (of course, even if you are wronged, that's no reason to riot).

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

I'd never move to Baltimore. Too much crime/criminal element. Plus, I wouldn't want to have to live in fear of what rioters might do if they feel like they've been slighted, regardless of whether the evidence actually supports them or not (of course, even if you are wronged, that's no reason to riot).

I get not moving in because of crime schools and taxes...but fear of a riot is a little misplaced since most of the rioting took place in the affected neighborhoods and the CBD. The majority of baltimores residential areas even ones that are poor in NW Bmo and East Bmo were quiet. Maybe because those inclined to do so went to the areas where the unrest occurred. There have been recent riots in Charlotte Seattle Portland and DC that I doubt would stop anyone from moving there

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

I'd never move to Baltimore. Too much crime/criminal element. Plus, I wouldn't want to have to live in fear of what rioters might do if they feel like they've been slighted, regardless of whether the evidence actually supports them or not (of course, even if you are wronged, that's no reason to riot).

This is so cute. I feel like my "them blacks" grandma has risen from the grave.

[BMoreJuice]

Originally Posted by MrRational

I disagree entirely.

There's ALSO room for a few odd enclaves around the edges...
but the City needs the larger and broader overall strategy they can attach to.


Indeed that would be foolish.

Those people c/would NOT be moving back in ...why would you assume they would?
The operative question is where they will be moving to.


It doesn't work. That should be obvious by now.

Without the drag of policies and costs to accommodate that bottom end 10-15%...
there's no need to be incremental.

The thesis of this article shares that Baltimore City Policy has failed to entice people in becoming homeowners. Until the city can comes to terms with the school system and crime element, a broader strategy can't happen. Without a larger tax base, Baltimore has to beg that state for money. I can't see revitalization for the poor without a stronger existing tax base. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but the slower the steps, the less negative effects that come from gentrification. The city has to solve this problem before anything else or the city will lose more of its tax base.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

Until the city can comes to terms with the school system and crime element...

...and a whole host of other social work aspects of life at the root of these.

Without a larger tax base...

And a concurrent reduction of payment for/to those who don't earn enough to be taxed.
The ratio of net consumers to net producers of public wealth is untenable.
Band aid and feel good "policies" aren't fixing anything.

I can't see revitalization for the poor without a stronger existing tax base.

Revitalization for the poor is not any sort of reasonable objective.
Revitalization has to be about creating the things that the "tax base" producers will want.

The current unworkable model has that poor population tail wagging the taxpaying dog.

Perhaps I'm missing the point...

Yeah... you're missing the point.
---

At the simplest level: supplant Xthousand of the "worst" of the current net consumers
with an equal number, Xthousand, of the net producers everyone knows are needed.
What is the immediate outcome to city finances and quality of life?

[BMoreJuice]

Originally Posted by MrRational

...and a whole host of other social work aspects of life at the root of these.

And a concurrent reduction of payment for/to those who don't earn enough to be taxed.
The ratio of net consumers to net producers of public wealth is untenable.
Band aid and feel good "policies" aren't fixing anything.

Revitalization for the poor is not any sort of reasonable objective.
Revitalization has to be about creating the things that the "tax base" producers will want.

The current unworkable model has that poor population tail wagging the taxpaying dog.
Yeah... you're missing the point.
---

At the simplest level: supplant Xthousand of the "worst" of the current net consumers
with an equal number, Xthousand, of the net producers everyone knows are needed.
What is the immediate outcome to city finances and quality of life?

I don't believe that I expressed any band aid policies. I have followed the trends on this board and popular opinion within the city. There has to be one goal and only one goal at a time. Do we want to bring jobs to the city? Create small business opportunities for African Americans? Or do we want $15 an hour wages? Do we want to develop downtown Baltimore? Or do we not want to bring in more "yuppies"? Should North Baltimore morally finance social services through increased taxes? Or do we want tax breaks to entice people to invest and house in Baltimore? Should our focus be on building luxury apartments for those who sleep in Baltimore but live in DC?

Everyone knows everything but nothing gets done. The city first needs to build and produce before anyone even discusses feel good policies.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

I don't believe that I expressed any band aid policies.

I'm suggesting that everything advocated for to date has roots as band aid policy.

Everyone knows everything but nothing gets done.

Yeah; like that.

...do we not want to bring in more "yuppies"?

Of course not. We need their money if not them personally.
So... maybe use a less rancorous term... but you betcha!

Call it the Willie Sutton school of development and public planning.

There has to be one goal and only one goal at a time.

Agreed. And it has to start with a model that a) reduces public wealth outlays and b) increases public wealth income.

Without those two thing in place, up front, the rest will not work.
If they would... if they could... they would have by now.

Do we want to bring jobs to the city?
Do we want to develop downtown Baltimore?
Create small business opportunities for (everyone)?
building luxury apartments...?
entice people to invest and live in Baltimore?

Yes, please. All of them.

But the money aspect has to come first.

[debold4215]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

I think you "get it" but I'll still say this: Don't focus on the actual population loss but instead focus on the "Why".

The WHY is the crime, the trash and the absolutely crazy drivers and the fact that nobody is doing anything about it. Murders for the first quarter of this year are the highest in Baltimore's history.