WEST GARFIELD PARK : Chicago (Justice, Ina: 2015, crime rates, lawyers)

[Chicagoland60426]

West Garfield Park and other nearby west side hoods like it will need to have incentives to attract a higher earning demographic, who are willing to actually live there, not just flip real estate. It starts with aggressively reducing the violent crime, and it being a city neighborhood and not too far from the loop, it doesn't need to concern itself with schools as much.

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by BRU67

The whole idea behind Section 8 vouchers is that people who are receiving Federal housing assistance will rent market apartments in higher opportunity areas. But this hasn't worked out in practice. Wealthier suburbs tend to have restrictive zoning with fewer rentals available, and/or rentals which are in high demand and thus allow landlords to be more discriminate.

The result has been that vouchers have remained concentrated, which has led to an answer to the question you pose, and it hasn't been good for south suburbs and other low income City neighborhoods where those individuals have moved.

On this score, I think affordable housing set-asides for new projects should apply to housing developments in affluent suburbs and not just in the City. Why do projects in the City need to have 20% or more affordable units while suburban developments completely escape that? If the goal is to provide housing in higher opportunity areas for the marginally incomed, then this needs to change.

The IHDA has cited Naperville twice for having only 7.5% of its housing inventory being "affordable housing". The current standard in Illinois is 10%.

While the idea of "affordable housing" does include residential space for seniors, Section 8 immediately comes to mind for a lot of people. Like other affluent suburbs, I think the mayor and developers in Naperville know what potential problems that type of housing could bring and how the city will then be perceived by current residents and has maneuvered around the mandate by going by what may be considered affordable by Naperville standards. ( A house that's $250k and rent at $1,000 is still not cheap enough for many.).

[Don Cuccino]

Originally Posted by Greencheese

Not only does nobody want lower income people in their neighborhoods but the question could also be framed as, what benefit is it to the suburb to try to accommodate lower incomes? If every household is pulling $250-$450k per year and entirely self sufficient while paying $20k+ in property taxes then all the government needs to do is provide basic services like streets, schools, police, etc... If people who make less money move in and need government services not only are they contributing less (if anything) to the local coffers but also creating a demand on local resources that higher income people would not.

Look at Ken Griffin, having him in Chicago creates ZERO demand on government resources like CHA. Instead he pays millions in taxes and personally helped build the lakefront trail. He has been nothing but a valuable asset for the city of Chicago. Now compare Ken to a low income family making <$20,000 living in public housing. They pay no real taxes, they receive SNAP, CHA pays for the housing, CTA provides free transit passes, they need additional government services... The fact of the matter is they're nothing but a burden and most government officials try to push those individuals out with as much plausible deniability as possible.

When i was in my early 20s i made about 20k, never received any of those benefits, dont think i even would have qualified. Youre conflating low income with unemployed people

[Don Cuccino]

Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426

West Garfield Park and other nearby west side hoods like it will need to have incentives to attract a higher earning demographic, who are willing to actually live there, not just flip real estate. It starts with aggressively reducing the violent crime, and it being a city neighborhood and not too far from the loop, it doesn't need to concern itself with schools as much.

how is that achieved?

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Don Cuccino

how is that achieved?

Aggressive policing, preferably using the "broken window theory" that NYC so successfully employed in the early 1990s to drastically reduce crime there. Essentially, this means sending a message that even small crimes will not be tolerated, and it establishes more of a sense of law and order. Community policing is also key. The CPD needs to do a much, much better job in building trust in our most violent communities.

Employment opportunities are also important. If people can get a job with dignity, then they are less likely to succumb to the easy money, glamor, and sense of belonging that gang culture offers. Economic development and attracting diverse income levels into the community is also essential.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Aggressive policing, preferably using the "broken window theory" that NYC so successfully employed in the early 1990s to drastically reduce crime there. Essentially, this means sending a message that even small crimes will not be tolerated, and it establishes more of a sense of law and order. Community policing is also key. The CPD needs to do a much, much better job in building trust in our most violent communities.

Employment opportunities are also important. If people can get a job with dignity, then they are less likely to succumb to the easy money, glamor, and sense of belonging that gang culture offers. Economic development and attracting diverse income levels into the community is also essential.

Broken Windows did not work nor did stop and frisk.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...e%20big%20ones.

Bratton was a popular figure during the Giuliani era because crime rates fell on his watch. While observers were quick to credit his policies for that decline, there’s no reason to think the drop in violent crime had anything to do with broken windows or Bratton’s vaunted Compstat, a computer program that tracks crime statistics citywide.

The drop in New York’s violent crime rate, then and now, is consistent with a broader nationwide trend. Rates of violent crime have steadily declined nationwide over the past two decades, and nobody is really sure why. The best argument I’ve seen suggests that violent crime began to fall around the same time that the crack boom started to wane in the early 1990s. The rates have been dropping across the country since then.

We do know that the declines in violent crime in New York have been comparable to declines in cities that didn’t use Compstat or broken windows. As criminologist Richard Rosenfeld put it in a 2002 paper, “homicide rates also have decreased sharply in cities that did not noticeably alter their policing policies, such as Los Angeles, or that instituted very different changes from those in New York, such as San Diego.” The takeaway: Crime just keeps going down everywhere. Nobody is sure why.

[Ycomoque]

There's no political will for aggressive policing anyway, especially since those with influence don't live there and don't care (all social media virtue signaling aside).

[Don Cuccino]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Aggressive policing, preferably using the "broken window theory" that NYC so successfully employed in the early 1990s to drastically reduce crime there. Essentially, this means sending a message that even small crimes will not be tolerated, and it establishes more of a sense of law and order. Community policing is also key. The CPD needs to do a much, much better job in building trust in our most violent communities.

Employment opportunities are also important. If people can get a job with dignity, then they are less likely to succumb to the easy money, glamor, and sense of belonging that gang culture offers. Economic development and attracting diverse income levels into the community is also essential.

NYC's reduction in crime rate had more to do with massive gentrification than any policing. Take any struggling neighborhood, kick out the poor and fill it with upper income professionals and violent crime is guaranteed to drop. Problem is the the crime never really drops it just gets shifted to another area.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by nana053

Broken Windows did not work nor did stop and frisk.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...e%20big%20ones.

Bratton was a popular figure during the Giuliani era because crime rates fell on his watch. While observers were quick to credit his policies for that decline, there’s no reason to think the drop in violent crime had anything to do with broken windows or Bratton’s vaunted Compstat, a computer program that tracks crime statistics citywide.

The drop in New York’s violent crime rate, then and now, is consistent with a broader nationwide trend. Rates of violent crime have steadily declined nationwide over the past two decades, and nobody is really sure why. The best argument I’ve seen suggests that violent crime began to fall around the same time that the crack boom started to wane in the early 1990s. The rates have been dropping across the country since then.

We do know that the declines in violent crime in New York have been comparable to declines in cities that didn’t use Compstat or broken windows. As criminologist Richard Rosenfeld put it in a 2002 paper, “homicide rates also have decreased sharply in cities that did not noticeably alter their policing policies, such as Los Angeles, or that instituted very different changes from those in New York, such as San Diego.” The takeaway: Crime just keeps going down everywhere. Nobody is sure why.

Slate?? LOL!! Good cite. Now I'm going to have to go find a Fox News or Washington Examiner article to counter you

All jokes aside, it has, for reasons which escape me, become fashionable among elite circles to suspend belief and proclaim that all we need to do is add some or all of the $1.68 billion CPD budget to the more than $11 billion that we already spend on various social services in Chicago and Cook County and the problems will be magically solved with no effect on public safety (yeah right). But many studies showed that NYC's policing tactics in the early 1990s did work. Sure, gentrification and economic improvements helped, but aggressive policing did also. See for example...

https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/wh...%20York%20City.

In Carrots, Sticks and Broken Windows (NBER Working Paper No. 9061), co-authors Hope Corman and Naci Mocan find that the "broken windows" approach does not deter as much crime as some advocates argue, but it does have an effect, particularly on robbery and motor vehicle theft. They use misdemeanor arrests as a measure of broken windows policing.

So it's not a magic bullet (sorry about the pun) or an end all be all standing alone. But it's a tool in the toolbox, as they say, and much needed in this climate where so many seem to have taken leave of their senses.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Don Cuccino

NYC's reduction in crime rate had more to do with massive gentrification than any policing. Take any struggling neighborhood, kick out the poor and fill it with upper income professionals and violent crime is guaranteed to drop. Problem is the the crime never really drops it just gets shifted to another area.

But it had something to do with it. How much is subject to debate but there's little doubt it helped. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There really is no single one thing which will solve the issue. There will have to be a multi-faceted approach.