What Makes a Neighborhood Go Downhill in 20 Years? (Houston, Dallas: lease, lawyer)

[usc619]

Originally Posted by bowserb1

First of all, it is widely accepted by responsible scientists that the greatest threat to the world's environment is not fossil fuels or any of the popular scapegoats, but rather overpopulation. All the other problems of the world--with the possible exception of those caused by radical Islam and its effects on the weak-minded--are just symptoms of too many people.

Now to Houston. Look at the demographics of Houston's population growth, and you'll find the answer to your question of declining neighborhoods. Especially check when the 2010 census is published. Just consider who is reproducing and moving here. Decline is inevitable.

Educated and consequently higher wage earners plan their families, generally have one or two children (or none these days). Their kids get attention and education that helps to assure their future.

The poor, on the other hand, assure that they will remain poor. Among the poor, 70% of births are out of wedlock to high school dropout (or even middle school dropout!) mothers already on some kind of government support. When those uneducated mothers have their second child, that is pretty much it for them. And there is usually a third to follow. In spite of Johnson's Great Society, this has remained the way things are. Indeed, statistics seem to support that they are worse. These children of uneducated women (who are, in case it's not obvious, not even smart enough to avoid getting pregnant) are the present and the future. None--not the mothers or the children--have much of a chance of improving their lot.

Politicians, especially at the local level, want population growth. They don't care if it's rich people they can tax, or poor people they can tax the others to care for. They want their kingdoms to be larger. So in Houston you add to the internal population growth the influx of poor from elsewhere. Our wonderful former ultraliberal mayor welcomed the poor from New Orleans, not just to stay for a while, but to stay...period. And a couple hundred thousand of the socioeconomic bottom of the New Orleans population did stay.

And, in the interest of growth at any cost, our last two mayors also made Houston a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, and there is no indication that the current mayor will be any different. Unless Texas adopts a law comparable to that just passed in Arizona, you're going to see things get even worse, as illegals take the path of least resistance--directly to Texas and Houston!

Then comes Mr. Obama. As much as I wished I could have voted against him several times, I have to say he at least recognized that the current U.S. demographics direction is unsustainable and not in the interest of the future of the poor who had such great expectations of his presidency. So what happened to his efforts to make abortions free and readily available? The ever-righteous Republicans, and others who lack the ability to think in practical terms, shut down that part of his ill-designed health care plan.

So there you have it, dear former resident who is disappointed in what has happened to her hometown. A burgeoning population of poor--who, yes, are mostly the so-called minorities--are reproducing and moving in to your old neighborhood and in the process driving down property values, driving up crime rates, and generally making once nice places into the kind where an FBI agent I know says he doesn't keep his pistol in its holster when he is in those areas. Knocking down those old run-down apartments doesn't solve the underlying problem. Overpopulation is the problem.

Great post

[Matt Burns]

Originally Posted by glorplaxy

I agree with bowserb1 that overpopulation does have a negative effect on SOME areas,

but, by that logic, Tokyo should be a crime-ridden warzone, and it clearly is not. Same can be said for Hong Kong and Seoul...ALL cities that are very, very overpopulated. Much moreso than Houston or even NYC, yet are incredibly safe and have very low rates of violent crime.

It also doesn't have too much to do with income, either, because you can look at a very large, overpopulated city like Bombay and you can see that violent crime is very rare compared to our large cities, including Houston, yet over %60 of that city (of about 14 million I think) lives on something like less than $1 a day. THEY aren't running around and killing each other at nearly the same rate Houstonians do.

This is my first post here (hi!) so bear with me, but I would like to put my two cents forth.

I've lived in Houston all my life, specifically in Pasadena for 19 years and Pearland now where I currently reside for the past 4.

I think the two ideas you have been to be intertwined. Overpopulation AND culture have something to do with it. And having just come fresh off of a Race and Crime course at college, one of the things we learned about was how income DOES have a direct effect on the crime rates within the United States.

I will be the first to say that I may be wrong, but this is what we discussed.

We learned about the way cities had well established zones [mod edit - 10 posts to link offsite] which could be used to study where and why crime happens in certain areas.

Typically, zone 2 would be the worst.

"Comparing the maps, Shaw and McKay recognized that the pattern of delinquency rates corresponded to the "natural urban areas" of Park and Burgess’ Concentric Zone Model. This evidenced the conclusion that delinquency rates always remained high for a certain region of the city (ecological zone 2), no matter which immigrant group lived there."

Now, why was zone 2 the worst? While there can be many reasons, one of the biggest was the income rate of the people who lives around zone 2. So I do think that can be a pretty big factor when you look at statistics and crime.

Again, my field is finance and not criminology, so if I messed something up please feel free to correct me!

-Matt

[usc619]

Originally Posted by Matt Burns

This is my first post here (hi!) so bear with me, but I would like to put my two cents forth.

I've lived in Houston all my life, specifically in Pasadena for 19 years and Pearland now where I currently reside for the past 4.

I think the two ideas you have been to be intertwined. Overpopulation AND culture have something to do with it. And having just come fresh off of a Race and Crime course at college, one of the things we learned about was how income DOES have a direct effect on the crime rates within the United States.

I will be the first to say that I may be wrong, but this is what we discussed.

We learned about the way cities had well established zones [mod edit - 10 posts to link offsite] which could be used to study where and why crime happens in certain areas.

Typically, zone 2 would be the worst.


"Comparing the maps, Shaw and McKay recognized that the pattern of delinquency rates corresponded to the "natural urban areas" of Park and Burgess’ Concentric Zone Model. This evidenced the conclusion that delinquency rates always remained high for a certain region of the city (ecological zone 2), no matter which immigrant group lived there."

Now, why was zone 2 the worst? While there can be many reasons, one of the biggest was the income rate of the people who lives around zone 2. So I do think that can be a pretty big factor when you look at statistics and crime.

Again, my field is finance and not criminology, so if I messed something up please feel free to correct me!

-Matt

Dam, I wish I could have seen the links before it was edited Can you PM me those links?

[Matt Burns]

Originally Posted by usc619

Dam, I wish I could have seen the links before it was edited Can you PM me those links?

Whoops, didn't know I had to have 10 before posting links. My bad! PM sent!

[SteveArmy]

well the more kids/illegals in the neighborhood, the lower the average income per person will be, no?

[pandorafan5687]

Originally Posted by alidoremi

I grew up in SW Houston, went to Fondren Junior High and Sharpstown High, graduating in '81. A few years later one of my college classes required me to do some course work at Fondren, where I discovered that within a few short years (perhaps 6-7) the whole demographics of the school had changed. 90% of the kids were on free-lunch program and (as was told to me), the surrounding neighborhood (Fondren, from Braeswood south to Airport Dr.) had become mostly Section 8 apartments. I found this so sad since there were some really nice homes in the vicinity of Fondren Southwest.

I moved out of state in '86 and my husband and I returned to visit in 2009. We got quite an earful from our old friends (who no longer live where they grew up): Westwood Mall completely wasted, Sharpstown Mall you dare not shop at for fear you'll be shot, all the once nice apartment complexes that were brand new when we left are now drug/crime infested.

All of our friends have moved further out to Sugarland or Spring, to newer communities. Yet, at one time, SW Houston WAS the new community, THE place to buy a home. What will prevent the newer areas from becoming like Sharpstown or Fondren SW?

When younger people move into a neighboorhood, they don't maintain it like the previous generation did. Poor maintnance(sort of like San Jacinto Mall, which I still pray they get that lifestyle wing soon b/c that mall is so huge!), laziness, a lack of neighboors that look out for each other like previous ones. People just don't give a ****. It's an endless cycle that just repeats itself again and again.

[EasilyAmused]

Originally Posted by pandorafan5687

When younger people move into a neighboorhood, they don't maintain it like the previous generation did.

I think that depends on the neighborhood, and it's socio-economics. I see "young" people remodelling homes and bringing them back to life all around me...after the 85 year old left it to rot for 30 years.

[gmh1013]

When I was a kid in the early 1960's we lived off South Park (MLK Now) it was nice middle class all white neighborhood....last time I was in Houston I would not even drive through in a tank.
We lived on Doulton St till 1969 and it was going down fast....I really like the area too.
As Eddie Murphy said on SNL "when we move in y'all move out"
I was in shock....but it seems what was nice 25 years ago is the ghetto now.
I had a friend I would visit around south Kirkwood? back in the early 80's now I would not drive down there.
Houston has a problem keeping areas up...I see it a little in Phoenix and other cities out west but Houston is one of the worst....

[glorplaxy]

you people are acting as if you can't drive through these areas because you'll get shot or killed and that certainly is not the case. These places aren't warzones.

face it: you guys are afraid of darkies. just plain, irrational fear

[gmh1013]

Originally Posted by glorplaxy

you people are acting as if you can't drive through these areas because you'll get shot or killed and that certainly is not the case. These places aren't warzones.

face it: you guys are afraid of darkies. just plain, irrational fear

If your white just try driving through Compton or Paramount CA.....
its just common sense....you just dont do it.
I wont do it and I carry a .357