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.
the city will be a cesspool again not long after DiBlasio takes the reigns.
No g in reins. DiBlasio will be elected, not crowned.
No one should want NYC to decline again. Even those who appear to prefer a seedier, edgier city will regret it, should violent crime surge from a perception by thugs that the Bad Old Days have returned.
Those who believe the stats are cooked will love NYPD crime reports showing a substantial increase in index crimes. Perhaps the ME's office will unearth all the bodies that were hidden during the Giuliani-Bloomberg years. Tourism will decline & Wall St. will move to Jersey City, so unemployed NYers will have more room on uncrowded sidewalks.
No matter what The Times says, the city will be a cesspool again not long after DiBlasio takes the reigns. Real Estate development has caused some areas to be permanently altered to the point that low-lives will never be able to afford to live there again no matter what happens, but the "fringe" areas will definitely see an increase in crime once the next administration starts its anti-police policies in motion. No cop with half a brain will take any action beyond that which is absolutely required of them once DiBlasio is the one deciding whether to back them up or not.
That that means Bloomberg nor Giuliani never did anything about the root causes of the crime wave in NYC. A collapse in jobs in big parts of the city (Bronx, parts of Brooklyn) in the 1970s, plus easy welfare, plus rent regulations that made it nearly impossible for landlords to evict low quality tenants so long as they were paying, are all what made big parts of NYC ghetto.
Big parts of Brooklyn as ghetto as ever, ditto the Bronx, upper Manhattan, parts of the Rockaways, Jamaica, and the Lefrak City part of Corona.
Yet Rudy and Mikey did nothing to eliminate the welfare industrial complex of NYC. The recent cuts in it have only been because the state of NY and the federal government are cutting funds to NYC's welfare programs with each passing budget, forcing some programs to close altogether and other programs to cut funding.
When I lived in the Bronx plenty of kids made their living by selling drugs and stolen goods. Yes, this happened under the rule of Bloomberg. Certain parts of the city have a number of illegal massage parlors (read whorehouses). All under Bloomberg.
The city and state do not have the resources to through 75% of the poor people in jail in poor neighborhoods. Oh yes, that would substantially reduce crime, only its politically, economically, and socially unpopular. Actually reforming the rent regulations and welfare complex is difficult, so people like Rudy and Mikey try to hide behind a charade of police activity. But cops alone never cleaned up anything.
Take Times Square. Those buildings used by the sex industry? Well, part of the problem is you had urban disinvestment, so landlords rented out to whoever. When the theater district was in trouble, Disney offered to bail out the theatre district if Giuliani would shut down the porn stores. Giuliani complied. So massive corporate investment took these buildings away from bad landlords and simply reused them for other purposes. After then, without such a high concentration of pimps, sluts, and drug dealers, it became a lot easier for cops to arrest the occasional crook.
Crime in Chelsea and the LES went down because investors bought out rent stabilized apartments, and tore the buildings down and replaced them with expensive CONDOS.
That that means Bloomberg nor Giuliani never did anything about the root causes of the crime wave in NYC. A collapse in jobs in big parts of the city (Bronx, parts of Brooklyn) in the 1970s, plus easy welfare, plus rent regulations that made it nearly impossible for landlords to evict low quality tenants so long as they were paying, are all what made big parts of NYC ghetto.
Big parts of Brooklyn as ghetto as ever, ditto the Bronx, upper Manhattan, parts of the Rockaways, Jamaica, and the Lefrak City part of Corona.
Yet Rudy and Mikey did nothing to eliminate the welfare industrial complex of NYC. The recent cuts in it have only been because the state of NY and the federal government are cutting funds to NYC's welfare programs with each passing budget, forcing some programs to close altogether and other programs to cut funding.
When I lived in the Bronx plenty of kids made their living by selling drugs and stolen goods. Yes, this happened under the rule of Bloomberg. Certain parts of the city have a number of illegal massage parlors (read whorehouses). All under Bloomberg.
The city and state do not have the resources to through 75% of the poor people in jail in poor neighborhoods. Oh yes, that would substantially reduce crime, only its politically, economically, and socially unpopular. Actually reforming the rent regulations and welfare complex is difficult, so people like Rudy and Mikey try to hide behind a charade of police activity. But cops alone never cleaned up anything.
Take Times Square. Those buildings used by the sex industry? Well, part of the problem is you had urban disinvestment, so landlords rented out to whoever. When the theater district was in trouble, Disney offered to bail out the theatre district if Giuliani would shut down the porn stores. Giuliani complied. So massive corporate investment took these buildings away from bad landlords and simply reused them for other purposes. After then, without such a high concentration of pimps, sluts, and drug dealers, it became a lot easier for cops to arrest the occasional crook.
Crime in Chelsea and the LES went down because investors bought out rent stabilized apartments, and tore the buildings down and replaced them with expensive CONDOS.
NyWriterdude, sometimes I agree with you but you need to stop talking that "easy welfare fuc*ed NYC up" bs. Without welfare, crime and the overall climate would have been (and would be) way worse than it has ever been.
No question why crime was the worst when Reagan was in office: despise of the poor, law of the (economically) strongest, cuts through social funds, ending of all types of social programs, all combined with the crack era (which the government was also responsible for, since the CIA was involved in coke trafficking). When you treat people like sh*t and deprive them from their basic human rights, expect for the worst things to happen, of course they are going to act like savages, won't give a damn about anything etc. When people come to the point where they have nothing to lose, the wildest things can happen.
I think one of the biggest factors in crime reduction is gentrification--like it or not. Most seedy types can't afford to live in many neighborhoods anymore and the new residents there simply don't tolerate their presence. Of course, many law abiding people can't afford many parts of the city either--but that's besides the fact.
NyWriterdude, sometimes I agree with you but you need to stop talking that "easy welfare fuc*ed NYC up" bs. Without welfare, crime and the overall climate would have been (and would be) way worse than it has ever been.
No question why crime was the worst when Reagan was in office: despise of the poor, law of the (economically) strongest, cuts through social funds, ending of all types of social programs, all combined with the crack era (which the government was also responsible for, since the CIA was involved in coke trafficking). When you treat people like sh*t and deprive them from their basic human rights, expect for the worst things to happen, of course they are going to act like savages, won't give a damn about anything etc. When people come to the point where they have nothing to lose, the wildest things can happen.
Without Section 8, a lot of people would have left the city or never even come. I've seen what happened to neighborhoods first hand after they let in a lot of Section 8 people. Oh, and crime was terrible in NYC in the 70s under the liberal Carter, who did not cut government programs. You had big expansion for aid for the poor in NYC in the 70s. Crime still went up, and whites fled big time. Money and businesses also fled NYC (and certain other cities).
I think one of the biggest factors in crime reduction is gentrification--like it or not. Most seedy types can't afford to live in many neighborhoods anymore and the new residents there simply don't tolerate their presence. Of course, many law abiding people can't afford many parts of the city either--but that's besides the fact.
This is completely the case and true. Which is why the city under Bloomberg have huge tax incentives to tear down tenement housing and replace it with luxury housing and high end retail stores. I will give Bloomberg that credit, and those changes are rather permanent. Nothing de Blasio can do to change those developments. Bloomberg did his work on things he cared about well. Unfortunately he did it such a way that working class law abiding people were SCREWED big time and can't afford many parts of the city, either. And that's my biggest issue with him.
But on the other hand, in an absence of ideas on how to deal with the surplus of welfare people that not so long ago even covered much of Manhattan, at least Bloomberg had some ideas on dealing with the situation and disrupting the status quo.
I don't think we should give 0 credit to the Mayors...when things go bad they are to blame, so when things get better they should get credit also. Fair is fair. That being said, the reality is they should not get as much credit as they tout, or some people claim, because it is simply not true that they single handedly, or their specific policies, were the overarching reason why crime plummeted during their tenures. I think some people give them too much credit, while not giving enough credit to what communities did for themselves, changing demographics, and societal changes.
Dinkins did a lot more for the city in his short tenure than what he's credited for. Yes, it was him who reduced crime, but he also was responsible for bringing the US Open to Queens. I despise how he was basically blacklisted from politics after his time as mayor.
Dinkins did a lot more for the city in his short tenure than what he's credited for. Yes, it was him who reduced crime, but he also was responsible for bringing the US Open to Queens. I despise how he was basically blacklisted from politics after his time as mayor.
US Open was in Queens way before Dinkins... its been hosted there since the late 70's. Don't give Dinkins credit for something he didnt do. He was a useless mayor.
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.
