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.
I don't think that hiring a city manager is any kind of solution. What's the point of having both a mayor and a city manager, especially when the city manager is going to be selected by the mayor and the city council or by the city council itself? In cities with one party predominating, which is many if not most cities in NYS, the city manager job is just another patronage plum job.
More importantly, the city-manager type of government is undemocratic in that it attempts to limit the power of the electorate with an extra layer of politicians (who, supposedly, are "better" than John or Jane Q Public). Like the election of US senators by state legislatures and the POTUS by the Electoral College, it is a manifestation of some people's distrust of "the mob". It 1789, that was the mass of white males who owned just enough property to be able to vote. In the Progressive Era when the city-manager form of government was first popularized, it was the mass of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. In 2013, it's the mass of Blacks and Hispanics who dominate many cities.
It's NOT the political structure of a local government that determines whether a government is going to be successful or not, but rather the attitudes of the people in government, who are a subsection of the local people. Where the politicians running the government see their jobs as opportunities to enrich themselves and their families/friends, you find badly run cities, towns, and counties. Where the politicians see their jobs as public service, you get much better government. Changing the governmental structure changes nothing if attitudes don't change.
Until crime in the cities and inner ring suburbs is greatly decreased, nothing will change.
I think that this is too simplistic and I don't think crime in inner ring suburbs is that high in most cases. I think the writer was thinking in terms of economics and management. Better management will make a difference and like Linda mentioned, I think adjustments in attitudes, truly serving the people and knowing who those people are important.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 08-26-2013 at 01:01 PM..
Until crime in the cities and inner ring suburbs is greatly decreased, nothing will change.
In Upstate NY, that's not an accurate statement. I lived in Buffalo for 20 years, I lived in a first ring suburbs of Albany (Troy and Colonie) for nearly a decade, and my take is this: there are neighborhoods in Buffalo that I wouldn't walk through in the day time and there are neighborhoods in Buffalo that I wouldn't have qualms about walking through at night. A few of both Buffalo's and Albany's first ring 'burbs are a bit rough around the edges but they are hardly "high crime", and most of the first ring suburbs are excellent. Kenmore, just north of Buffalo, is seeing increasing home prices because people want to live there. Loudonville remains one of the more popular Albany suburbs.
When you get out into the hinterlands and the smaller cities like Corning or Jamestown, which the author of the piece was talking about, if it weren't for the arrests for DWI and possession of marijuana, the local newspapers wouldn't have to bother with their "police blotter" columns more than once a week. There's some petty crime and drug activity, but drive-by shootings and assaults and homicides are rarities.
That's probably different around the bigger metros of Boston, NY, Philly, etc but away from them, the cities have bigger issues than crime.
I'm not implying that all parts of every city have crime, far from it, but its pretty clear to me that cities come back when crime is great reduced. NYC had 2000 murders a year at one time, and now has less than 500 and its a much safer and more liveable city. Look at home prices there. Parts of Brooklyn were filled with crackhouses are now filled with $ 1 million homes because they are now safe places to live. In NJ, the most crime infested cities have not come back (Camden, Paterson,
Crime is the root of most of the problems in the cities in NYS, particularly the bigger cities. Look at Syracuse, all 4 sides have bad areas. With bad areas comes lack of education. With lack of education, comes uncared-for kids and those kids grow up, create crime and bad places to live. Also, they feed off of tax money (further compounding the problem) and become entrenched in a welfare and institutionalized system. Its a vicious cycle that won't end until crime is ended. At least that's how I see it.
But I understand what you mean about the author thinking in terms of economics and management, ckh. I'm just adding that crime is a major factor that needs to be addressed too.
I'm not implying that all parts of every city have crime, far from it, but its pretty clear to me that cities come back when crime is great reduced. NYC had 2000 murders a year at one time, and now has less than 500 and its a much safer and more liveable city. Look at home prices there. Parts of Brooklyn were filled with crackhouses are now filled with $ 1 million homes because they are now safe places to live. In NJ, the most crime infested cities have not come back (Camden, Paterson,
Crime is the root of most of the problems in the cities in NYS, particularly the bigger cities. Look at Syracuse, all 4 sides have bad areas. With bad areas comes lack of education. With lack of education, comes uncared-for kids and those kids grow up, create crime and bad places to live. Also, they feed off of tax money (further compounding the problem) and become entrenched in a welfare and institutionalized system. Its a vicious cycle that won't end until crime is ended. At least that's how I see it.
But I understand what you mean about the author thinking in terms of economics and management, ckh. I'm just adding that crime is a major factor that needs to be addressed too.
Yes, crime needs to be addressed and in Syracuse, the bad parts vary by degree and to how much of that side has high crime. Each side of town has some areas that are at least solid to very nice areas too.
I also think that crime gets reduced when you invest in your city instead of your friends and family, like some politicians tend to do. I also think that cities in Upstate NY have to think about who inhabits its cities and try to get the best out of everyone there. When you involve people in the best interests of the city, they tend to care more. This can occur at different levels too. So, I think a lot of these things go hand and hand.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 08-26-2013 at 03:45 PM..
The problem is not a train, the problem is when you arrive at your destination.
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.