Especially when some of these city flighters are paying obscene amounts of money for a box in the city because "it's convenient to live!"

30 years ago, it was really bad. The city's main XXX theater was on the strip of 23rd street which bordered the Paseo area and Heritage Hills. There was such high crime that a local liquor store actually placed an armed guard in a tower toting some sort of machine gun looking device. Even when I was in high school, the place was pretty bad.

Since then it really has come up and gone from being truly blighted to being a really hip, classy, different sort of place. It's got a good nightlife, I wouldn't have a problem walking around at night (which wouldn't have been the case back then). The area is nice. Just north of there, we have a very substantial Vietnamese presence, so we have a ton of awesome pho restaurants and various and sundry businesses with Vietnamese names I couldn't even pronounce.

The area is probably a lot more diverse than it was 30 years ago, but it's diverse in a way that doesn't get people shot.

I just don't see how it could be bad for a city to increase its property tax take, get rid of a population which is a drain on public services and schools and generally improve everything.

Because of property taxes? Because she got a good price? Or because she was pretty sure her property was blighted and she was hedging against the risk of the city coming in and taking them anyhow?

let me ask this in a way that you will understand, what was the make up of people who live in this area now as opposed to what it was 30 years ago?

When it's taking a 'problem population' and shuffling it to another area without ever addressing the problem how does it solve the problem in the 1st place?

But of course, you being who you are, I expect for you not to get it.

This is the biggest problem that urban planners ignore. What to do with people who drain public sources? Move them elsewhere. Then in 30 years when people get sick of the cities and long for fresh air and countryside, it will start all over again....but because of urban sprawl, the end result may not be what it was 30 years ago.



'Good price'...that's funny.

Try because the area was so BLIGHTED as opposed to what it was 30 years ago, she barely got anything for it.


"Good Price".


You are a funny little dude.

Some of the long time residents stayed. The problem residents either went to prison or left. The residents of the neighborhood did what the residents of your mother's neighborhood might have done to stave off the effects of urban blight and save their own property values. Your property is an investment and there are lots of choices as to how to protect that investment. If the problem is blight and crime, you can either go with the flow and take the property value hit or you can do something about it. In the OKC case, the neighborhood partnered with law enforcement and took care of the problem. What did your mother do?

I really don't care what happens to that problem population. They bear the same risks in the real estate market as the rest of us, probably moreso if they rent, even moreso if they're at the mercy of Section 8 landlords.

I get it. You know where I stand on that.

Yep. I wouldn't let drains on society stand in the way of productive people living where they want and developers taking risks and making money improving blighted areas. I suppose when the wealthy are done with that area and the poor folks move back in, they'll at least have double paned windows and energy efficient air conditioners assuming no one steals the copper out of the condensers.

What urban sprawl? I don't see any city getting bigger, only more subdivisions. That is suburban sprawl.

White flight was wrong. I think gentrification will be good in the long run. I don't think historic neighborhoods should be torn down, and place-names should definitely be kept. But I don't think re-devolpement of urban areas should be halted just because poor people might have to move. Thtat's a pretty weak line of reasoning in my view.

Some cities (particularly, in the South) have plenty of space surrounding them. In the event that they don't, they sometimes take over some of the surrounding cities (IIRC, this happened in San Antonio and Houston).

And it's not necessarily just "dirt-poor" residents that are being displaced -- sometimes, it's "not-as-wealthy" people that are being moved.

To your first point...well if enough of the long time residents stayed and they were homeowners then NO it does not really count as that area gentrifying itself...more like a staving off of a bad element. They took care of a problem...it's not like the city uprooted a population and transplanted another in its place which what most of us are talking about.

to your second point...yes I know you don't care. And after many posts and threads, I know exactly where you stand which is why I can't wait til the day comes around when you find yourself on the opposite side and maybe then you will care (most people give a damn when it affects them but that's another thread) Folk like yourself that don't really have an issue on the side of the people being moved rarely if ever care. And you are still missing the point, it's not always Section 8 people that are in the crosshairs. You have people who are homeowners who have owned their homes for well over 40 or 50 years but because some greedy owner wants that property and the homeowner more than likely retired or living on a fixed income become easy prey so get that out of your mind that it's always a Section 8 problem.

And to your last point...that was really in poor taste...there are many times I wonder if you think before you post, showing what a heartless dick you are.


GCers, I'm done here, have at it...

And if they hadn't done that, one of two things would have definitely happened -- the area would have become irrevocably blighted and unlivable; or the urban renewal folks would have declared the area blighted and had the whole area condemned and replaced with condos.

The point was this -- sitting on your hands as a property owner for 40-50 years while watching a criminal element move in and take over, continuing to do nothing, when someone designates your property as blighted, it seems almost just to me. In my previous example, I told you about how a truly bad part of town, replete with gangs and drugs and such turned itself around without eminent domain, without blight, without big developers. Either way, gentrification improves the city, improves the tax base and is a positive force as far as development. Sure, some developments don't pan out, but that's business and that's development and for the little guy, that's life in the big city.

I won't ever be on the other side. No matter how much you wish and pray for bad things to happen to me, I'll keep that from happening. Not to worry.

Depends on the protections your state has for homeowners. If the property is blighted, yeah, I agree, they're going to lose the house. Some states still give property owners some pretty good remedies in these situations -- Oklahoma does, and I do that sort of work sometimes.

Also, as I said, property owners bear some of the responsibility of blight. As I said before, I've witnessed a neighborhood come together in cooperation with the police to eradicate the criminal element from their area. It can be done, it just takes some bravery and some willingness to work with law enforcement.

Or they can do as your mother did... nothing... just wait for the inevitable to happen and the government being put into a position of either continuing to tolerate a part of the city which has gone straight to hell or declare it blighted and fix it. Given the choice between blight, crime and decay and a Whole Foods and $400K lofts, I'm pretty sure most cities will choose the later every time.

Consider the alternative: are we going to give cash to folks to fix up the area which they've already allowed by their own action or inaction to become blighted? No, that'd be dumb. Besides, why should anyone (other than AIG) get free money for making bad choices? Would it be a good idea to let the area get worse? Probably not. Gentrification is really the only option a city has if it wants things to get better.

Yeah, I forgot, your daddy will protect you.

Hold on tight to his skirts, his money will keep you warm.

Gosh you have no clues...none.

I can't waste anymore time with you.

Yeah but, in Virginia at least, it's a moot point. Cities aren't allowed to expand by law. They be reshaped, I think, but they have to stay the same size. They can't grow.

But leaving blight where it is doesn't solve the issue of blight either. So why not move it?

Virginia isn't really representative of many states, though.

And moving the issue around will work until another shift occurs. The goal should be getting to the root cause.

I think some people are forgetting that gentrification doesn't ALWAYS occur around "slums" or "hoods" -- sometimes, "not as wealthy" places are chosen as the "new urban meccas."

For some reason, these threads always end up with you bashing me personally for whatever reason. As if my excellent financial security, good job, great wife, nice yard, meager trust fund, well behaved dog, etc. have a damn thing to do with anything here.

Tell me this, o relative of a victim of gentrification, what did your mother do to help stave off the criminal element in her neighborhood? No doubt she raised good kids, , but aside from that, Anything?

What have you done?

You did nothing, then blamed the development companies for taking advantage of a strong demand for urban housing and depressed property values... As if you couldn't or shouldn't have seen that coming thirty years ago.

I guess it boils down to this -- the same folks who you apparently think of as victims are folks I think are deserving of their situations. They should have fought the conditions which led to the blight or they should have moved out before their property values were dramatically affected. That's the reality of "white flight," a nasty term which is easier to say than "middle class exodus" or "non-criminals not wishing to live near criminals." In most cases, you're talking about homeowners who in retrospect have made excellent decisions to get out while the gettin' was good.

You. have. no. clue.

You have no idea what my people went through trying to maintain a property in that area that Johns Hopkins was all too happy to buy up.

You need to stay in your lane on this because you don't have any idea at all how things work in Baltimore and larger cities in general, about how Baltimore is ill prepared in handling criminal elements and moreso how they play the shell game with people.


I laugh at you hollering about "well, common citizens should band together to fight crime...that'll fix it."

Yes people SHOULD but for more than painfully obvious reasons (one being police ineptitude along with apathy and the other being FEAR of the criminal element) regular citizens don't have the luxury of expecting the police to help.

Why do I keep fucking with you? Because you are clueless. And you are content to live in your blindness because as you say "It will never happen."

And yes, I wish for bad things to happen to you because maybe it will open your eyes to show you that LIFE isn't as cut and dry as you make it especially when you get to benefit off of someone else's work to see to your blindness.

As they say, pride comes before the fall

I guess these people should have moved too huh?

Yeah, I don't think people realize that Hopkins owns half of Baltimore City and when they want to expand they just move more people out.

Until those people are willing to assist law enforcement in dealing with the criminal element within, they'll continue to be part of that shell game. They can deal with it or move. It's their choice.

I've seen it work. And you mischaracterize. I said cooperate with law enforcement to report on, provide evidence and eliminate crime. In other words, the "snitches get stitches" crowd is no longer tolerated, parents don't raise their kids to not trust or cooperate with law enforcement, cultural change. Unless that happens, "your people" deserve whatever they get.

Ah, 'cuz I don't come from the mean streets of an east coast city, I'm incapable of forming an opinion? Or at least forming an opinion which differs from yours, which is the only correct take on the subject?

Life IS as cut and dry as that. Folks reap what they sow, and if they sow crime and blight, or at least they do nothing and watch the world around them go to hell, then that's what they get to reap. That's justice.

No, that proves how pathetic and cowardly the people of that neighborhood are. Only ONE family stood up to the drug dealers? Please. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than that -- especially if the police are as inept as you say. Hell, why would anyone want to even live there near neighbors who just don't give two shits about drug dealers conducting business openly? If that's acceptable, I think I can understand why a company would want to move everyone out in order to redevelop and why the city would do everything in its power to make that happen.

I'm a member of my HOA, I attend quarterly meetings, we have a neighborhood watch, we've taken measures to make it inconvenient for the nearby Section 8ers to access our neighborhood by building high fences around ourselves, we don't allow broken down cars, overgrown lawns, loud noise, or any of that. It's not tolerated.