[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.