Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid
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 problem and transplanted another in its place which what most of us are talking about.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
