White flight? Suburbs lose young whites to cities

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?

'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.

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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...

[Kevin]

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.

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.

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.