Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning July 2006 » Spread Detroit's Poverty Problem Out to the Whole Region? « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

7051
Member
Username: 7051

Post Number: 26
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 1:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Can large amounts of Detroit's problems be fixed by forcing the whole region to deal with Detroit's poor? Downsize Detroit to a city of of 670,000 middle class and working class residents by moving the poor to other cities through the use of financial incentives.

In my everyday conversations I hear from many poor people that they would like to leave the city due to high insurance costs, crime, etc., etc. What about direct financial incentives??

A $5,000 downpayment/rent prepayment on a purchase or a rental to any current city residential household (must be a current non-owner)who purchases or rents a home outside of the city. Must meet current poverty income requirements based on number of household members.

Avg. 3 people per household X 60,000 households=180,000 of Detroit's poorest leaving at a cost of $300 million. A large amount, or possibly, all of this money could be available from many existing low-income mortgage programs, federal housing purchase/rental grants and funds, etc.

Even many of the exurbs have houses in the $120,000 and under category as prices are depressed. In addition, many current potential suburban buyers do not want to buy these less expensive houses which are usually older, smaller, homes located on main roads.

Many suburban rentals are also fairly cheap(especially in older buildings).

BENEFITS
*Less poor in the city may take the pressure off of currently overworked city services, such as police, fire, health dept. and many others.
*Large numbers of these poor may leave low-density neighborhoods which have few structures remaining in them, allowing for quicker wholesale redevelopment of these areas and the possible attraction of new middle class residents (more tax revenue).

DOWNSIDE RISKS
*Pissed-off city property landlords who lose tenants(who knows, they may be happy as those who own decent properties will probably get higher rents from a new group of tenants). Those who own properties which are a pile of junk and worthless will probably walk away, leading to further abandonment and less property tax revenue. This "less property tax revenue" problem may be very small as only 12% of current revenues come from property taxes and the properties which are currently in the worst condition pay very small amounts of property tax currently.

*Highly pissed off suburban dwellers who are now forced to deal with their FAIR share of the region's poor(on a percentage basis as I am aware that the current absolute number of poor people in suburban areas has just eclipsed absolute numbers of poor people living in urban areas according to recently released studies).



Just a crazy solution to one of our many problems here in the city or an out-of-the-box idea needed to cure a cancer victim with few current options???

Please add to the benefits/downside risks/feasibilty of such a plan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnnny5
Member
Username: Johnnny5

Post Number: 413
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 1:48 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The last thing Detroit needs is a subsidy that helps people move out of the city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 236
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 7:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An admirable goal, but not the way to do it, I think. Cities in the suburbs need to be forced into changing their restrictive zoning laws, in order to allow for construction or redevelopment of properties to add affordable housing. When new jobs are being created in these far-reaching suburbs, there needs to be a condition to build housing for the people who are going to work there. Base the release of a municipality's revenue sharing money on their master planning provisions to allow affordable housing. We should also restructure that sharing formula to reallocate regional taxes into reinvesting in existing infrastructure in the older suburbs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1947
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 8:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Didn't we just have an active thread about how there is now more poverty in areas outside the center city? Just who in the hell do you think is gonna go for this idea?

People constantly accuse me and others of not being aware of things going on in Detroit. Are any of you aware that other areas have their own poverty and the population that goes along with it? Our shelter in Ann Arbor is always full.They are maxed out.I am willing to bet Pontiac is the same.

Mixing poor people with middle class is a good idea when it works. The problem is too often the poor fuck it up. They need to be taught how to be good neigbors.Scorn me if you like.I have been around it enough to know.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 794
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 8:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

7051-you weren't around during the bussing days were you? this sounds like a guaranteed formula to start a mass-migration to Livingston county that would make the 60's-80's look like child's play.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 2098
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 8:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

$5,000 is a drop in the bucket if you're moving to the burbs. Furthermore I doubt many/most of the people you are talking about have the financial ability to properly use the $5,000 to get them out of the situation they are in. How would these folks (many of whom don't have cars) get around with the virtually non-existant bus system? If you're looking at $120,000 homes you're just going to be helping the inevitable happen sooner: first ring burbs are becoming the next "ghettos". There are some social merits to your idea (it was done in Chicago with some success), but it would be an incredibly expensive proposition with results that are difficult to measure.

How about spreading the cost of insurance, social services, health care, mental health care, transportation, etc. around the entire metro area instead of forcing Detroit and/or Wayne Co. to bear the brunt of the costs? That would be a solution.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 237
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 9:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Citylover, got any research to back your bigoted claims about the poor always fucking it up?


quote:

Fifteen Years Later: Can Residential Mobility Programs Provide Long-Term
Escape from Neighborhood Segregation, Crime, and Poverty?
ABSTRACT
We examine the conditions under which the Gautreaux residential mobility program, which
moved low-income African-American public housing families into more affluent less and
minority segregated neighborhoods, produced long-run improvements in the neighborhood
environments of program participants. We relate participants' current neighborhood
characteristics, measured an average of 15 years after entry into the program, to the
characteristics of the neighborhoods in which families initially moved. All participants have
moved since placement, but only 20% have experienced more than a $10,000 decline in average
census tract household income in moving from placement to current address. Additionally, 60%
of families initially placed in suburban neighborhoods continued to reside in the suburbs.
Families initially moving to higher-income, mostly European-American neighborhoods are
currently living in the most affluent neighborhoods. Relocation out of the most minority
segregated neighborhoods and into moderately lower crime, and suburban locations increased the
chances that a participant continued to reside in a low crime neighborhood.




http://www.northwestern.edu/ip r/publications/papers/2004/dun can/fifteenyearslater.pdf

No, I do not advocate a court-ordered integration of all the poor minorities in Detroit; what this study shows is that taking people out of the degrading concentrated centers of poverty can have a very positive impact on their outlook toward life. A concerted effort by Metro Detroit to accommodate affordable housing throughout the region could go a long way towards reducing crime and poverty both in the City and the suburbs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1949
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 10:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I did not say always I said too often.What gets me about some of you is how you all so cavalierly think that poor people will just be able to work if there are jobs or live like middle class people if given the opportunity.

This is never discussed because apparently it is taboo.But people actually must learn how to have and hold a job_ to be on time_ to come to wok when scheduled_ to not talk back to the boss_ to understand that there are bosses at a job.If you don't think that is an issue ask the people hiring these days.

And if you think I am "bigoted" ask landlords all over in Ypsi,Ann Arbor, Milan,all over how their section eight tenants are compared to the full paying ones.

The reason I know is I used to be poor .I hung around poor, marginalized people.I saw 1st hand the lifestyle that went with it and how difficult it is to convince people to change.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 687
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 10:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

7051-you weren't around during the bussing days were you? this sounds like a guaranteed formula to start a mass-migration to Livingston county that would make the 60's-80's look like child's play.



Ding ding ding.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 238
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 10:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CL - I think that just getting people out of the really poor areas is a step. It removes them from that culture of negativity that you speak of, that makes it so difficult to make progress. The kids will have better schools, and the parents will feel pressure to live up to the standards of the community.

We're building this new Wal-Mart in Livonia. How much do the workers there make, you think? A person making $9.45/hr is making 30% of just the average Livonia household. They should be spending less than $500/month on rent. Where in Livonia do you suggest these people live?
Top of pageBottom of page

7051
Member
Username: 7051

Post Number: 27
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:33 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Under the previously mentioned plan, the poor can move as far out as they desire-even Livingston county. In fact, this may be where they move as land costs per acre decline the farther one goes(hence more home for the money/cheaper rents the farther out one lives).I think that it is doubtful that 3.5 million suburbanites will move from a 5 county area out into a 8,10,12, 15 or whatever sized area(especially given the current condition of unsellable homes and local economy which will be with us another 3-8 years).

If the original federally ordered bussing plan had taken effect(bussing on a cross district, cross county level) people would have had to move at least 80 miles out immediately to escape it, instead the order was overturned and bussing was only required in the city. At that point one had only to move across 8 mile to escape it.

Let's assume that our goal is to simply move the poor out of Detroit and that we do not care what happens to them once they have moved out of the city. I know it sounds cold, but let's stick to a discussion of the original goal and feasibility of this plan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1990
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:42 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think it's a nonstarter, for several reasons.

1. Doesn't solve the problems of the City of Detroit. Fire and police departments still need to cover the same territory.

2. Condones, if not exacerbates, suburban sprawl and abandonment of the core city.

3. Won't necessarily lead to redevelopment of the inner city as proposed. The lack of redevelopment in certain areas isn't due to presence of the poor, but lack of the middle and upper classes who have disposable income. Removal of the poor won't automatically bring middle and upper income people into those areas.

4. If you think the poor in Detroit have a tough time getting to suburban jobs now, wait until you put them in the relatively sparsely-settled suburbs. They'll either have to rely on thin SMART service, or pony up money for a car.

5. Cost, especially given the risk. Politically, it's also not going to be very popular to "reward" the poor with such massive subsidies.

6. Social capital, the development of human networks, is going to be much more difficult in the suburbs, where people spend their lives in their cars. Middle and upper class people often have networks from community groups, churches, work, and their educational backgrounds. Poor people tend to have the people in their neighborhood.

I'm strongly in favor of diluting the concentration of urban poor, but shipping them out to the suburbs doesn't, to me, seem to do anything to better the situation for the poor, and may, in fact, make it worse.
Top of pageBottom of page

321brian
Member
Username: 321brian

Post Number: 215
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Who is stopping poor people from moving out of Detroit now?

They are still going to be poor no matter where they live.

Poor people don't need to be relocated they need job skills. They need some work ethic. They need to learn how to read and write, to open a bank account and balance a check book. They need to learn how to drive so they don't have to rely on crappy public transportation to get them to work.
Top of pageBottom of page

Moreta
Member
Username: Moreta

Post Number: 280
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They need *better* public transportation to get them to work. The cost of owning, operating, and maintaining a vehicle in Detroit is a tremendous strain on a tiny budget. We have so many uninsured drivers for a reason, and out of town visitors are constantly amazed at the mechanical condition of many of the vehicles on our roads. Beyond health care issues, nothing can endanger burgeoning financial independence faster than one bad repair bill on an automobile.
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 1206
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Is there statistical evidence that poor people commit a disproportionate share of crime? I suspect so. If true, moving them to other communities would just spread the crime and degradation of the entire region.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1881
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Many Detroiters long ago solved the lack-of-a-car-so-we-cannot-get -to-work problem. Just steal them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1951
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Brian,Moreta and 1953 all good points.

The other main factor that must be addressed is alcohol/drug use.The amount of drug addiction and alcoholism in poor areas and how it affects and creates as UDM calls it the "culture of negativity" is pratically intractable.

7051 the whole thing is not feasable until those social issues are addressed
Top of pageBottom of page

Ordinary
Member
Username: Ordinary

Post Number: 80
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

7051,
I think it should be the other way around. Make it more attractive to get people to move into Detroit. I've got to agree with danindc's comments also.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1991
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Poor people don't need to be relocated they need job skills. They need some work ethic. They need to learn how to read and write, to open a bank account and balance a check book. They need to learn how to drive so they don't have to rely on crappy public transportation to get them to work.




I don't know that I necessarily agree with all of this. There are always going to be people needed to work menial jobs. Not that opportunity shouldn't be available for those who want to avail themselves of it....

I think it's folly to assume that all poor people have no work ethic. There are some who work two or three jobs to keep their families afloat. I also think it's a bit patronizing, to say the least, that all poor people are illiterate, and don't have the basic math skills to balance a checkbook. (For what it's worth, I've met college students with expensive prep school educations that can't balance a checkbook.)

And I don't think the issue with poor people is that they don't know how to drive, but rather they can't afford to drive. Sure--let's educate them and teach 'em how to balance a checkbook. Then, their first lesson in investing is how to plunk down thousands of dollars a year into a guaranteed negative ROI. What's the point of that?

My point is, many people who are poor work hard for a living. Those people don't deserve to be patronized and shut out of the system. Granted, there are others who don't care to be a part of the legitimate economy, but that shouldn't overshadow the people who work hard trying to provide for their families.
Top of pageBottom of page

Diehard
Member
Username: Diehard

Post Number: 17
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sounds like the idea *might* have some merit if there was a way to figure out who'd really benefit. You can't just give a poor household $5,000 and expect them to solve their own problems. Hate to say it, but after seeing the post-Katrina fiasco, we could expect that some of that money would go for liquor and bling.
A screening process - some sort of test to see who has job skills and/or a real desire to get out of their crappy situation - would definitely be in order. And dare we say drug tests?
Top of pageBottom of page

Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick

Post Number: 3748
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe a radical idea such as work camps or work communes where people can live and make money, plus learn new skills. They wouldn’t have to travel to the job, nor would they have to worry about housing. Sure, some people will get that whole "concentration camp” vibe going but hell, it’s one way.
Top of pageBottom of page

321brian
Member
Username: 321brian

Post Number: 216
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc,

"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too." Judge Smails

I am one of those people who works 3 job to keep afloat. So, don't preach to me about working hard.

I'm just trying to help. I'm just saying that it might be better to try something other than moving all the poor people out of the city and redistributing them throughout the metro area.

The illiteracy rate in Detroit speaks for itself. Chances are if you are poor in Detroit you can't read too good.

In a couple of my jobs I work with people who are "poor" and they drink too much, smoke too much, play the lottery too much, don't have cars or drivers licenses, don't have bank accounts, and on and on.

People need to care about themselves and stop waiting for someone to come and fix things for them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5265
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 1:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Citylover, you quoted that,

mixing poor people with middle class is a good
idea when it works. The problem is too often the poor fuck it up. They need to be taught how to be good neigbors.Scorn me if you like.I have been around it enough to know.



ANCIENT ROME TRIED TO DO THAT BUT IT LEAD TO CRIME, VIOLENCE AND LOTS OF BUILDING CRUMBLING.

Johnnny5

"The last thing Detroit needs is a subsidy that helps people move out of the city."

WHAT SUBSIDY? DETROIT IS NOT READY FOR SUBSIDIES NOR MOST WHITE SUBURBS ARE NOT READY TO MEET SUBSIDY REQUIREMENTS TO BUILD SOME HOUSING PROJECTS FOR SECTION 8 FAMILIES. FOR THEY FEARED THAT LOW INCOME PO'FOLKS MAY RUIN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY VALUES.

Udmphikapbob

"An admirable goal, but not the way to do it, I think. Cities in the suburbs need to be forced into changing their restrictive zoning laws, in order to allow for construction or redevelopment of properties to add affordable housing. When new jobs are being created in these far-reaching suburbs, there needs to be a condition to build housing for the people who are going to work there. Base the release of a municipality's revenue sharing money on their master planning provisions to allow affordable housing. We should also restructure that sharing formula to reallocate regional taxes into reinvesting in existing infrastructure in the older suburbs."

MOST CITIES IN THE U.S. DID THAT PLAN BACK IN THE EARLY BOOMTOWN ERAS, ESPECIALLY IN THE SUBURBS. BUT THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND INVINCIBLE SEGREGATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS MADE IT POSSIBLE TO PROPERTY ZONING LAWS IN CHECK. BEST YOU AND ANYONE ELSE COULD DO IS FIND A DIRT CHEAP HOME OR BUSINESS AND LIVE IN IT. TAKE NEW YOUR CITY FOR EXAMPLE THEIR ZONING LAWS IS MET TO KEPT BIG BOX STORES AWAY FROM ITS ETHNICALLY DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND PREVENT BLOCK BUSTING AND IT WORKS. CAN DETROIT AND ITS SUBURBS BE LIKE NEW YORK OR CHICAGO? KEEPING ZONING LAWS IN GOOD CONDITION SO THAT HUMAN DEVELOPMENT WON'T DRAIN OUT THE NATURE OF THE EARTH?

Bvos


"$5,000 is a drop in the bucket if you're moving to the burbs. Furthermore I doubt many/most of the people you are talking about have the financial ability to properly use the $5,000 to get them out of the situation they are in. How would these folks (many of whom don't have cars) get around with the virtually non-existant bus system? If you're looking at $120,000 homes you're just going to be helping the inevitable happen sooner: first ring burbs are becoming the next "ghettos". There are some social merits to your idea (it was done in Chicago with some success), but it would be an incredibly expensive proposition with results that are difficult to measure."


YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE MONEY. I CAN SEE WHY LOTS OF BLACK FOLKS ARE QUICKLY MOVIE TO WHITE DETROIT RIGHT NOW!




THE LIGHT TO DARK GREEN AREAS REPRESENT THE FAST GROWING BLACK COMMUNITIES IN OAKLAND COUNTY. ACCORDING TO THE 2005 CENSUS, THE BLACK POPULATION IN OAKLAND COUNTY HAS BEEN INCREASED ALMOST 150,000. A WHOLE PIECE OF BLACK BOTTOM AND PARADISE VALLEY CREATED IN THE 5 BLACK SUBURBAN CITIES OF OAK PARK, ROYAL OAK TWP. LATHRUP VILLAGE, SOUTHFIELD AND PONTIAC. BLACK FOLKS IN PONTIAC HAD BEEN THERE SINCE THE MID 1800S BLACK FOLKS IN ROYAL OAK TWP. HAD BEEN THERE SINCE THE 1840S. BUT OAK PARK, SOUTHFIELD AND LATHRUP VILLAGE HAS BEEN FILLING UP WITH BLACK FOLKS IN THE LATE 1970S THANKS TO THE 25 YEAR MASS EXODUS FROM THE ETHNIC JEWS WHO NOW ARE AMERICANIZED IN THEIR ORGANIZED COMMUNITIES.






Danindc,

"I think it's a nonstarter, for several reasons.

1. Doesn't solve the problems of the City of Detroit. Fire and police departments still need to cover the same territory.

2. Condones, if not exacerbates, suburban sprawl and abandonment of the core city.

3. Won't necessarily lead to redevelopment of the inner city as proposed. The lack of redevelopment in certain areas isn't due to presence of the poor, but lack of the middle and upper classes who have disposable income. Removal of the poor won't automatically bring middle and upper income people into those areas.

4. If you think the poor in Detroit have a tough time getting to suburban jobs now, wait until you put them in the relatively sparsely-settled suburbs. They'll either have to rely on thin SMART service, or pony up money for a car.

5. Cost, especially given the risk. Politically, it's also not going to be very popular to "reward" the poor with such massive subsidies.

6. Social capital, the development of human networks, is going to be much more difficult in the suburbs, where people spend their lives in their cars. Middle and upper class people often have networks from community groups, churches, work, and their educational backgrounds. Poor people tend to have the people in their neighborhood.

I'm strongly in favor of diluting the concentration of urban poor, but shipping them out to the suburbs doesn't, to me, seem to do anything to better the situation for the poor, and may, in fact, make it worse.

SHE'S RIGHT YOU ALL KNOW! HUMAN DEVELOPMENT OF CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGE ARE SET UP INTO 3 MAINS AREAS.

1 CITIES WHETHER ITS DOWNTOWN, MIDTOWN OR UPTOWN.

2. SUBURBS WITH ITS COOKIE CUTTER COMMUNITIES AND ITS PSUEDO DOWNTOWNS.

3. EX-URBS HOMES AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE BUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. ITS KNOWN AS THE NEW WAVE VILLAGES.

FOR MASS TRANSIT REASONS THE BIG CITIES HAVE THEM IN THEIR OWN WAYS

SOME SUBURBS WILL JOIN IN FOR MASS TRANSIT BUT "IT" CAN OPT OUT IF "IT" WANTED TO. AND START THEIR OWN PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM.

EX-URBS DON'T NEED PUBLIC TRANSIT AT ALL. FOLKS OUT THEIR RELY ON THEIR CARS TO GET ON PLACE TO ANOTHER.

SHIPPING THE POOR TO THE SUBURBS WILL NOT SOLVE THEIR URBAN LIVING PROBLEMS. IF THE PO'FOLKS WANT TO MAKE IT THIS SOCIETY, THEY HAVE TO WORK LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. THE BIBLE SAYS IF YOU DON'T WORK, YOU DON'T EAT!" OUR LEADERS DON'T HAVE TO THROW YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO SOLVE THE POOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICA. WE AMERICANS ARE SAFETY NET TO THE PROBLEMS OF THE POOR.

Udmphikapbob

"CL - I think that just getting people out of the really poor areas is a step. It removes them from that culture of negativity that you speak of, that makes it so difficult to make progress. The kids will have better schools, and the parents will feel pressure to live up to the standards of the community."

"We're building this new Wal-Mart in Livonia. How much do the workers there make, you think? A person making $9.45/hr is making 30% of just the average Livonia household. They should be spending less than $500/month on rent. Where in Livonia do you suggest these people live?"

IT TAKES PEOPLE WITH A GOOD HEART TO GET THE POOR FOLKS FROM OUT OF THE GHETTO AND INTO THE AREAS WHERE THEY ARE ACCEPTED, BUT THE POOR FOLKS HAVE TO USED THEIR BRAINS TO DO IT.

WHAT'S GOOD OF BUILDING A EVIL WAL-MART WHERE THE FOLKS IN FACIST LIVONIA DON'T WANT THEM IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. THAT'S ANOTHER REASON THEY VOTED YES TO OPT THE SMART BUS FROM ITS MAIN ROADS.

1953

"Is there statistical evidence that poor people commit a disproportionate share of crime? I suspect so. If true, moving them to other communities would just spread the crime and degradation of the entire region."

YOU MAYBE RIGHT BUT, WHERE DID YOU GET YOU SOURCES? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS INFORMATION CAN BE PROVEN TRUE? OTHER PEOPLE MAY ARGUE THAT " THAT'S LOAD OF FALSE CROCK!" MOST POOR FOLKS DON'T CONTRIBUTE OR SUBURBAN CRIME IF THEY MOVE TO SOME SECTION 8 SUBURBAN HOME.

YOU MUST THIS NUMBER ONE LAW OF SOPHISTRY SERENITY. " THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH. YOU PROVE YOUR ARGUMENT BUT YOU DON'T KNOW IF ITS TRUE."
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnnny5
Member
Username: Johnnny5

Post Number: 414
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 3:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danny, The subsidy would be the $5,000 payment that 7051 mentioned in his original post. Also there are actually many examples of subsidized housing in the suburbs. Even as far out as Milford there are low income apartments where the rent and utilities are based upon your income. I think part of the problem is that few low income residents from the city know about these places. And of those that do many are not willing to move far from friends and family.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5267
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 3:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Johnnny5,

I wrote most suburbs not ALL suburbs. Po'folks are welcome to seize those section 8 homes. It's the matter of how they use their brains, leave their loved ones or have transportation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1992
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 4:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

I think part of the problem is that few low income residents from the city know about these places. And of those that do many are not willing to move far from friends and family.




And the car thing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5290
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 6:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yep, For it takes a car to tango to one place or another. Po'folks who can afford it can drive it anywhere they want. There are some po'folks who are now living in the suburbs and drive their cars to malls and supermarkets and I was wondering that they used their social security, SSI or welfare checks to do it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ribalda
Member
Username: Ribalda

Post Number: 11
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 9:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

City leadership needs to be changed before anything can be done. The people running Detroit don't know what the hell they are doing. They are into "having" their jobs....not doing them. It's a shame and a waste.

Ribalda
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 555
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 11:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would think that spreading poor out would do little good. There are many facilities located in the central city for the poor.

I would suggest that more churches or religious organizations follow the lead of groups like Salvation Army or Jewish Vocational Services. Get some parishioners from outer places to donate time to help out in the poor areas.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5294
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 10:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ribalda,

THOSE WHO RAN THE CITY OF DETROIT ARE LIKE THE PEOPLE WHO RAN ROME IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE EMPIRE. THOSE PEOPLE ARE HAVING TROUBLE USING THEIR BRAIN CELLS AND MAINTAINING THEIR WISDOM. ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO CHANGE THE COMMUNITY IS TO CHANGE YOURSELVES.

Detroitplanner,

Folks in Oakland County wants to recognize they communities as the richest county in the U.S. Those folks don't want to take any more po'folks that could upset the suburbs for property values. Po'folks are welcome in the suburbs, but they would NOT get treated better from the early start.
Top of pageBottom of page

Themax
Member
Username: Themax

Post Number: 439
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 12:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There used to be something called revenue sharing. Right now rich individuals and corporations are getting richer while there is less money for police and fire departments, schools and hospitals.Just how much of our tax money gets returned to Michigan?
Top of pageBottom of page

Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto

Post Number: 405
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 12:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Having the poor spread out is a great idea.

Toronto did this starting in the 1950's, when the Metropolitan Gov mandated that low income housing be spread across the entire metro area, and not just in the inner city. The METRO HOUSING corporation built low income housing throughout the suburbs.

This created a region where the suburbs and city did not differ much on family incomes, and where we did not have huge amounts of poor in one area. We do have our problems with a couple neighbourhoods that are more low income and have higher crime, but that is mostly in the suburbs now.

But spreading incomes is a great idea and should be done.

I live in a normal middle class neighbourhood full of detached houses, but down the block from me is a low income apartment complexe. Everyone is mixed. And for the most part it works.

But for mixed income in the suburbs to work in Detroit, you have got to get more public transit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5298
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It work for Toronto, but its not going to work in Detroit. Every U.S. major city was set in segregated urban development plan. Houses were built in the inner city a long time ago were for the rich, then it passed to the middle income, the low-income and then the poor. So does RACE. A long time ago, whites used to lived in all the inner cities near downtown then came the immigrants, Blacks, Mexicans, Asians and Hispanics. White folks don't to mingle around with them so they started to move out the inner ring suburbs, but when more immigrants, Blacks, Mexicans, Asians and Hispanics came, They stared to either take action by vandalizing their property or move out further to ex-urban greener pastors.

When I went to Toronto years ago. I saw lots of po'folks in every street corner and freeway/ skyway bridges and most of them are in the inner ring suburbs promote their ill hope to the community. Do you think that bringing the poor to the suburbs will solve their problems? NO! Po'folks a good home, jobs, clothes, food, school and religion. We people of the society have to teach these people how to used their brains and problem solve in order to survive in the Darwinism world. And our world leaders are not thinking about helping po'folks right now. Help the poop from their communities, don't ship them to the suburbs.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.