The dangers of cutting social programs

[Gabriella84]

Exchanging PMs with Mr. Dilloduck reminded me of a speech given by an aquaintance of my cousin Dahlia at the end of 2004. In one of the many minority-dominated enclaves of Los Angeles, state and county officials were holding a town meeting to decide what to do with a parcel of land that once contained a park. Like many inner city parks, there had been no maintenance or improvements for countless years. Rather than invest money for improvements, the government wanted to sell the land to developers. So, instead of benefitting the neighborhood kids, it would produce profits for the developers and revenue for the city.

To oppose the idea, a short speech was given. Which might apply to inner city projects that are being cut throughout the nation. Here is the basic gist.

"Let's examine the two options you have here.
One, you can invest money in rebuilding and revitalizing the park area. Poor children with little else to do will have a place to play and activities to hold their interests. They won't have to play in the street, get into bored fights with each other, or go looking for other trouble.
Two, you can sell the land. Along with the other parks and activity centers you have closed in the last decade. Kids will have no place to go and nothing constructive to do. They will get bored and angry. They will join gangs, produce or buy drugs, and come to your neighborhood to sell the drugs to your kids. They will notice the nice houses and schools you have, along with the nice parks and activity centers you have, but that you took away from them. This is going to make them angry. They are going to break into your house and take all your belongings. Perhaps they'll beat you up and rape your daughters. Sure, you might have a gun or two. You might kill one or two of them. But the others will kill you and the rest of your family, then set your house of fire. When they are finished, they will return to their neighborhood and get high on crack. Because there is nothing else to do.
The choice is yours."

 

[dilloduck]

Exchanging PMs with Mr. Dilloduck reminded me of a speech given by an aquaintance of my cousin Dahlia at the end of 2004. In one of the many minority-dominated enclaves of Los Angeles, state and county officials were holding a town meeting to decide what to do with a parcel of land that once contained a park. Like many inner city parks, there had been no maintenance or improvements for countless years. Rather than invest money for improvements, the government wanted to sell the land to developers. So, instead of benefitting the neighborhood kids, it would produce profits for the developers and revenue for the city.

To oppose the idea, a short speech was given. Which my apply to inner city projects that are being cut throughout the nation. Here is the basic gist.

"Let's examine the two options you have here.
One, you can invest money in rebuilding and revitalizing the park area. Poor children with little else to do will have a place to play and activities to hold their interests. They won't have to play in the street, get into bored fights with each other, or go looking for other trouble.
Two, you can sell the land. Along with the other parks and activity centers you have close in the last decade. Kids will have no place to go and nothing constructive to do. They will get bored and angry. They will join gangs, produce or buy drugs, and come to your neighborhood to sell the drugs to your kids. They will notice the nice houses and schools you have, along with the nice parks and activity centers that you took away from them. This is going to make them angry. They are going to break into your house and take all your belongings. Perhaps they'll beat you up and rape your daughters. Sure, you might have a gun or two. You might kill one or two of them. But the others will kill you and the rest of your family, then set your house of fire. when they are finished, they will return to their neighborhood and get high on crack. Because there is nothing else to do.
The choice is yours."

damn Gabby----pay off kids so they don't kill us???
(don't call me Mr., please)

 

[Shattered]

They will get bored and angry. They will join gangs, produce or buy drugs, and come to your neighborhood to sell the drugs to your kids.

That's what they do IN parks nowadays. Park's aren't going to cut it. Better parenting is a great place to start in an awful lot of cases.. Then, let's get MORE teachers that give a crap about the kids they're supposed to be teaching.

 

[Annie]

Exchanging PMs with Mr. Dilloduck reminded me of a speech given by an aquaintance of my cousin Dahlia at the end of 2004. In one of the many minority-dominated enclaves of Los Angeles, state and county officials were holding a town meeting to decide what to do with a parcel of land that once contained a park. Like many inner city parks, there had been no maintenance or improvements for countless years. Rather than invest money for improvements, the government wanted to sell the land to developers. So, instead of benefitting the neighborhood kids, it would produce profits for the developers and revenue for the city.

To oppose the idea, a short speech was given. Which might apply to inner city projects that are being cut throughout the nation. Here is the basic gist.

"Let's examine the two options you have here.
One, you can invest money in rebuilding and revitalizing the park area. Poor children with little else to do will have a place to play and activities to hold their interests. They won't have to play in the street, get into bored fights with each other, or go looking for other trouble.
Two, you can sell the land. Along with the other parks and activity centers you have closed in the last decade. Kids will have no place to go and nothing constructive to do. They will get bored and angry. They will join gangs, produce or buy drugs, and come to your neighborhood to sell the drugs to your kids. They will notice the nice houses and schools you have, along with the nice parks and activity centers you have, but that you took away from them. This is going to make them angry. They are going to break into your house and take all your belongings. Perhaps they'll beat you up and rape your daughters. Sure, you might have a gun or two. You might kill one or two of them. But the others will kill you and the rest of your family, then set your house of fire. When they are finished, they will return to their neighborhood and get high on crack. Because there is nothing else to do.
The choice is yours."

Ok, so if they build beautiful parks, swimming pools, and nice schools, that will end violent crime? Is that your position or rather the person that gave this 'short speech?'

 

[Said1]

Exchanging PMs with Mr. Dilloduck reminded me of a speech given by an aquaintance of my cousin Dahlia at the end of 2004. In one of the many minority-dominated enclaves of Los Angeles, state and county officials were holding a town meeting to decide what to do with a parcel of land that once contained a park. Like many inner city parks, there had been no maintenance or improvements for countless years. Rather than invest money for improvements, the government wanted to sell the land to developers. So, instead of benefitting the neighborhood kids, it would produce profits for the developers and revenue for the city.

To oppose the idea, a short speech was given. Which might apply to inner city projects that are being cut throughout the nation. Here is the basic gist.

"Let's examine the two options you have here.
One, you can invest money in rebuilding and revitalizing the park area. Poor children with little else to do will have a place to play and activities to hold their interests. They won't have to play in the street, get into bored fights with each other, or go looking for other trouble.
Two, you can sell the land. Along with the other parks and activity centers you have closed in the last decade. Kids will have no place to go and nothing constructive to do. They will get bored and angry. They will join gangs, produce or buy drugs, and come to your neighborhood to sell the drugs to your kids. They will notice the nice houses and schools you have, along with the nice parks and activity centers you have, but that you took away from them. This is going to make them angry. They are going to break into your house and take all your belongings. Perhaps they'll beat you up and rape your daughters. Sure, you might have a gun or two. You might kill one or two of them. But the others will kill you and the rest of your family, then set your house of fire. When they are finished, they will return to their neighborhood and get high on crack. Because there is nothing else to do.
The choice is yours."

Did anyone canvas local business for cash? Is there any kind of yearly event(s) to pay for or contribute to up-keep? Is there any type of community association which would promote the above suggestions and/or come up with others?

Anyway, that's what we do around here. If we waited for the government to do EVERYTHING, nothing would get done. Ever.

 

[GotZoom]

Exchanging PMs with Mr. Dilloduck reminded me of a speech given by an aquaintance of my cousin Dahlia at the end of 2004. In one of the many minority-dominated enclaves of Los Angeles, state and county officials were holding a town meeting to decide what to do with a parcel of land that once contained a park. Like many inner city parks, there had been no maintenance or improvements for countless years. Rather than invest money for improvements, the government wanted to sell the land to developers. So, instead of benefitting the neighborhood kids, it would produce profits for the developers and revenue for the city.

To oppose the idea, a short speech was given. Which might apply to inner city projects that are being cut throughout the nation. Here is the basic gist.

"Let's examine the two options you have here.
One, you can invest money in rebuilding and revitalizing the park area. Poor children with little else to do will have a place to play and activities to hold their interests. They won't have to play in the street, get into bored fights with each other, or go looking for other trouble.
Two, you can sell the land. Along with the other parks and activity centers you have closed in the last decade. Kids will have no place to go and nothing constructive to do. They will get bored and angry. They will join gangs, produce or buy drugs, and come to your neighborhood to sell the drugs to your kids. They will notice the nice houses and schools you have, along with the nice parks and activity centers you have, but that you took away from them. This is going to make them angry. They are going to break into your house and take all your belongings. Perhaps they'll beat you up and rape your daughters. Sure, you might have a gun or two. You might kill one or two of them. But the others will kill you and the rest of your family, then set your house of fire. When they are finished, they will return to their neighborhood and get high on crack. Because there is nothing else to do.
The choice is yours."

Let's don't forget option 3.

Require parents to do their job. Require parents to instil a sense of responsibility in their child. Require parents to be parents.

If parents teach their children to respect people, property, and most importantly, themselves, a lot of the things that parks will give the children will take care of themselves. If parents teach their children these things, then gangs, trouble, etc....won't happen.

Put the responsibility back where it belongs - the parents. Instead, this speech is blaming society, government and big business.

 

[Said1]

Let's don't forget option 3.

Require parents to do their job. Require parents to instil a sense of responsibility in their child. Require parents to be parents.

If parents teach their children to respect people, property, and most importantly, themselves, a lot of the things that parks will give the children will take care of themselves. If parents teach their children these things, then gangs, trouble, etc....won't happen.

Put the responsibility back where it belongs - the parents. Instead, this speech is blaming society, government and big business.

That would work. Might cost less too.

 

[dilloduck]

That would work. Might cost less too.

How do you force parents to do that?

 

[Shattered]

By not giving them crutches like new parks to shove their kids off to so they don't have to watch them. Maybe make it a requirement that kids under a certain age be required to be with their parents while at said parks. The youngest ages are the most impressionable.

 

[Said1]

How do you force parents to do that?

I'm still trying to figure out how to get my daughter NOT to think for herself.

The cat is showing signs of critical thinking too. Mind control doesn't appear to be my niche, send help if you don't hear from me for awhile.

 

[dilloduck]

By not giving them crutches like new parks to shove their kids off to so they don't have to watch them. Maybe make it a requirement that kids under a certain age be required to be with their parents while at said parks. The youngest ages are the most impressionable.

ahhhhh laws to force peole to be good parents---great idea!!! Could we fine them too?

 

[Shattered]

ahhhhh laws to force peole to be good parents---great idea!!! Could we fine them too?

You're quick to shoot others' suggestions down - what's yours?

 

[archangel]

How do you force parents to do that?

You should have figured your own question out....Maybe sentence the offending parent along with the offending child to attend "Boot Camp" together....this way they could hold each others hand as they are being verbally assaulted on a daily basis...I'm pretty sure the parent would put the brakes on shortly thereafter! :spank3:

 

[Gabriella84]

How are you going to FORCE people to be "better parents?"
Most single parents have to work. Sometimes multiple jobs. Very few two-parent ethnic households have two incomes. Too many jobs exported.
Everybody likes to point to Latino and black kids selling drugs. But who are they selling it to? White kids with disposable incomes. Where are THEIR "better parents?"

 

[Gabriella84]

I'm still trying to figure out how to get my daughter NOT to think for herself.

Why would you want to discourage your kids from thinking for themselves?

 

[Annie]

Why would you want to discourage your kids from thinking for themselves?

Why don't you answer questions, like about the parks, schools, and swimming pools?

 

[dilloduck]

You're quick to shoot others' suggestions down - what's yours?

Just some critical thinking--please don't take offense and zap me---personally I think things will only change on a one to one level of honest personal sharing and there's no way to force that either. It'll either happen or it won't. If I feel stongly enough that something should be fixed, I should get off my ass, quit bitchin and get to work.

 

[GotZoom]

AA had the right idea. Parent Teacher conferences where parents have to attend. If kids miss school, the parents get in trouble too. Yes, you can enact laws to do this.

It would take a conscious effort from everybody in society to make this work. Employers would understand that parents must attend these conferences, etc.

I promise that if mom and/or dad have to miss work (and not get paid for those hours/day) because junior cut class of didn't do his homework, it wouldn't happen that often.

Instead of throwing money at the problem by building a park, let's figure out a way to make the parents be parents.

 

[Shattered]

Just some critical thinking--please don't take offense and zap me---personally I think things will only change on a one to one level of honest personal sharing and there's no way to force that either. It'll either happen or it won't. If I feel stongly enough that something should be fixed, I should get off my ass, quit bitchin and get to work.

Wouldn't that be the equivalent of my statement that parents should take responsibility FOR their kids, rather than just shoving them off on some park?

 

[Said1]

Why would you want to discourage your kids from thinking for themselves?

Why would you think I was serious?

My daughter is 7 and could negotiate her way out of a tornado. :funnyface