Why arent inner cities utopias?

[The ClayTaurus]

As the population of productive tax paying citizens decreases you are left with an overpopulation of people that can't support themselves and depend on others(mostly government) to take care of them. The ones that stay in those areas control who is elected as mayor and tend to vote for people that look like they do and ignore the fact that they aren't qualified to be a dog catcher(New Orleans the last 30 years).

I partially agree. Funding for things like schools also suffers, snowballing the problem. You are right about voting patterns, however. In Detroit, they re-elected someone who willfully admitted to stealing from the city.

They bring it on themselves. They rob the people that pay the bills so the bill payers go somewhere they feel safer. They are then stuck robbing themselves or driving to where the bill payers went to to try to rob them there. The first sign that you better leave an area that was safe and pleasant to live in is when city bus service gets there. After that happens it is only a matter of time before that area sucks too.

I entirely disagree about city bus service. Chicago, Washington DC, and New York all have city bus service through the best parts of town. Unless Georgetown is not a pleasant/safe place to live?

 

[Avatar4321]

I partially agree. Funding for things like schools also suffers, snowballing the problem. You are right about voting patterns, however. In Detroit, they re-elected someone who willfully admitted to stealing from the city.

Dont even get me on Philadelphia's "honorable" mayor...

I do want to comment on one thing. I dont disagree that schools need funding, but i object to the idea that the only way to get education is if we spend tons of money on education. We spend so much money as it is right now, its not the funding thats the problem. its the culture devaluing education. You can spend as much as you want but that doesnt necessarily mean people are going to be any more educated

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Dont even get me on Philadelphia's "honorable" mayor...

I do want to comment on one thing. I dont disagree that schools need funding, but i object to the idea that the only way to get education is if we spend tons of money on education. We spend so much money as it is right now, its not the funding thats the problem. its the culture devaluing education. You can spend as much as you want but that doesnt necessarily mean people are going to be any more educated

It's cyclical. The kids suck because the schools suck because the kids suck because the schools suck. Schools marginalize children's education so that they'll specifically test better so the school will get some sort of funding bonus. Inner city schools need more than just money and more than just "the right attitude." They need both. They have neither.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's cyclical. The kids suck because the schools suck because the kids suck because the schools suck. Schools marginalize children's education so that they'll specifically test better so the school will get some sort of funding bonus. Inner city schools need more than just money and more than just "the right attitude." They need both. They have neither.

I disagree. Kids suck because parents suck. If they had parents that instill the value of education in them it doesnt matter how much the schools are being funded, the child will learn

 

[glockmail]

It's the structure of our big cities. ....

Gotcha.

 

[glockmail]

....

I do want to comment on one thing. I dont disagree that schools need funding, but i object to the idea that the only way to get education is if we spend tons of money on education. We spend so much money as it is right now, its not the funding thats the problem. its the culture devaluing education. You can spend as much as you want but that doesnt necessarily mean people are going to be any more educated

DC has the highest per student spending and is one of the worst performing school districts. Money obviously is not the problem.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

DC has the highest per student spending and is one of the worst performing school districts. Money obviously is not the problem.

That in no way proves your statement. It merely proves that money is not the only problem.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I disagree. Kids suck because parents suck. If they had parents that instill the value of education in them it doesnt matter how much the schools are being funded, the child will learn

Parents certainly play a roll. Cuts to school funding do as well.

 

[trobinett]

When schools moved away from teaching the 3R's, and handing out corporal punishment for misbehaving, the quality of education started to fall like a lead balloon. Not only in the inter-city, but across this great nation.

The teachers today, are MUCH better educated, and more "driven" to perform, that teachers of the past. Yet, the performance of students continue to fall.

Parents ARE at fault, to a degree, that yet has been touched on.

Parents set the policy's of a school district, within lose State guidelines. If parents feel, that its important to teach music, to have a complete sports program, to offer numerous day trips to different off campus sites, then these get added to the curriculum, via the school board, which is elected by those same parents.

If parents aren't proactive, and don't bother to become involved in school activities, then the school board, and the school administration have no direction, and just play it safe. The teachers suffer, the students suffer, and the schools in that district suffer, and finally, the community suffers.

As a school board member, it was always enjoyable to look up, and see the auditorium filled with parents. THIS is how you know what the community wants.

When a community starts to make a recovery, and crime drops, home values go up, and building starts climb, at the root is the schools, believe it...

 

[glockmail]

That in no way proves your statement. It merely proves that money is not the only problem.

So WTF is your problem?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So WTF is your problem?

No problem other than your faulty logic. It's nothing new.

Furthermore, where did you get that statistic about DC students?

 

[glockmail]

No problem other than your faulty logic. It's nothing new.

Furthermore, where did you get that statistic about DC students?

I'm still waiting for you to come down here and say what you said earlier to my face. So until you do you can cut the crap about "faulty logic", and instead focus on getting yourself ready, little boy.

 

[Eightball]

you may disagree with SF's Politics however it is a very liveable walkable city
and right downtown....

I can tell that you don't live in or near S.F. or you wouldn't say "walkable" city. One of the most unsafe parts of that town is right down by City Hall. Us folks who live in the "burbs" used to love visiting S.F. to attend a nice broadway musical, but your taking your life in your hands down around the Civic center/City Hall area if you even park your car at a garage and attempt to walk to a theater at night. People are mugged, pee'd on, harrassed etc, by street people. You need to arrange a taxi from parking garage to show and back or your just plain stupid with your personal life.
*****
S.F. is also running in the "red" yearly. The Castro Street/Gay community had one big old mass shooting on Halloween, that left many injured. The Tender Loin district is something else too.
*****
Sure S.F. has a pretty good transit set-up for those who live there and work in the city, but it's far from safe to walk many of the streets of S.F..
***
The mainline cruise industries are gradually closing up they're S.F. destination and port locations there too. Up until the 1950's, all the major cruise ship lines used S.F.'s port for major voyages to the orient etc. It's all gone now. Oakland, across the bay, has all the containerized cargo work, S.F. has none......
***
The City of S.F. is not business friendly......and it is fast losing it's tourist trade.
***
Radical, envirowackos, liberals, cultural weidos, ....you name it run or lobby the city. Only the S.F. police, and fire fighters are reputable parts of that city government.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Well you know I disagree with that. The only "environment" that counts is the people who surround you, and that just gets us back to... who lives there. The arguments of liberals on this are so circular. They'll always say that there are so many "bad examples" in the inner city... but who's setting those "bad examples"?

Yes, but in Britain for example, their inner-city shitholes are filled with trashy whites. They refer to them as townies, NEDs, chavs, etc.

There are many reasons for the state of american cities. Most all of them have to do with big government.

1) Welfare: It's a bad idea for government bureaucrats to pay people to not work. You can't weed out the bums from the needy when you don't even know them like the rest of the community does. When charity was handled by volunteer groups back in the day, their primary focus was instilling virtues of thrift, sobriety, and hard work, and integrating them back into productive society. Government bureaucrats have every incentive to not do that; reducing the numbers of the poor reduces the perceived need for their services. And besides that, when you give someone a check for being unemployed, it's only for being unemployed in the above-ground economy. They can still sell drugs while collecting their checks.

For more on this, I highly recommend the book The Tragedy of American Compassion. It's a detailed account of how charity used to work in america, and what happened to change it for the worse.

2) Public housing: aka, criminal breeding facilities. You effectively segregate people from the greater society, and cram them into concrete bunkers. They are cut off from learning good habits from productive people, and see only the bad habits of those around them.

3) The war on drugs: It creates a teriffic opportunity for people to earn money without working hard. Arrests also stain people's resumes if they want to gain productive employment.

4) Minimum wage laws, payroll taxes, inflation: The first two serve to restrict entry-level employment, which is necessary to move up. Inflation is a stealth flat tax which hurts working people and benefits people with appreciating assets. It also changes the time preferences of people; they tend to persue short-sighted endeavors rather than think long-term.

5) Property taxes and other tax incentives: Keeping your property looking nice means you pay higher taxes. Thus we see land in the middle of cities that should be prime real estate, laying unused, or being used as parking lots. Other tax incentives reward shitty disposeable 1-story buildings. Looking at aerial views of modern american cities, you'd think it was america that got bombed into smithereens in WWII instead of Germany.

6) Post-WWII government policy: After WWII, the attitude of local, state, and federal governments towards road building and development changed. Neighborhoods that were poor but cohesive were pushed out by government road builders to built superhighways. This ruined the urban environment and then provided a great way to escape, for those who could afford it. Those who couldn't, well...you see the same issue with public housing, poor people isolated from the more successful people in society.

Other government policies: Government has made car ownership nearly mandatory, hurting the poor. They mandate low-density development, and they forbid mixed-use zoning (apartments on top of retail, which used to be common), thus increasing the cost of housing. Try and find people crying for the need for affordable housing or public housing before the 30's, you won't find it.

It's really a fascinating topic, if you want to read more check out Suburban Nation or Geography of Nowhere. Yeah, some of it was left-ish, but I was really suprised to see how much of it was a rant against government, particularly centralized government.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm still waiting for you to come down here and say what you said earlier to my face. So until you do you can cut the crap about "faulty logic", and instead focus on getting yourself ready, little boy.

I'm happy you found an answer that you can use to avoid the current subject, no matter what it is.

So... about that stat... where did you get it? Your ass?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

The mainline cruise industries are gradually closing up they're S.F. destination and port locations there too. Up until the 1950's, all the major cruise ship lines used S.F.'s port for major voyages to the orient etc. It's all gone now. Oakland, across the bay, has all the containerized cargo work, S.F. has none......

That's because the land in Oakland is cheaper.

 

[trobinett]

That's because the land in Oakland is cheaper.

That may be PART of it, but tax's, and the community play a part as well.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

That may be PART of it, but tax's, and the community play a part as well.

Taxes sure, but the community in no way plays any role in where a shipyard puts its facilities. They could care less. Wherever the cheapest place to be is, that's where they'll set up shop.

 

[glockmail]

I'm happy you found an answer that you can use to avoid the current subject, no matter what it is.

So... about that stat... where did you get it? Your ass?

When a bug hits my windshield and has no effect on my forward progress or comfort I feel the same way about it as I do about you.

 

[trobinett]

Taxes sure, but the community in no way plays any role in where a shipyard puts its facilities. They could care less. Wherever the cheapest place to be is, that's where they'll set up shop.

Awww, but "cheapest place" could be determined by the communities involvement.

Those places in the South that have competed against each other for foreign assembly plants, have seen the community's involvement as the determining factor.