Now we have two posters proposing ghettos as solutions? This is starting to seriously creep me out.
I'm not sure what problems my proposal would share with typical ghetto-related problems.
If you'd prefer not to talk about my tangent, that's cool. Declining to "talk about" it while sniping at it isn't cool.
It wasn't meant as a snipe. Restricting minorities to live in a certain area is the definition of a ghetto. I wasn't trying to outline the problems associated with it or anything (although I was for SKFM). I was merely very, very surprised that two different posters were seriously proposing ghettos (although for different groups) on the same page of the same thread. It simply shocked me. That's all.
You used the phrase "creep me out".
It hurt my feelings.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally. But if we are providing a class of people (the poor) with all or most of their resources, why not demand that they be used efficiently? I'm not advocating a ghetto at all. I am advocating a way for us to actually provide high quality services to the poor in a practical way. Everyone wins.
Dude. Seriously. This has been tried. Concentrating poverty has horrendous effects.
Why couldn't it work? Seriously, explain the problem with it as a theoretical matter, assuming that we actually devote resources to providing the services.
Noone will like this idea, but wouldn't "reservations" for the poor actually be really good? You could make people live in efficient, high density housing with a small, easily maintained mass transit system, you would have a smaller number of schools which would make it easier to improve them, and in general, it would make the provision of high quality services to them much more viable.
you're talking about segregating people based on their wealth
literally government-mandated ghettoes
While skfm isn't proposing a ghetto (its not a ghetto if there is easy, cheap transport to places that aren't in the ghetto) the idea of income segregated housing has been tried multiple times by many countries, including the US. The problem is that while it concentrates the people, and WOULD make it easier to deliver services it also concentrates the problems. Now, the drug dealers and violent criminals have every incentive to increase their influence in the area, but conversely the government has every incentive to pull all those extra services which were the entire reason for creating the area since there are no rich people in the area to complain effectively about its problems. Then of course in the next step the area becomes so bad that the rich white folk outside it start pulling funding for the transit links the people there need to even be able to get jobs... Which then turns it into a proper ghetto.
What is really needed is for richer people to move out of the suburbs and back into the cities, and for commuter rail and buses to vastly expand so more areas become viable for people living without cars. If rich people also live in our high density area, then we get the best of all worlds. And then the area becomes too expensive for the poor people.... But thats why we need the public transit, so there are so many nice liveable areas that they cant ALL become unreasonably expensive.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Noone will like this idea, but wouldn't "reservations" for the poor actually be really good? You could make people live in efficient, high density housing with a small, easily maintained mass transit system, you would have a smaller number of schools which would make it easier to improve them, and in general, it would make the provision of high quality services to them much more viable.
you're talking about segregating people based on their wealth
literally government-mandated ghettoes
While skfm isn't proposing a ghetto (its not a ghetto if there is easy, cheap transport to places that aren't in the ghetto) the idea of income segregated housing has been tried multiple times by many countries, including the US. The problem is that while it concentrates the people, and WOULD make it easier to deliver services it also concentrates the problems. Now, the drug dealers and violent criminals have every incentive to increase their influence in the area, but conversely the government has every incentive to pull all those extra services which were the entire reason for creating the area since there are no rich people in the area to complain effectively about its problems. Then of course in the next step the area becomes so bad that the rich white folk outside it start pulling funding for the transit links the people there need to even be able to get jobs... Which then turns it into a proper ghetto.
What is really needed is for richer people to move out of the suburbs and back into the cities, and for commuter rail and buses to vastly expand so more areas become viable for people living without cars. If rich people also live in our high density area, then we get the best of all worlds. And then the area becomes too expensive for the poor people.... But thats why we need the public transit, so there are so many nice liveable areas that they cant ALL become unreasonably expensive.
Why couldn't you just have really vigorous law enforcement efforts in those areas?
I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally. But if we are providing a class of people (the poor) with all or most of their resources, why not demand that they be used efficiently? I'm not advocating a ghetto at all. I am advocating a way for us to actually provide high quality services to the poor in a practical way. Everyone wins.
Dude. Seriously. This has been tried. Concentrating poverty has horrendous effects.
Why couldn't it work? Seriously, explain the problem with it as a theoretical matter, assuming that we actually devote resources to providing the services.
Poor people don't get great representation or service provision in America. Among other problems, your assumption that we actually devote resources to providing the services is something that we shouldn't assume.
If America provided a good package of services - education, policing, welfare, healthcare, whatever, etc - to poor people, there would be fewer poor people.
I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally.
Unless they are of course poor.
Look SKFM, aside from the fact that you're just proposing a ghetto, what you're advocating I can get behind in it's intention to provide people with good stuff but we sort of want to do away with segregating people and creating all kinds of stereotypes.
Even if the camps are really nice, it's still putting people in camps.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Why would cost be an issue? Oppression I don't understand (noone said they must live there, that's just where the services are). Corruption, I don't see why it should be a bigger problem here than any other community.
Noone will like this idea, but wouldn't "reservations" for the poor actually be really good? You could make people live in efficient, high density housing with a small, easily maintained mass transit system, you would have a smaller number of schools which would make it easier to improve them, and in general, it would make the provision of high quality services to them much more viable.
you're talking about segregating people based on their wealth
literally government-mandated ghettoes
While skfm isn't proposing a ghetto
It's a ghetto according to Wikipedia.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally.
Unless they are of course poor.
Look SKFM, aside from the fact that you're just proposing a ghetto, what you're advocating I can get behind in it's intention to provide people with good stuff but we sort of want to do away with segregating people and creating all kinds of stereotypes.
Even if the camps are really nice, it's still putting people in camps.
But if they had access to good schools, better nutrition, extra curricular activities, intramural sports, etc., then in a generation I'd think we'd have a lot fewer people who need to live in this type of community.
Also, I'm not saying we should force them to live there. That's just where the services will be.
Why would cost be an issue? Oppression I don't understand (noone said they must live there, that's just where the services are). Corruption, I don't see why it should be a bigger problem here than any other community.
Cost is an issue for the same reason that the people with power and influence don't like to see their taxes spent on poor inner-city schools. Corruption is an issue because you're concentrating the crime. Oppression is an issue because you will turn the local population against you with 'vigorous enforcement' and the inevitable corruption.
Honestly, I don't even understand why this needs explaining. Projects have literally been tried. There's a reason we do subsidized housing in mixed income neighborhoods now.
I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally.
Unless they are of course poor.
Look SKFM, aside from the fact that you're just proposing a ghetto, what you're advocating I can get behind in it's intention to provide people with good stuff but we sort of want to do away with segregating people and creating all kinds of stereotypes.
Even if the camps are really nice, it's still putting people in camps.
But if they had access to good schools, better nutrition, extra curricular activities, intramural sports, etc., then in a generation I'd think we'd have a lot fewer people who need to live in this type of community.
Also, I'm not saying we should force them to live there. That's just where the services will be.
Why couldn't you just provide that shit without putting people in those projects?
Like, inner-city Detroit is already that for a lot of people except the nice things. If you just relocate a few people from the most abandoned streets and then put in all those services you got it.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally.
Unless they are of course poor.
Look SKFM, aside from the fact that you're just proposing a ghetto, what you're advocating I can get behind in it's intention to provide people with good stuff but we sort of want to do away with segregating people and creating all kinds of stereotypes.
Even if the camps are really nice, it's still putting people in camps.
But if they had access to good schools, better nutrition, extra curricular activities, intramural sports, etc., then in a generation I'd think we'd have a lot fewer people who need to live in this type of community.
Also, I'm not saying we should force them to live there. That's just where the services will be.
Why couldn't you just provide that shit without putting people in those projects?
Like, inner-city Detroit is already that for a lot of people except the nice things. If you just relocate a few people from the most abandoned streets and then put in all those services you got it.
I think that would be a great idea. Do we think that anyone will actually consider relocating people? Its an interesting problem having a city that is literally too big for its population. . .
Visa thing is dumb and only exacerbates issues. This country and Detroit have many issues but a labor supply isn't one of them.
As I see it, if you had a sensible manager and adequate resources. The way to save Detroit would as follows:
PHASE 1
-Consolidate the city. Buy out the people in the areas that are decaying and don't have a large enough population to justify providing services too. Would probably help them if the city offered to move them to areas that are being kept for free.
-Level the parts of the city that aren't being used.
-Try to recoup costs from the consolidation by selling off any scrap from level structures or that was lying around that is worth selling. Look at land on the outer fringes of the city, that has been cleared and consider selling that off.
PHASE 2 (could be started before phase 1 is completed)
-Modernize the core that is being kept.
-Get good transportation infrastructure that includes top notch public transit. This allows for the flow of goods and labor. If done right, the public transit should keep congestion from becoming an issue.
-Broadband, I'm willing to bet the infrastructure for this in Detroit is crap. From what I've seen this is one of the better ways to attract businesses because this is now an asset that will determine if they set up shop or not. A city isn't going to be sustainable if there aren't lots of jobs and have the infrastructure to support a business goes a long way to achieving that (even if it ends up being a call center, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing).
This would probably take more than five years and there is no guarantee that Detroit will ever be able to claw its way back to what it was, but it could probably keep the core sustainable and result in the population growing rather than shrinking. Really thinking about it, Detroit would be a good test bed to revitalize declining cities because it doesn't make any sense to let cities spring up and then rot away (it takes resources to build them and we also the whole issue that they use of land that could be better used for farming or as a nature reserve [could double as a carbon sink]).
As I said earlier. I just don't see Snyder appointing someone that will run thing intelligently. They'll likely sell off everything that can be sold, thus leaving the city in worse shape. Find a way to fuck over the residents when it comes to elections because the current GOP game here seems to be to fuck those that don't vote for them out of the vote, rather than adopting more palatable stances (fuck social conservatives). On top of that, any fix is going to be a long term investment. The GOP and many current business types are fucking terrible at doing long term projects that have a hefty up front price tag and yield slow returns because they'd rather have invest in short term set ups that are fuck ass long term.
I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally.
Unless they are of course poor.
Look SKFM, aside from the fact that you're just proposing a ghetto, what you're advocating I can get behind in it's intention to provide people with good stuff but we sort of want to do away with segregating people and creating all kinds of stereotypes.
Even if the camps are really nice, it's still putting people in camps.
But if they had access to good schools, better nutrition, extra curricular activities, intramural sports, etc., then in a generation I'd think we'd have a lot fewer people who need to live in this type of community.
Also, I'm not saying we should force them to live there. That's just where the services will be.
It doesn't work. You can't mandate that people become better and more successful, and apart from 'better schools', none of the rest of that is really the sort of thing that will change a culture. The nature of the concentrated problems defeat any attempt to solve them. You can see it in various forms in every major metro area in the country.
The better, far better and more successful solution is to tear down these sorts of insular communities and force the people within to spread out, scattering hopefully in a wide dispersal throughout your neighborhoods. That way they individually get their behavior influenced by more successful people around them while you're providing the services they need to be successful on their own. They learn new, better habits because they have their needs met while their kids are surrounded by examples of how to succeed, rather than by people who for whatever (good or bad) reason are failing.
For once you are right, if you force the rich whities from the the suburbs and back into Detroit (and other failing cities) it certainly would solve a lot of the problems
Shall I drive around South East MI photographing the highly efficient super dense housing we've tried? I used to drive by some of them on the way to work every day!
Some of them haven't even burned down! Actually, last I saw they were gutting them, but I'm not sure if it was to repair or to demolish the towers.
Visa thing is dumb and only exacerbates issues. This country and Detroit have many issues but a labor supply isn't one of them.
You don't believe that a location-specific supply of STEMish people would encourage investment?
That's interesting.
I think it's dumb because it doesn't really address the core issue. You're solution assumes those visa students will someone encourage enough investment to offset all the jobs lost to outsourcing. I'm pretty sure it won't (I also don't buy that we don't have enough STEM graduates, but that's a different topic). High employment leads to a higher crime rate and a higher crime rate makes certain companies less willing to set up shop in the area. Any solution to Detroit's problems will have to do something that brings down the unemployment rate by providing jobs that can be filled in with unused labor supply that is already present.
Elected representatives do unpopular shit; voters punish them.
...And how do you do that when the state tells you that your ballot isn't worth anything? They tried to vote out what was unpopular (in this case it was a law rather than a person, but people went to the ballot box to 'decide' the matter), and the state said, "Nah, we don't like the result of that election," and acted against the public interest.
Even if you want to say, "Well, the voters were wrong," you can't exactly make an appeal to democracy when the democratic process was shelved in favor of what Snyder wanted done.
For once you are right, if you force the rich whities from the the suburbs and back into Detroit (and other failing cities) it certainly would solve a lot of the problems
"Punish the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie" is not a sound strategy for improving the lot of Detroit's lumpen.
In it's stead, you have twisted the concept of planned integration to the breaking point and proven yourself quite the goose.
Visa thing is dumb and only exacerbates issues. This country and Detroit have many issues but a labor supply isn't one of them.
You don't believe that a location-specific supply of STEMish people would encourage investment?
That's interesting.
I think it's dumb because it doesn't really address the core issue. You're solution assumes those visa students will someone encourage enough investment to offset all the jobs lost to outsourcing. I'm pretty sure it won't (I also don't buy that we don't have enough STEM graduates, but that's a different topic). High employment leads to a higher crime rate and a higher crime rate makes certain companies less willing to set up shop in the area. Any solution to Detroit's problems will have to do something that brings down the unemployment rate by providing jobs that can be filled in with unused labor supply that is already present.
1) I said nothing about students.
2) I assume you mean *un*employment.
3) I don't think I made any explicit assumptions about outsourcing. I definitely said this would be "one potential aspect" of a solution; I'm not assuming this would be sufficient to fix everything.
4) Do you think that we have JUST ENOUGH STEM graduates or TOO MANY STEM graduates? If you don't buy that we could use more STEMpeople, you're in one of those other camps. I think both of those are absurd camps to be in, but maybe I misunderstand. Please elaborate.
5a) My argument is that local availability of STEMpeople would encourage local investment. People working in Detroit will increase demand for other things in Detroit.
5b) You seem to be that the amount of jobs available is static. That it doesn't fluxuate with the number and nature of potential laborers. The amount of jobs available is not static. But again, maybe I misread you . Please clarify.
"Punish the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie" is not a sound strategy for improving the lot of Detroit's lumpen.
Realistically, solving Detroit's problems would probably require a time machine and the ability to magically convince lawmakers in the late 80s that allowing General Motors to rob the Michigan area is/was unacceptable (that, or magically convince people to stay away from the apparent boom in the region / ignore the shrewd advertising paid for by GM). I don't know how a city in a capitalist state with a very laissez-faire bent is supposed to 'recover' after having:
a) lost most of it's wealth
b) lost most of it's ability to accrue more wealth
c) gained a reputation as a refuge for criminals / deadbeats
Detroit will probably look the way it does for as long as the American project continues.
Elected representatives do unpopular shit; voters punish them.
...And how do you do that when the state tells you that your ballot isn't worth anything?
I must have missed the bombshell news that Snyder can't be voted out of office.
This is embarassing. That's kind of a big thing to have missed. I thought I was on top of this sort of thing.
Isn't it fucking hilarious how our democratically elected representatives have some kind of inherent superdemocracy which allows them to contradict democratic decisions, bypass all checks on their power, and then make choices which permanently affect an unwilling constituency and may lead to their leaving the state and ceasing to be constituents, thereby further strengthening their own illegal grasp on power?
Elected representatives do unpopular shit; voters punish them.
...And how do you do that when the state tells you that your ballot isn't worth anything?
I must have missed the bombshell news that Snyder can't be voted out of office.
This is embarassing. That's kind of a big thing to have missed. I thought I was on top of this sort of thing.
Why are you intentionally missing the obvious context here? Nobody is saying Snyder cannot be voted out of office.
Also, the EMF can and likely will cause irreparable damage to the city of Detroit through the sale of public utilities/services to private interests. So the whole "Just vote him out of office" schtick gets old when by the time that option becomes feasible the damage will have been done.
And I do feel the need to point out that Snyder campaigned on, if I'm not mistaken, exactly 0 of the hugely important things he has done as Governor. In some cases he has promised to do just the opposite! IRT Right to Work.
So please excuse Michigan residents for being a bit prickly on this. I do not mean to say that last bit snarkily, we are an ordinarily cynical bunch and this past year has only worsened our condition.
Elected representatives do unpopular shit; voters punish them.
...And how do you do that when the state tells you that your ballot isn't worth anything?
I must have missed the bombshell news that Snyder can't be voted out of office.
This is embarassing. That's kind of a big thing to have missed. I thought I was on top of this sort of thing.
Why are you intentionally missing the obvious context here? Nobody is saying Snyder cannot be voted out of office.
Also, the EMF can and likely will cause irreparable damage to the city of Detroit through the sale of public utilities/services to private interests. So the whole "Just vote him out of office" schtick gets old when by the time that option becomes feasible the damage will have been done.
And I do feel the need to point out that Snyder campaigned on, if I'm not mistaken, exactly 0 of the hugely important things he has done as Governor. In some cases he has promised to do just the opposite! IRT Right to Work.
So please excuse Michigan residents for being a bit prickly on this. I do not mean to say that last bit snarkily, we are an ordinarily cynical bunch and this past year has only worsened our condition.
I'm not sure how else to interpret "...your ballot isn't worth anything".
One of the dangers of representative democracy is that your representative who you vote for screw you and lie to you. The built-in protection is that you vote them out of office when they screw you. Damage getting done is part of the problem of government generally. The answer is still "vote him out of office".
Someone will eventually realize just how good and cheap the land is in Detroit and they will relocate there, causing further gentrification at the price of reviving a major American city.
I'm not sure how else to interpret "...your ballot isn't worth anything".
Michigan residents went to vote on a law that was proposed to them, voted against that law, and the governor (effectively) tossed-out the election result. What is the problem with this interpretation?
That's election fraud. It doesn't matter that it wasn't Snyder's own election that was ignored, and it's nonsensical to claim that because Snyder was fairly elected, every other election that happens underneath him is thereby somehow valid even if the public is not only ignored, but outright acted against on a proposal. If you want to do that kind of regression, you could invalidate just about any election right on up to the PoTUS (if the state governor were forced into place by the Federal government, ignoring election results, you could just say, "Hey, tough shit; should've voted a different President into office,")
People were offered an opportunity to participate in the democratic process and then roundly betrayed when their interests didn't meet that of the state. I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable, and I don't care if the man who did it was the victor of a prior election. At the very, very least, people should not have been presented with a law under false pretenses that they had a legally binding say in whether or not it would be implemented.
And one of the built in protections of Michigan's constitution is that in the event that a representative passes a law that is unpopular it can be repealed with a majority vote. This happened and was invalidated by legal maneuvering. It is in this way that the ballots of Michigan's people were rendered worthless. The people had their say and it meant absolutely nothing.
Some asshole "representative" invalidated Michigan's hard won popular vote. The Oregon System is under attack!
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure how else to interpret "...your ballot isn't worth anything".
Michigan residents went to vote on a law that was proposed to them, voted against that law, and the governor (effectively) tossed-out the election result. What is the problem with this interpretation?
That's election fraud. It doesn't matter that it wasn't Snyder's own election that was ignored, and it's nonsensical to claim that because Snyder was fairly elected, every other election that happens underneath him is thereby somehow valid even if the public is not only ignored, but outright acted against on a proposal. If you want to do that kind of regression, you could invalidate just about any election right on up to the PoTUS (if the state governor were forced into place by the Federal government, ignoring election results, you could just say, "Hey, tough shit; should've voted a different President into office,")
People were offered an opportunity to participate in the democratic process and then roundly betrayed when their interests didn't meet that of the state. I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable, and I don't care if the man who did it was the victor of a prior election. At the very, very least, people should not have been presented with a law under false pretenses that they had a legally binding say in whether or not it would be implemented.
THIS. Godammit, THIS, so much.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Visa thing is dumb and only exacerbates issues. This country and Detroit have many issues but a labor supply isn't one of them.
You don't believe that a location-specific supply of STEMish people would encourage investment?
That's interesting.
I think it's dumb because it doesn't really address the core issue. You're solution assumes those visa students will someone encourage enough investment to offset all the jobs lost to outsourcing. I'm pretty sure it won't (I also don't buy that we don't have enough STEM graduates, but that's a different topic). High employment leads to a higher crime rate and a higher crime rate makes certain companies less willing to set up shop in the area. Any solution to Detroit's problems will have to do something that brings down the unemployment rate by providing jobs that can be filled in with unused labor supply that is already present.
1) I said nothing about students.
2) I assume you mean *un*employment.
3) I don't think I made any explicit assumptions about outsourcing. I definitely said this would be "one potential aspect" of a solution; I'm not assuming this would be sufficient to fix everything.
4) Do you think that we have JUST ENOUGH STEM graduates or TOO MANY STEM graduates? If you don't buy that we could use more STEMpeople, you're in one of those other camps. I think both of those are absurd camps to be in, but maybe I misunderstand. Please elaborate.
5a) My argument is that local availability of STEMpeople would encourage local investment. People working in Detroit will increase demand for other things in Detroit.
5b) You seem to be that the amount of jobs available is static. That it doesn't fluxuate with the number and nature of potential laborers. The amount of jobs available is not static. But again, maybe I misread you . Please clarify.
I'm not saying the jobs are static. I'm saying you have lots of people with the skill set that would get them work at the assembly line of a factory. These people aren't programmers, I don't think many of them could switch tracks to programming if they even wanted to. Bringing in tons of programmers might bring in some business, but that won't bring in enough jobs to make use of all the unused labor. There's a reason I mentioned call centers with the broadband bit of my last post. Yeah, a call center job is shit, but a call center could probably make use of most of the unused labor with minimal training. The hope is with the broadband fix, that maybe some company will say "well they've got state of the art internet infrastructure, adequate labor and there are a few old unutilized factories that could either be refurbished or outright replaced with new factories (don't need to lobby for rezoning of any sort). So why not set up shop and bring back some of our manufacturing stateside to this area." When unemployment is the issue, you have to address it with solutions that get those unemployed people work. Not this visa thing that would do jack shit to address Detroit's current unemployment issue (what's it at currently, last I saw it was over 15%).
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
This is not fraud. It is a reason to vote against him though, and better yet, it is a reason to vote for someone who campaigns in closing the loophole.
Posts
You used the phrase "creep me out".
It hurt my feelings.
Why couldn't it work? Seriously, explain the problem with it as a theoretical matter, assuming that we actually devote resources to providing the services.
While skfm isn't proposing a ghetto (its not a ghetto if there is easy, cheap transport to places that aren't in the ghetto) the idea of income segregated housing has been tried multiple times by many countries, including the US. The problem is that while it concentrates the people, and WOULD make it easier to deliver services it also concentrates the problems. Now, the drug dealers and violent criminals have every incentive to increase their influence in the area, but conversely the government has every incentive to pull all those extra services which were the entire reason for creating the area since there are no rich people in the area to complain effectively about its problems. Then of course in the next step the area becomes so bad that the rich white folk outside it start pulling funding for the transit links the people there need to even be able to get jobs... Which then turns it into a proper ghetto.
What is really needed is for richer people to move out of the suburbs and back into the cities, and for commuter rail and buses to vastly expand so more areas become viable for people living without cars. If rich people also live in our high density area, then we get the best of all worlds. And then the area becomes too expensive for the poor people.... But thats why we need the public transit, so there are so many nice liveable areas that they cant ALL become unreasonably expensive.
Why couldn't you just have really vigorous law enforcement efforts in those areas?
Poor people don't get great representation or service provision in America. Among other problems, your assumption that we actually devote resources to providing the services is something that we shouldn't assume.
If America provided a good package of services - education, policing, welfare, healthcare, whatever, etc - to poor people, there would be fewer poor people.
Oh, but it is. Applying economic pressure to encourage a minority to live in a certain area is a ghetto. Lack of transport is not a requirement.
Unless they are of course poor.
Look SKFM, aside from the fact that you're just proposing a ghetto, what you're advocating I can get behind in it's intention to provide people with good stuff but we sort of want to do away with segregating people and creating all kinds of stereotypes.
Even if the camps are really nice, it's still putting people in camps.
Why would cost be an issue? Oppression I don't understand (noone said they must live there, that's just where the services are). Corruption, I don't see why it should be a bigger problem here than any other community.
It's a ghetto according to Wikipedia.
But if they had access to good schools, better nutrition, extra curricular activities, intramural sports, etc., then in a generation I'd think we'd have a lot fewer people who need to live in this type of community.
Also, I'm not saying we should force them to live there. That's just where the services will be.
Cost is an issue for the same reason that the people with power and influence don't like to see their taxes spent on poor inner-city schools. Corruption is an issue because you're concentrating the crime. Oppression is an issue because you will turn the local population against you with 'vigorous enforcement' and the inevitable corruption.
Honestly, I don't even understand why this needs explaining. Projects have literally been tried. There's a reason we do subsidized housing in mixed income neighborhoods now.
Presumably you learned about Public Housing and Concentrated Poverty in college. If not, at least check out the Wikipedia articles.
Why couldn't you just provide that shit without putting people in those projects?
Like, inner-city Detroit is already that for a lot of people except the nice things. If you just relocate a few people from the most abandoned streets and then put in all those services you got it.
I think that would be a great idea. Do we think that anyone will actually consider relocating people? Its an interesting problem having a city that is literally too big for its population. . .
As I see it, if you had a sensible manager and adequate resources. The way to save Detroit would as follows:
PHASE 1
-Consolidate the city. Buy out the people in the areas that are decaying and don't have a large enough population to justify providing services too. Would probably help them if the city offered to move them to areas that are being kept for free.
-Level the parts of the city that aren't being used.
-Try to recoup costs from the consolidation by selling off any scrap from level structures or that was lying around that is worth selling. Look at land on the outer fringes of the city, that has been cleared and consider selling that off.
PHASE 2 (could be started before phase 1 is completed)
-Modernize the core that is being kept.
-Get good transportation infrastructure that includes top notch public transit. This allows for the flow of goods and labor. If done right, the public transit should keep congestion from becoming an issue.
-Broadband, I'm willing to bet the infrastructure for this in Detroit is crap. From what I've seen this is one of the better ways to attract businesses because this is now an asset that will determine if they set up shop or not. A city isn't going to be sustainable if there aren't lots of jobs and have the infrastructure to support a business goes a long way to achieving that (even if it ends up being a call center, that's a hell of a lot better than nothing).
This would probably take more than five years and there is no guarantee that Detroit will ever be able to claw its way back to what it was, but it could probably keep the core sustainable and result in the population growing rather than shrinking. Really thinking about it, Detroit would be a good test bed to revitalize declining cities because it doesn't make any sense to let cities spring up and then rot away (it takes resources to build them and we also the whole issue that they use of land that could be better used for farming or as a nature reserve [could double as a carbon sink]).
As I said earlier. I just don't see Snyder appointing someone that will run thing intelligently. They'll likely sell off everything that can be sold, thus leaving the city in worse shape. Find a way to fuck over the residents when it comes to elections because the current GOP game here seems to be to fuck those that don't vote for them out of the vote, rather than adopting more palatable stances (fuck social conservatives). On top of that, any fix is going to be a long term investment. The GOP and many current business types are fucking terrible at doing long term projects that have a hefty up front price tag and yield slow returns because they'd rather have invest in short term set ups that are fuck ass long term.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
You don't believe that a location-specific supply of STEMish people would encourage investment?
That's interesting.
e2:Yes, but we tried forced integration and it sort of created the Republican party.
For once you are right, if you force the rich whities from the the suburbs and back into Detroit (and other failing cities) it certainly would solve a lot of the problems
Some of them haven't even burned down! Actually, last I saw they were gutting them, but I'm not sure if it was to repair or to demolish the towers.
I think it's dumb because it doesn't really address the core issue. You're solution assumes those visa students will someone encourage enough investment to offset all the jobs lost to outsourcing. I'm pretty sure it won't (I also don't buy that we don't have enough STEM graduates, but that's a different topic). High employment leads to a higher crime rate and a higher crime rate makes certain companies less willing to set up shop in the area. Any solution to Detroit's problems will have to do something that brings down the unemployment rate by providing jobs that can be filled in with unused labor supply that is already present.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
...And how do you do that when the state tells you that your ballot isn't worth anything? They tried to vote out what was unpopular (in this case it was a law rather than a person, but people went to the ballot box to 'decide' the matter), and the state said, "Nah, we don't like the result of that election," and acted against the public interest.
Even if you want to say, "Well, the voters were wrong," you can't exactly make an appeal to democracy when the democratic process was shelved in favor of what Snyder wanted done.
"Punish the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie" is not a sound strategy for improving the lot of Detroit's lumpen.
In it's stead, you have twisted the concept of planned integration to the breaking point and proven yourself quite the goose.
1) I said nothing about students.
2) I assume you mean *un*employment.
3) I don't think I made any explicit assumptions about outsourcing. I definitely said this would be "one potential aspect" of a solution; I'm not assuming this would be sufficient to fix everything.
4) Do you think that we have JUST ENOUGH STEM graduates or TOO MANY STEM graduates? If you don't buy that we could use more STEMpeople, you're in one of those other camps. I think both of those are absurd camps to be in, but maybe I misunderstand. Please elaborate.
5a) My argument is that local availability of STEMpeople would encourage local investment. People working in Detroit will increase demand for other things in Detroit.
5b) You seem to be that the amount of jobs available is static. That it doesn't fluxuate with the number and nature of potential laborers. The amount of jobs available is not static. But again, maybe I misread you . Please clarify.
Realistically, solving Detroit's problems would probably require a time machine and the ability to magically convince lawmakers in the late 80s that allowing General Motors to rob the Michigan area is/was unacceptable (that, or magically convince people to stay away from the apparent boom in the region / ignore the shrewd advertising paid for by GM). I don't know how a city in a capitalist state with a very laissez-faire bent is supposed to 'recover' after having:
a) lost most of it's wealth
b) lost most of it's ability to accrue more wealth
c) gained a reputation as a refuge for criminals / deadbeats
Detroit will probably look the way it does for as long as the American project continues.
I must have missed the bombshell news that Snyder can't be voted out of office.
This is embarassing. That's kind of a big thing to have missed. I thought I was on top of this sort of thing.
Isn't it fucking hilarious how our democratically elected representatives have some kind of inherent superdemocracy which allows them to contradict democratic decisions, bypass all checks on their power, and then make choices which permanently affect an unwilling constituency and may lead to their leaving the state and ceasing to be constituents, thereby further strengthening their own illegal grasp on power?
Why are you intentionally missing the obvious context here? Nobody is saying Snyder cannot be voted out of office.
Also, the EMF can and likely will cause irreparable damage to the city of Detroit through the sale of public utilities/services to private interests. So the whole "Just vote him out of office" schtick gets old when by the time that option becomes feasible the damage will have been done.
And I do feel the need to point out that Snyder campaigned on, if I'm not mistaken, exactly 0 of the hugely important things he has done as Governor. In some cases he has promised to do just the opposite! IRT Right to Work.
So please excuse Michigan residents for being a bit prickly on this. I do not mean to say that last bit snarkily, we are an ordinarily cynical bunch and this past year has only worsened our condition.
I'm not sure how else to interpret "...your ballot isn't worth anything".
One of the dangers of representative democracy is that your representative who you vote for screw you and lie to you. The built-in protection is that you vote them out of office when they screw you. Damage getting done is part of the problem of government generally. The answer is still "vote him out of office".
I'm from Traverse City, by the way.
Michigan residents went to vote on a law that was proposed to them, voted against that law, and the governor (effectively) tossed-out the election result. What is the problem with this interpretation?
That's election fraud. It doesn't matter that it wasn't Snyder's own election that was ignored, and it's nonsensical to claim that because Snyder was fairly elected, every other election that happens underneath him is thereby somehow valid even if the public is not only ignored, but outright acted against on a proposal. If you want to do that kind of regression, you could invalidate just about any election right on up to the PoTUS (if the state governor were forced into place by the Federal government, ignoring election results, you could just say, "Hey, tough shit; should've voted a different President into office,")
People were offered an opportunity to participate in the democratic process and then roundly betrayed when their interests didn't meet that of the state. I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable, and I don't care if the man who did it was the victor of a prior election. At the very, very least, people should not have been presented with a law under false pretenses that they had a legally binding say in whether or not it would be implemented.
Some asshole "representative" invalidated Michigan's hard won popular vote. The Oregon System is under attack!
THIS. Godammit, THIS, so much.
I'm not saying the jobs are static. I'm saying you have lots of people with the skill set that would get them work at the assembly line of a factory. These people aren't programmers, I don't think many of them could switch tracks to programming if they even wanted to. Bringing in tons of programmers might bring in some business, but that won't bring in enough jobs to make use of all the unused labor. There's a reason I mentioned call centers with the broadband bit of my last post. Yeah, a call center job is shit, but a call center could probably make use of most of the unused labor with minimal training. The hope is with the broadband fix, that maybe some company will say "well they've got state of the art internet infrastructure, adequate labor and there are a few old unutilized factories that could either be refurbished or outright replaced with new factories (don't need to lobby for rezoning of any sort). So why not set up shop and bring back some of our manufacturing stateside to this area." When unemployment is the issue, you have to address it with solutions that get those unemployed people work. Not this visa thing that would do jack shit to address Detroit's current unemployment issue (what's it at currently, last I saw it was over 15%).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.