|
>>>now, people have known since the
>>>late 1960s that housing projects
>>>didn't work.
>>
>>They worked at the beginning.
>>They were used as transition
>>housing for returning veterans.
>>
>
>Yes, that was the intial reason
>they were built but by
>the 1950s they were used
>as a place for blacks
>and latinos moving into cities
>in the north. By
>the late 1960s, after the
>riots in all the major
>cities, people began to realize
>something was wrong with the
>inner city and with projects.
Actually most of the urban riots of the sixties didn't happen in projects. The ones in Philly were on Cecil B. Moore/ Columbia Ave., and in Boston they were in Grove Hall, a community of two-three family tenement housing, mainly lower-middle class. I don't agree with you that we (America) knew something was wrong with projects in the 60s. Most people (including those rioting)back then were arguing for more projects and low-income housing. I would posit that the late eighties and early nineties is when America finally woke up and realized its mistake.
>>>you can
>>>also argue they knew from
>>>the beginning and saw it
>>>as an easy way to
>>>monitor and control poor people
>>>of color.
>>
>>Actually projects were all white when
>>they were built. You
>>think the federal government would
>>provide housing for blacks back
>>then??
>
>Yes, but they still needed a
>place to put blacks and
>latinos when they moved into
>the cities. It was
>the government that told them
>where to go and thus
>pushed them into these areas.
> This didn't happen initially
>but because of the success
>of the first projects, they
>saw it as an easy
>solution.
Not true, they were pushed into foundering inner-city neighborhoods long before projects were built. Why do you think the PJs were built where they are???
>
>>
>>>why is it that back then
>>>when they knew it was
>>>jacked up, they didn't try
>>>to do anything but now
>>>they want to fix it
>>>up?
>>
>>Because they din't know how.
>>We are only now as
>>a nation figuring out how
>>our cities work.
>
>No, really, they knew how.
>They knew exactly why there
>were issues with projects.
>They promoted the idea of
>people moving out into the
>suburbs and did nothing when
>manufacturing left the cities.
People in the cities (mayors, planners, city councilors, residents) never thought that was a good idea!
>Urban policy has been in
>effect since urban renewal pre
>WWII.
I assume you mean after WWII?
>There is always
>a new solution to making
>the cities better. We
>don't even have the solution
>now, we just think we
>have a better one.
Well Chi-town, Boston, Seattle and San Fran have all gained population for the first time in 50 years this decade. It must work pretty well...unless you think cities should just be warehouses for the poor?
>
>>
>>>because back then,
>>>nobody was looking to move
>>>into the city. now
>>>young people are moving in,
>>>people want to be in
>>>pretty, gentrified neighborhoods.
>>
>>That's only happening in a few
>>cities, most are still losing
>>population. Also the Hope
>>VI has been around for
>>awhile, before the recent phenomenon
>>you speak of.
>
>Yeah, that's true but I guess
>the examples I've seen of
>tearing down projects have only
>been in major cities where
>the population is going up,
>like Chicago.
Population growth has nothing to do with "major" vs. "minor" cities. It has to do with successful urban policies.
>>
>>>they
>>>don't have any more space
>>>so instead they take down
>>>the projects so they can
>>>build better housing for people
>>>with money.
>>
>>Not true. Read my first
>>post.
>>
>>>they take the people out of
>>>their neighborhoods and put them
>>>other places where they are
>>>unfamiliar.
>>
>>Cite examples please. Or are
>>you fabricating?
>>
>They did this in Chicago with
>placing people in suburbs.
>It was supposed to put
>them closer to wher the
>jobs were but most of
>the peopel didn't have cars
>or transportation to get anywhere.
> They also felt isolated.
> They started building scatter-side
>housing in CT and a
>few other places that spreads
>people throughout suburban neighborhoods with
>mixed income.
As they should be. I don't believe in economic segregation, do you?
>
>>>the excuse they
>>>use is that poor shouldn't
>>>be concentrated in one area.
>>> but then they spread
>>>people out so they don't
>>>have to deal with the
>>>problems behind the poor.
>>
>>So you actually think it is
>>good to have entire neighborhoods
>>of low-income people???? You
>>think that creates a healthy,
>>livable community???
>
>No, you can't have neighborhoods with
>all low-income people. But,
>when they create policies that
>change this, it usually has
>to do with the fact
>that they want to get
>rid of the eyesores more
>than they actually want to
>help the people. The
>objective isn't to help the
>community but to erase the
>ills of poverty.
Check this out:
>I wrote my senior thesis on
>the inner city communities and
>the negative aspects of having
>high concentrations of poverty.
>Yes, its an issue but when
>you only focus on the
>bad parts, you make it
>seem like these people are
>poor, helpless, and can't improve
>their situation. That is
>just not true.
I think you're overgeneralizing...see link above for the way it should work. Also look for La Alianza Hispana, Tent City and Villa Victoria for examples of neighborhood self improvement.
Here's another one:
JMello
"Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector and in the heartland, we understand how unfair the death penalty is - the death tax is."
"Si, I'm very concerned about the amount of acreage in cultivation for the growth of cocoa leaves."
"...it's about past 7 here, so we're actually in different timelines."
"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but my predecessors, as well. And that's why I made the decision."
"I'm about to name my brother the ambassador to Chad."
"They don't seem to be flocking in right now, but it is dove season in Texas. I'm a hunter and if I decide to shoot some dove, I'll shoot 'em and eat 'em."
--President-Select George W. Bush--
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Activist Archives
