If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politicker)   Michael Bloomberg says his administration has saved 9,200 lives, not including the three people who were denied buying Big Gulps   (politicker.com) divider line 5
    More: Unlikely, Big Gulp, Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, homicide rate  
•       •       •

272 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Dec 2013 at 7:50 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-30 07:12:11 AM
3 votes:
img.pandawhale.com

In Chicago, during the 80s and early 90s, when the crime was really, really bad and the city clocked 900 murders a year, the authorities decided to raze the project towers that dotted the city.  Thousands and thousands of these residents were pushed out into suburban Cook County.  Of course, the city saw a big drop in crime beginning in the mid-90s.  A lot of these project towers were in neighborhoods that now have Whole Foods and multi-million dollar condos.  The residents are long-gone.  The crime moved, it did not disappear.  Chicago used dynamite to get rid of their tenement slums.  NYC uses rent control, zoning, economic policy.  The effect is the same.  The crime moves to the suburbs.  It follows the poor, the people who get priced out of their neighborhoods.

Stop-and-frisk is not about saving lives or reducing crime, it's about moving crime.  It's about moving crime away from the playground of the super rich and making sure the poors know their place.
2013-12-30 09:23:48 AM
1 votes:
This reminds me of when Giuliani claimed to be tough on crime, when every other major city say a larger drop in crime rates than NYC.

Those 9200 people live in spite of Bloomberg, not because of him.

/except for the big gulp drinkers of course
2013-12-30 09:14:13 AM
1 votes:

t3knomanser: For a big chunk of the 20th century, urban planners worshiped at the altar of the car. They redesigned cities to have more roads, more parking, and more traffic. Their hope was to draw suburbanites back to the cities to work and play, while they would return home to sleep. The actual result was that they came for work and left, causing cities to close up shop at 5pm.


Yup.  The plan in every major city was "cut the city center off with highways to both serve and protect it, and work to make the city convenient for the suburban middle and upper-middle class and no one else."  In the city where it was carried out, they're still very screwed.  In the cities where the city planners were stopped (Robert Moses in NYC, Edmund Bacon here in Philly) are the better off for it.
2013-12-30 08:53:32 AM
1 votes:
And ruined at least twice as many.

Good job, Mike!
2013-12-30 08:21:53 AM
1 votes:

Fark It: In Chicago, during the 80s and early 90s, when the crime was really, really bad and the city clocked 900 murders a year, the authorities decided to raze the project towers that dotted the city.  Thousands and thousands of these residents were pushed out into suburban Cook County.  Of course, the city saw a big drop in crime beginning in the mid-90s.  A lot of these project towers were in neighborhoods that now have Whole Foods and multi-million dollar condos.  The residents are long-gone.  The crime moved, it did not disappear.  Chicago used dynamite to get rid of their tenement slums.  NYC uses rent control, zoning, economic policy.  The effect is the same.  The crime moves to the suburbs.  It follows the poor, the people who get priced out of their neighborhoods.

Stop-and-frisk is not about saving lives or reducing crime, it's about moving crime.  It's about moving crime away from the playground of the super rich and making sure the poors know their place.


Every public policy and urban planning expert I've ever talked to has said roughly the same thing - the single biggest factor in crime is concentrated areas of poverty.  The problem is, nobody wants to tackle poverty on a large scale again, because we spent a generation hearing about how the Great Society failed (it didn't; urban renewal did, because it ran counter to a lot of what Johnson's programs were intended to do, and was often driven by localized monied interests).  What happened/happens in large cities most often is a solution that's cheaper in the short-term.  They re-distribute the symptom - the criminal activity - without addressing the cause.  And like you said, once it's out of someone's neighborhood, their incessant demands to clean up the crime dissipates.
 
Displayed 5 of 5 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report