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.

(Marketwatch)   Everything you ever wanted to know about scoring an amazing real estate deal and relocating to Detroit, except how to find a job   (marketwatch.com) divider line 61
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

1362 clicks; posted to Business » on 25 Jun 2014 at 10:24 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-25 09:53:05 PM  
I don't see anything in there about surviving Devil's Night
 
2014-06-25 10:10:23 PM  
I would move to Detroit. Awesome art scene. Great food. Beautiful city. It's a great place and would be an amazing investment.
 
2014-06-25 10:33:49 PM  

ginandbacon: I would move to Detroit. Awesome art scene. Great food. Beautiful city. It's a great place and would be an amazing investment.


Same here except I have a undying hatred of cold weather


Cold weather being defined as anything under 60 degrees fahrenheit
 
2014-06-25 10:35:56 PM  

Kanemano: ginandbacon: I would move to Detroit. Awesome art scene. Great food. Beautiful city. It's a great place and would be an amazing investment.

Same here except I have a undying hatred of cold weather


Cold weather being defined as anything under 60 degrees fahrenheit


LOL that's somewhat limiting ;)
 
2014-06-25 10:49:51 PM  
Kanemano: ginandbacon: I would move to Detroit. Awesome art scene. Great food. Beautiful city. It's a great place and would be an amazing investment.
 
Same here except I have a undying hatred of cold weather


Cold weather being defined as anything under 60 degrees fahrenheit


Your location has seen 52 degrees.  Better move to Singapore.  They've only seen 66.
 
2014-06-25 10:52:13 PM  

ginandbacon: I would move to Detroit. Awesome art scene. Great food. Beautiful city. It's a great place and would be an amazing investment.


Have at it. Some of us couldn't get out fast enough.I'll support your efforts, but I'll do it from afar.

I'm over 40, and have been hearing about Detroit's resurgence for most of my life. Please excuse me while I sit back and observe from outside.

I root for the D, but don't want to live there anymore. Found a better climate and a better living environment, and I'm not looking back.
 
2014-06-25 11:10:46 PM  
My father-in-law bought a house in Detroit in the 2000s for nearly $87,000 - then the city changed the requirement that police and fire fighters live in the city limits.

Neighborhood became a hotbed of crime as the workers moved out and scum loved in. Mother-in-law was robbed in an alley beside their house, cars stolen, breakins.

They left, the bank took it and sold it for $700 (scrappers got to it). He's still paying the mortgage based on the purchase price.

So I'm getting a kick out of the quote in the article about how "exaggerated" the crime reporting headlines are.
 
2014-06-25 11:35:57 PM  
The trick, as always, is to separate your income from location. But once you do that, I can think of a string of warm locations with less crime.
 
2014-06-25 11:42:37 PM  
It's farking dangerous, there are no city services to speak of, so you'll be hauling your own trash, if you call the cops they don't show, etc. There aren't many good jobs to be had, and you'll need one to cover your heat bill in the winter. I don't know any of this first hand, but was told these things by someone who left Detroit a little more than 5 years ago. I'll take their word for it. So how about no?
 
2014-06-25 11:48:58 PM  
FTFA "But Detroit was rated the No. 1 safest city in the U.S. by Homeownersinsurance.com - although that was referring to the number of natural disasters (not crimes) over a 10-year period."

LOLOLOLOL.

/But they don't include driving on ice when snow melts and refreezes as a "natural disaster" though it's dangerous, frequent, and from nature.
 
2014-06-25 11:54:52 PM  

ginandbacon: I would move to Detroit. Awesome art scene.

A lot of people don't realize that while the center of the art world before WWII was Europe, in America Detroit (and Michigan) ranked very highly, just behind Chicago and New York. The Saugatuck Art School on Lake Michigan was world-renowned, and the Scarab Club of Detroit was one of the country's premier institutions.
 
2014-06-26 01:37:00 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

/ob
 
2014-06-26 01:37:41 AM  
If you were to remove the current population entirely, the city could be repopulated and would quickly become a decent, thriving city.

The problem isn't the land, or the buildings, though they are in a state of disrepair.
 
2014-06-26 02:07:58 AM  

ginandbacon: I would move to Detroit. Awesome art scene. Great food. Beautiful city. It's a great place and would be an amazing investment.


Until they sell off the art to pay off creditors..,
 
2014-06-26 02:08:40 AM  

2chris2: If you were to remove the current population entirely, the city could be repopulated and would quickly become a decent, thriving city.

The problem isn't the land, or the buildings, though they are in a state of disrepair.


Assuming you aren't blowing a dog whistle: yes, replacing poor people with less poor people will improve any city, and easily overcome minor issues like the buildings being a state of disrepair.
 
2014-06-26 02:44:55 AM  
 If the land were cheap, and the city would allow a lot of experimental housing ideas, that might attract some people.I'm sure there are people that would like to build their "anti-zombie" compound
or "fortress of solitude", if they could get it done someplace that isn't the middle of the desert or on some mountainside in Idaho.That would sure cut down on the cost of those projects too.
They could literally sell  blocks of original house lots and include the land of the street for every other block. That way the city would have that fewer number of streets to maintain.

 The problem with attracting more artists and hippies is that Michigan has a lot of right wing leaning people and hard core christian fundamentalist types. Detroit it's self may be lefty leaning, but
there are a lot of wing nuts out in the sticks that would get really upset if a bunch of hippies,artists and musicians turned Detroit into a lakeside San Francisco.Even if it meant the city became
as successful as S.F. .
 
2014-06-26 03:32:18 AM  

ImpendingCynic: ginandbacon: I would move to Detroit. Awesome art scene.
A lot of people don't realize that while the center of the art world before WWII was Europe, in America Detroit (and Michigan) ranked very highly, just behind Chicago and New York. The Saugatuck Art School on Lake Michigan was world-renowned, and the Scarab Club of Detroit was one of the country's premier institutions.


Did you forget Interlochen, famous for music coaching?
 
2014-06-26 03:45:18 AM  

2chris2: If you were to remove the current population entirely, the city could be repopulated and would quickly become a decent, thriving city.

The problem isn't the land, or the buildings, though they are in a state of disrepair.


s25.postimg.org
screen shot windows 7

Yes. Poof! Magic! Make 600,000 African-Americans plus 100,000 others disappear, and repopulate them with Real AmericansTM and Detroit will solve all their problems.
 
2014-06-26 06:18:39 AM  
www.yourblackworld.net

MISS ME MUCH?
 
2014-06-26 06:32:24 AM  
No decent police services in Detroit should be the deciding factor.
 
2014-06-26 07:19:31 AM  

Smackledorfer: Assuming you aren't blowing a dog whistle: yes, replacing poor people with less poor people will improve any city, and easily overcome minor issues like the buildings being a state of disrepair.


While socioeconomic status is part of the equation, it's not the whole problem.  I spent a lot of time last year looking for a cheap fixer-upper in the city.  In a lot of these neighborhoods, there are some great old townhouses that would look gorgeous with just a little TLC.  There just doesn't seem to be any sense of community in these areas, and bigger yet, a sense of "pride of ownership".  People just didn't seem to care what their street/block looked like.

Just from my own observations, that general lack of "give-a-shiat" is at the root of urban decay.
 
2014-06-26 07:21:27 AM  

2chris2: If you were to remove the current population entirely, the city could be repopulated and would quickly become a decent, thriving city.

The problem isn't the land, or the buildings, though they are in a state of disrepair.


Maybe they could call it Delta City.

2.bp.blogspot.com

// When kids in Detroit watch RoboCop, do they ask if the city was ever really that nice?
 
2014-06-26 07:28:56 AM  
Well, except for the 2.4% city income tax, questionable police and other city service quality, crazily high property insurance premiums..
 
2014-06-26 07:37:58 AM  
Hipsters are moving there because they can buy a house for a dollar and don't need or want a job because they're all "Artists". It gives them more time to come up with ridiculous food concoctions that no one wants to eat.
 
2014-06-26 08:39:17 AM  

GoldSpider: Smackledorfer: Assuming you aren't blowing a dog whistle: yes, replacing poor people with less poor people will improve any city, and easily overcome minor issues like the buildings being a state of disrepair.

While socioeconomic status is part of the equation, it's not the whole problem.  I spent a lot of time last year looking for a cheap fixer-upper in the city.  In a lot of these neighborhoods, there are some great old townhouses that would look gorgeous with just a little TLC.  There just doesn't seem to be any sense of community in these areas, and bigger yet, a sense of "pride of ownership".  People just didn't seem to care what their street/block looked like.

Just from my own observations, that general lack of "give-a-shiat" is at the root of urban decay.


There is no pride in ownership when the government provides you your every need. This is the inevitable result of the cradle-to-grave liberal utopia. It could never end a different way.
 
2014-06-26 08:49:57 AM  
Since most Farkers like to talk about their large six figure salaries I imagine they'd have no problem buying in the best Detroit neighborhoods and getting mansions for pennies on the dollar that they would in their coastal hometowns.

If you don't have kids or don't mind paying for private schools there are amazing houses in decent neighborhoods in Detroit that can be purchased very cheaply compared to the rest of the country.  I'd love this one, except I'm not a rich Farker like ya'll:

http://www.trulia.com/property/3151530621-1002-Seminole-St-Detroit-M I- 48214
 
2014-06-26 08:52:17 AM  
A job? Shouldn't your first concern be running water?
 
2014-06-26 09:10:18 AM  

wombatsrus: MISS ME MUCH?


No. Why do you ask?
 
2014-06-26 09:26:06 AM  

Mr. Shabooboo: The problem with attracting more artists and hippies is that Michigan has a lot of right wing leaning people and hard core christian fundamentalist types. Detroit it's self may be lefty leaning, but
there are a lot of wing nuts out in the sticks that would get really upset if a bunch of hippies,artists and musicians turned Detroit into a lakeside San Francisco.Even if it meant the city became
as successful as S.F. .


lol yeah, that's what's stopping Detroit from rising from the ashes.. crazy right wingers who live outside of the city.

I mean the fact that the city is totally bankrupt, corrupt, ridden with crime, has high property tax rates and provides no services for those taxes has nothing to do with it.
 
2014-06-26 09:54:01 AM  
Mr. Shabooboo:
 The problem with attracting more artists and hippies is that Michigan has a lot of right wing leaning people and hard core christian fundamentalist types. Detroit it's self may be lefty leaning, but
there are a lot of wing nuts out in the sticks that would get really upset if a bunch of hippies,artists and musicians turned Detroit into a lakeside San Francisco.Even if it meant the city became
as successful as S.F. .


That makes no sense.
 
2014-06-26 10:05:50 AM  

GoldSpider: Smackledorfer: Assuming you aren't blowing a dog whistle: yes, replacing poor people with less poor people will improve any city, and easily overcome minor issues like the buildings being a state of disrepair.

While socioeconomic status is part of the equation, it's not the whole problem.  I spent a lot of time last year looking for a cheap fixer-upper in the city.  In a lot of these neighborhoods, there are some great old townhouses that would look gorgeous with just a little TLC.  There just doesn't seem to be any sense of community in these areas, and bigger yet, a sense of "pride of ownership".  People just didn't seem to care what their street/block looked like.

Just from my own observations, that general lack of "give-a-shiat" is at the root of urban decay.


I think you may be ignoring a causal relationship between poverty + low hope for the future, and people no longer giving a shiat but instead spending their few resources on short term gains.

Also, saying detroiters are inferior humans for not banding together to make the world a better place pretty much ignores the fact that NOBODY ANYWHERE ELSE does that either. Otherwise we would live in a Utopia already with no poverty and minimal crime.
 
2014-06-26 10:17:11 AM  

Smackledorfer: Also, saying detroiters are inferior humans for not banding together to make the world a better place...


I can't imagine what I did to you to earn such a deliberate and spiteful mischaracterization of my point.  Regardless...

I'm not asking people to "make the world a better place"; just small, incremental changes like taking 15 minutes to pick up the farking trash on their property.
 
2014-06-26 10:27:28 AM  

GoldSpider: I'm not asking people to "make the world a better place"; just small, incremental changes like taking 15 minutes to pick up the farking trash on their property.


Wow, that is one hell of a goalpost shift combined with skipping half my post.

GoldSpider: In a lot of these neighborhoods, there are some great old townhouses that would look gorgeous with just a little TLC.  There just doesn't seem to be any sense of community in these areas, and bigger yet, a sense of "pride of ownership".  People just didn't seem to care what their street/block looked like.


You went from gorgeous townhouses that suck due to lack of TLC because of a lack of sense of community or ownership pride, and then shifted it all the way to "all I'm saying is don't leave trash on your property.  Right, because that is all that is wrong with detroit homes and the community: a little bit of trash.

Detroit has a tragedy of the commons issue that goes far beyond a little bit of litter. I'm not arguing that they SHOULDN'T improve their situation, I am arguing that it is asking far more of someone living in detroit to be investing significant time and money into their property than it is to ask that of me out in a nice suburb where the average owner on my street makes 6 figures and there is virtually no crime. I bet if you plucked any one of these Detroiters (excluding some gangbanger I guess) with no pride in my neighborhood and gave them the same job I have, they'd keep their house looking nice too.

Finally, in what way is asking an entire community to tackle a tragedy of the commons issue to improve their situation NOT "banding together to make the world a better place"?
 
2014-06-26 10:30:31 AM  

Kanemano: Same here except I have a undying hatred of cold weather

Cold weather being defined as anything under 60 degrees fahrenheit


This is why I'm not leaving California any time soon.
 
2014-06-26 10:38:42 AM  
I registered and was accepted to the pure Michigan dream job fair, held 2 weeks ago.

I didn't go. Why? Because the organization was unable to tell me which jobs and companies I was selected to interview for.

Their advice? Bring a computer with you to the fair to research the companies and roles that you will interview for that day.

Nevermind that I would have had to pay my own travel expenses with one week's notice.

What a mess!
 
2014-06-26 10:44:54 AM  

Smackledorfer: Detroit has a tragedy of the commons issue that goes far beyond a little bit of litter. I'm not arguing that they SHOULDN'T improve their situation, I am arguing that it is asking far more of someone living in detroit to be investing significant time and money into their property than it is to ask that of me out in a nice suburb where the average owner on my street makes 6 figures and there is virtually no crime. I bet if you plucked any one of these Detroiters (excluding some gangbanger I guess) with no pride in my neighborhood and gave them the same job I have, they'd keep their house looking nice too.


If people were allowed to band together and handle their own business, things would improve.

They should declare areas gov't free and let the people protect themselves, open up their own businesses, don't pay taxes, etc.

But instead they'll not provide any police protection, but still expect to collect their property taxes, sales taxes, permits, under the table bribes, etc.
 
2014-06-26 10:47:34 AM  

Smackledorfer: Wow, that is one hell of a goalpost shift combined with skipping half my post.


Try stepping out of the Politics Tab mentality and act like a reasonable human being having a discussion and not always trying to "win" something.

Smackledorfer: You went from gorgeous townhouses that suck due to lack of TLC because of a lack of sense of community or ownership pride, and then shifted it all the way to "all I'm saying is don't leave trash on your property.  Right, because that is all that is wrong with detroit homes and the community: a little bit of trash.


Property decay happens because small neglect (trash) turns into big neglect.  When you stop caring about the small things, how are you going to muster the effort to take on bigger problems?

Smackledorfer: I bet if you plucked any one of these Detroiters (excluding some gangbanger I guess) with no pride in my neighborhood and gave them the same job I have, they'd keep their house looking nice too.


I'd wager the problem is a bit more complicated than "Just give all these people a job making X salary" but I suppose we're both just speculating.

Smackledorfer: Finally, in what way is asking an entire community to tackle a tragedy of the commons issue to improve their situation NOT "banding together to make the world a better place"?


Not really sure what you're going for here: "banding together to make the world a better place" was your wording, not mine.  I suppose keeping your yard tidy is a small way of making the world a better place, but I don't really look at it in such grandiose terms.
 
2014-06-26 10:50:50 AM  

MugzyBrown: If people were allowed to band together and handle their own business, things would improve.

They should declare areas gov't free and let the people protect themselves, open up their own businesses, don't pay taxes, etc.

But instead they'll not provide any police protection, but still expect to collect their property taxes, sales taxes, permits, under the table bribes, etc.


wut?
 
2014-06-26 10:53:10 AM  
Isn't the trick to land a job in Detroit, then move there?
 
2014-06-26 11:20:40 AM  
You get the cheap house and get a job in Troy or Novi or anywhere else.

It's gonna be the reverse of what happened to Detroit, and rather than everyone that has means leaves Detroit buy keeps working there, people will live in Detroit because it's cheaper, and work elsewhere.
 
2014-06-26 11:23:13 AM  

MugzyBrown: Smackledorfer: Detroit has a tragedy of the commons issue that goes far beyond a little bit of litter. I'm not arguing that they SHOULDN'T improve their situation, I am arguing that it is asking far more of someone living in detroit to be investing significant time and money into their property than it is to ask that of me out in a nice suburb where the average owner on my street makes 6 figures and there is virtually no crime. I bet if you plucked any one of these Detroiters (excluding some gangbanger I guess) with no pride in my neighborhood and gave them the same job I have, they'd keep their house looking nice too.

If people were allowed to band together and handle their own business, things would improve.

They should declare areas gov't free and let the people protect themselves, open up their own businesses, don't pay taxes, etc.

But instead they'll not provide any police protection, but still expect to collect their property taxes, sales taxes, permits, under the table bribes, etc.


Congrats, this is the most bat-wing nuts thing I've ever seen you type.
 
2014-06-26 11:49:29 AM  

GoldSpider: Try stepping out of the Politics Tab mentality and act like a reasonable human being having a discussion and not always trying to "win" something.


Yes, this makes perfect sense. You can be disingenuous and engage in the lowest of rhetorical techniques, but me calling you out on them is me trying to win.

GoldSpider: Property decay happens because small neglect (trash) turns into big neglect.  When you stop caring about the small things, how are you going to muster the effort to take on bigger problems?


And I am saying you are putting the cart before the horse on this one. As I complained earlier, you deliberately ignored the bulk of my point in order to go down the road of poor accusations and shifting goalposts:

Smackledorfer: I think you may be ignoring a causal relationship between poverty + low hope for the future, and people no longer giving a shiat but instead spending their few resources on short term gains.


People in detroit are acting like any other fairly rational actors would given the environment presented to them.
Why dump what little money you have into your home if the property values are in a downward spiral? When vandalism and crime will take a dump on your efforts? If the next job you lose causes you to face eviction and a shiat-show of a foreclosure sale that lets you recoup nothing anyways?

Why be the only person your block to clean up (remember you said you aren't asking them to change as a group and better the world..) and watch on a daily basis as everything you just cleaned goes to shiat?

GoldSpider: I'd wager the problem is a bit more complicated than "Just give all these people a job making X salary" but I suppose we're both just speculating.


Well, yes, it is not a proposed solution to the problem that we take every detroiter and set him/her up in a nice home with a nice salary in a nice neighborhood.  The point was that the individuals involved in detroit (or any failing urban environment) aren't that different from people anywhere else. They are poor, low on hope, used to a lack of opportunity and an uphill struggle from a young age, faced with a massive tragedy of the commons, and frankly act fairly appropriately as individuals in that situation.

Thus, to come around from the beginning from when you first started disagreeing with me: you cannot simply take all the detroiters out of detroit and replace with 'good people' and have it fix detroit. It is almost entirely a socioeconomic problem imo, and not a 'detroiters are inferior human beings who don't care how their street looks or have pride in their homes'.  When you started talking about 'lack of pride' and 'no sense of community' I mistakenly thought you were in part agreeing with 2chris2's assessment that detroiters themselves are the cause of the problem.


If all you meant was that they should keep nicer yards and you didn't want them to overcome a tragedy of the commons or their socioeconomic shiat to even come close to anything that could be so 'spitefully' mischaracterized as improving their world, then that is fine.  I agree, it would be nifty if detroiters did better lawn care. I was under the mistaken impression based on the initial point of this conversation that we were talking about fixes for detroit. I was talking about what it would take to overcome the state of the buildings, their disrepair, and how to make it a decent thriving city. You were focusing on lawncare.

 2chris2: If you were to remove the current population entirely, the city could be repopulated and would quickly become a decent, thriving city.

The problem isn't the land, or the buildings, though they are in a state of disrepair.



And quite frankly, yes, I absolutely consider changing detroit from a shiathole to a decent thriving city would, in fact, be making the world a better place.  As a person who lives half an hour from detroit, my world would be a better place if detroit were nicer. My home value would go up, my recreational options would go up. My concerns about crime flowing out of the city would go down.  There was neither spite nor deliberate mischaracterization intended.  I thought we were, honest to farking god, discussing what it would take to turn detroit around and what the major problems in detroit were.
 
2014-06-26 11:51:44 AM  

dumbobruni: I registered and was accepted to the pure Michigan dream job fair, held 2 weeks ago.

I didn't go. Why? Because the organization was unable to tell me which jobs and companies I was selected to interview for.

Their advice? Bring a computer with you to the fair to research the companies and roles that you will interview for that day.

Nevermind that I would have had to pay my own travel expenses with one week's notice.

What a mess!


You mean that someone expected you come prepared to research companies for which you might want to work and then had the gall to not pay travel expenses for you to go to a job fair?  Say it ain't so.

Maybe part of Detroit's problem is that people both in and on the edges of the city will complain about "government workers" robbing the city blind and shout about how the Republican state government should go in and break the unions and cut off the pensions.  In the next breath they'll say that Detroit sucks because of poor fire and police service.

There's been plenty of corruption and graft in Detroit, for sure - but so has there been in plenty of other cities that manage to survive.
 
2014-06-26 11:56:10 AM  

GoldSpider: Not really sure what you're going for here: "banding together to make the world a better place" was your wording, not mine.



I cannot take you seriously if you cannot follow such a simple path of conversation.

1. You said X:
"While socioeconomic status is part of the equation, it's not the whole problem.  I spent a lot of time last year looking for a cheap fixer-upper in the city.  In a lot of these neighborhoods, there are some great old townhouses that would look gorgeous with just a little TLC.  There just doesn't seem to be any sense of community in these areas, and bigger yet, a sense of "pride of ownership".  People just didn't seem to care what their street/block looked like.
Just from my own observations, that general lack of "give-a-shiat" is at the root of urban decay.
"
2. I "mischaracterized" X by saying "it was banding together to make the world a better place".  We'll call that Y.
3. You accused me of mischaracterizing it both spitefully and deliberately.
4. I then point out that X is in fact Y (and btw, your original X was most certainly farking not "do a little yard work", which brings us back to moving the goalposts).
5. Now you respond with "Y is your words, not mine"?

Are you kidding me here? How on god's green earth could you possibly believe I was literally saying you said Y, verbatim, in this discussion?

But yes, it was absolutely my wording, because I was under the false impression you were talking about solutions for detroit and the root causes of its problems.

Meanwhile, you assume that any misreading of your post is because I was personally, spitefully, and deliberately mischaracterizing your post? Absurd.
 
2014-06-26 12:04:47 PM  

Smackledorfer: I was under the mistaken impression based on the initial point of this conversation that we were talking about fixes for detroit. I was talking about what it would take to overcome the state of the buildings, their disrepair, and how to make it a decent thriving city. You were focusing on lawncare.


And you say I'M ignoring YOUR point...

Detroit, just like any economically depressed urban area, has a lot of deeply-rooted problems, and the people living in them are confined there by many complex factors, both internal and external.  I'm not suggesting that people mowing their lawns or putting a fresh coat of paint on their porch is going to solve them, though I suspect that is what you have chosen to take away from my posts here nonetheless.  Your "dog-whistle" accusation should have told me all I needed to know how this conversation would go.
 
2014-06-26 12:06:35 PM  

Smackledorfer: Meanwhile, you assume that any misreading of your post is because I was personally, spitefully, and deliberately mischaracterizing your post?


Indeed, that's not the sort of thing that happens on Fark.
 
2014-06-26 12:25:12 PM  

GoldSpider: Detroit, just like any economically depressed urban area, has a lot of deeply-rooted problems, and the people living in them are confined there by many complex factors, both internal and external.  I'm not suggesting that people mowing their lawns or putting a fresh coat of paint on their porch is going to solve them, though I suspect that is what you have chosen to take away from my posts here nonetheless.  Your "dog-whistle" accusation should have told me all I needed to know how this conversation would go.


I'm sorry, are you 2chris2, because this was my response to him, not you.  At no point have I accused you of dogwhistling, and my response to him left it open for him to have been doing something other than dropping a dog whistling threadshiat.

Smackledorfer:Assuming you aren't blowing a dog whistle: yes, replacing poor people with less poor people will improve any city, and easily overcome minor issues like the buildings being a state of disrepair.

GoldSpider: And you say I'M ignoring YOUR point...


So which is it, would changing one of these roots make detroit a better place, or not, because you cannot have it both ways.  Either I completely mischaracterized your point in saying that detroiters having pride in their community and coming together to make their city blocks better would result in a better detroit, or you were pointing out that they should have pride in their community and come together to make superficial improvements for no reason at all.

Either those superficial improvements WOULD be useful, or they would not.

What should have told me everything about how this conversation would go was your jump to conclusions that it was personal, spiteful, and deliberate of me to misunderstand you. Instead I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had some interest in actual conversation when all you really want to do is exactly what you accuse me of: playing politics tab games.

You want spiteful, here you go: DIAF.
 
2014-06-26 12:41:09 PM  

Smackledorfer: GoldSpider: Detroit, just like any economically depressed urban area, has a lot of deeply-rooted problems, and the people living in them are confined there by many complex factors, both internal and external.  I'm not suggesting that people mowing their lawns or putting a fresh coat of paint on their porch is going to solve them, though I suspect that is what you have chosen to take away from my posts here nonetheless.  Your "dog-whistle" accusation should have told me all I needed to know how this conversation would go.

I'm sorry, are you 2chris2, because this was my response to him, not you.  At no point have I accused you of dogwhistling, and my response to him left it open for him to have been doing something other than dropping a dog whistling threadshiat.

Smackledorfer:Assuming you aren't blowing a dog whistle: yes, replacing poor people with less poor people will improve any city, and easily overcome minor issues like the buildings being a state of disrepair.

GoldSpider: And you say I'M ignoring YOUR point...

So which is it, would changing one of these roots make detroit a better place, or not, because you cannot have it both ways.  Either I completely mischaracterized your point in saying that detroiters having pride in their community and coming together to make their city blocks better would result in a better detroit, or you were pointing out that they should have pride in their community and come together to make superficial improvements for no reason at all.

Either those superficial improvements WOULD be useful, or they would not.

What should have told me everything about how this conversation would go was your jump to conclusions that it was personal, spiteful, and deliberate of me to misunderstand you. Instead I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had some interest in actual conversation when all you really want to do is exactly what you accuse me of: playing politics tab games.

You want spiteful, here you go: DIAF.


You seem more interested in pointing out what you perceive as my inconsistencies than in better understanding what I actually believe. If that's not the case, I'd be happy to try to better explain my position.
 
2014-06-26 01:03:27 PM  

GoldSpider: You seem more interested in pointing out what you perceive as my inconsistencies than in better understanding what I actually believe.


Honestly at this point I don't think you had any intention of even trying to have the reasonable human being discussion you pretend you want.  Your preference clearly lies towards assuming anything I say to you is personal and mean-spirited in nature, and then forcing me to waste my time explaining why it isn't.   I have been trying to point out that I am not deliberately and spitefully mischaracterizing what you said, and by pointing out what I perceive as inconsistencies I am trying to shed light on what it is about your position and previous points that I wasn't getting.
Between the two of us and whatever misunderstandings have occurred in this thread, you have been the first to make accusations of personal differences, the first to make accusations of spite, the first to accuse me of playing some politics game to win. I have repeatedly tried to move past that and had you repeatedly drag the conversation back to that. It takes two of course, but you are leading the charge here.
 
2014-06-26 01:42:17 PM  

Smackledorfer: It takes two of course, but you are leading the charge here.


Then allow me to take a bit of a step back here and try to explain myself better.

I happen to agree with the Broken Window Theory in how neglect of small, seemingly inconsequential problems contributes to urban decay.  When I say I think people can and should try to maintain their properties (to the best of their financial ability, of course), its in the belief that doing so will demonstrate that residents care about their home/street/block/neighborhood, and will either inspire their neighbors to do the same, or at least discourage people from shiatting up the place further.  I happen to believe that even the most modest efforts at improvement (that don't cost any additional money) such as picking up trash can have a positive influence on a neighborhood.

Now to specifically address some of your earlier points (I hope):

Will picking up trash, mowing lawns, and making basic repairs to one's home in any way make their fragile economic status stronger or their vulnerability to poverty any less dire?  No, probably not.
Can it alleviate the sense of hopelessness and general feeling of "don't give a shiat"?  I think so, even if marginally.
Can it strengthen communities and reduce other factors that contribute to poverty such as crime and blight?  I think it can do that as well.

Smackledorfer: ...and frankly act fairly appropriately as individuals in that situation.

Well... "understandable", certainly.  "Appropriately"?  I think we can (and should) expect a little better out of people, and that's where it's extraordinarily helpful for someone to lead by example.  And I think here's where perhaps the people from outside looking to score a cheap property in these neighborhoods can step up and become that catalyst for change.

Smackledorfer: Finally, in what way is asking an entire community to tackle a tragedy of the commons issue to improve their situation NOT "banding together to make the world a better place"?


I'm not sure how this turned into a point of disagreement, other than, perhaps, one of scope.  If people succeed in banding together to make their neighborhoods better, then I suppose they have in fact made the world a slightly better place as well.

I hope I've explained my position better, and apologize for misconstruing some of your responses as personal attacks.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report