Dozens of U.S. cities to raze themselves

[His Divine Shadow]

Lets hear it for moral cowardice and political correctness. The reason Detroit and other old eastern cities are in such sad shape is black migration followed by white flight. Large black populations mean intolerable crime, which causes the white population to leave, which means eventual regional economic failure, which further stresses the black population, which brings on more crime and so on until life in Detroit is just as cheap as it is in Haiti or Rwanda.

Sounds to me like the problem is white racism causing white flight because they don't wanna live next to black people, taking their wealth with them, causing social decay as they and their taxable leave the communities poorer.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Lets hear it for moral cowardice and political correctness. The reason Detroit and other old eastern cities are in such sad shape is black migration followed by white flight. Large black populations mean intolerable crime, which causes the white population to leave, which means eventual regional economic failure, which further stresses the black population, which brings on more crime and so on until life in Detroit is just as cheap as it is in Haiti or Rwanda.

The most ironic thing is that I've at various times dated two black people, who were both in their own ways extremely hard working, highly intelligent, dutiful and studious individuals, and who were making their way through life purely on their own merit, in one case against very substantial discrimination for an unrelated matter that imposed further hardship. They were both Haitian immigrants. So whereas you apparently think invoking Haiti or Ruanda is appropriate as a cover for your racism, and make no mistake what you've said is racist, what the actual facts are is that when I think of Haitians or African immigrations to the United States I have always found them, personally and professionally, to be people as hard working and dedicated to their self-improvement as are any South Asian immigrants and so on. Your comments are not merely inconsiable and unacceptable, but also simply wrong. Insomuch as there's things wrong with African-American culture, it's not because they're black, but because they're rural southern hicks transplanted to the inner city.

African-American culture and rural southern hick culture are basically identical, and the exact same attitudes exist in trailer trash as exist in the projects; it's just that one uses shotguns and meth and the other uses glocks and cocaine. The existence of the hard working and brilliant individuals I have known, of the courage and commitment we see in the black immigrant community, puts paid to the idea that these traits are the result of African-Americans being black, and are instead the result of their culture being a rural fundie hick culture. You have no answer; you can't, because in the end your post is just a dog-whistle for racism. The simple fact of the matter is that white society in America has everything to answer for what African-American culture has become... And it is due to racism that we state the problem as being blacks, when in reality they're behaving no differently than a very large portion of the white population. When identical behaviours are ignored in one case and pounced upon in the other, we can clearly see the influence of racism in effect...

...And you, Sir, are clearly a racist, and not long for this board.

[Broomstick]

Sounds to me like the problem is white racism causing white flight because they don't wanna live next to black people, taking their wealth with them, causing social decay as they and their taxable leave the communities poorer.

While that element certainly exists it's influence diminishes with each passing year. Even white people who don't much care for blacks do manage to live peaceably side by side, there are still plenty of white people living in places like Detroit, Philadelphia, and Gary (of which I am one), and there are plenty of black people who enjoy considerable wealth and influence (Barack Obama does come to mind) and who choose to live in big cities, even those with serious problems. It's not a sufficient explanation for why some cities are complete hellholes and others are not.

Should also mention that it's not just white people who want to live in ethnic enclaves - a recent comment by a Detroit city council person earlier this year illustrates that the sentiment is alive and well among some blacks, and we have places like Chinatown or Little Mexico in many cities because many people would prefer to live with people similar to themselves. US cities also almost always have integrated areas as well, were people of many different backgrounds live together by choice (Hyde Park in Chicago has long been known as such. If it sounds at all familiar to those of you who know little of Chicago, it's also where the current PotUS has his private residence).

Gary, Indiana is 84% black. However, even a paleface such as myself gets hardly a second look. Neither do Hispanics. We do have a very low percentage of Asians (we have twice as many Native Americans as Asians, according to the 2000 census) but they're not absent, you do see some. Gary is actually a sort of racial inversion of the US demographics, nonetheless, the city has made dramatic improvements in recent years. Gary went from being declared "US murder capital" more than once in the 1980's, and ranked as America's most dangerous city, to around 17th most dangerous. That's not good, but is an improvement. The city has managed, through various grants and other means, to actually start demolishing some abandoned property. But the reason for Gary's freefall into poverty and crime was NOT the black residents - who have largely been there since the 1940's migrations - but because the steel industry tanked (much like the auto industry did) and the jobs went elsewhere. It was easier for the middle and upper class to move out, that's all, leaving the poor - of all colors - behind. It has taken decades to try to diversify the local economy. That effort has been dominated by black people because they are the overwhelming majority of the population in that city, and really you have to credit improvements in crime rates, employment, and quite a few other things to the black segment of the population because they're 84% of the population and WILL dominate any activity in that city.

And really, it has been un-diversified, uni-industrial economies that have most off been the triggering factor for a city's descent into hell. In Detroit, it was the auto industry. In Gary it was the steel industry. I'm not sure what would account for Philadelphia's or East St Louis' cesspits, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out it was, again, over reliance on one industry. Washington DC is a bit of an anomaly - that town lives on politics, and there's no shortage of that! On the other hand, DC has always been a town sharply divided between rich and poor, black and white, and the powerful and powerless.

[Straha]

I was shocked and awed at the very existence of places described in this very thread, where kids miss school because they were shot and you can get killed for walking in the wrong place. How is that a hasty generalization? We are talking about some of America's biggest cities here, which should naturally benefit from vast wealth at the disposal of the United States. There is no reason places like these should exist, or be remotely as bad as described, what with being located right in the middle of urban concentration.

Being shocked at it isn't a generalization, thinking that this is common throughout the U.S. is. And these aren't America's biggest cities. In fact only Philadelphia cracks the top ten (at number 6). Detroit is number 11, and Flint is the 216th largest city in the States, making it rather small. Again, I'm not trying to say that these aren't hell-holes and a blight on the nation, but they're not a ubiquitous blight on the nation.

It does reflect on it, though, since apparently, the country's government was unable to stop the decline of these cities, for whatever reason.

With these places there are three layers of government. City, state and Federal. The Federal government tends not to get involved, leaving the State and Local governments to do their bit. What often happens (happened with New York City before, happened all across upstate New York, and is occurring in California on a wide scale right now) is that governments of successful places start spending more money, and raising tax rates. Eventually either A. the tax rates get so high that Rich people/businesses leave the state/city and go somewhere else (come to Binghamton, NY if you want to see the aftermath of that twenty years later), or B. the cash cow stops giving for a variety of reasons (independent of the government) and the area stops being as attractive economically for people, the people who can't leave the area become unemployed, money stops flowing into the city and crime comes in to fill the gap.

This is outside the Federal Government's bailiwick, the city government is too poor to do anything (without massively downsizing other services, something which governments tend not to do [see Detroit],) and the State government sees no reason to throw good money after bad on a city gone bust.

It's part of the American mind-set really. Things come, things prosper, and then things go bust and the people move on. It's been with us ever since Manifest Destiny, and it'll be with us until we become a densely populated nation. It's in grained in us in a way that's alien to most of the world. People across the country don't see the cities as a problem worthy of attention because they're has-been cities in their death throes. State Governments don't want to spend money on it because they have other, prosperous, places where they can get more boom for their buck. And the cities, as a whole, are too poor to do what they need to do, or too headstrong to realize the game's up and they need to scale back (which is exactly what this plan is, and part of the reason I like it, mostly.)

Lets hear it for moral cowardice and political correctness. The reason Detroit and other old eastern cities are in such sad shape is black migration followed by white flight. Large black populations mean intolerable crime, which causes the white population to leave, which means eventual regional economic failure, which further stresses the black population, which brings on more crime and so on until life in Detroit is just as cheap as it is in Haiti or Rwanda.

Cart before the horse, pig-fucker. The criminal elements moved into these cities because the successful people (of every damn race) left. Even then areas that were crime-ridden HAVE come back. Case in point: New York City's East Village. When my parents moved into the city almost thirty years ago, if you went by there you could die. Fifteen years ago (gods time flies) it was the setting for things like Rent. Ten years ago it became a happening, hipster area to live. Now apartments there go for almost a million dollars.

This happened all over the City, my Parents bought their place in Chelsea when they were dirt poor for $20,000 with a mortgage. Today that adjusts to $40,000 on the CPI. The [smaller] apartment above them sold a few months ago for over a Million dollars, and Harrison Ford now frequents the deli where I used to get sandwiches when I was growing up.

It has nothing to do with Race, fucking retard, and everything to do with the economics of the situation.

[Jaepheth]

Could deploying the Army or National guard to these cities help at all?

Perhaps they wouldn't even have to declare martial law but rather relocate all the residents of hopeless areas and then lease those areas to the army for artillery target practice or urban combat drills? (Also maybe saves on deconstruction costs)

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Lets hear it for moral cowardice and political correctness. The reason Detroit and other old eastern cities are in such sad shape is black migration followed by white flight. Large black populations mean intolerable crime, which causes the white population to leave, which means eventual regional economic failure, which further stresses the black population, which brings on more crime and so on until life in Detroit is just as cheap as it is in Haiti or Rwanda.

Wow, did someone accidentally burn his pointy white hood with his iron? As has been pointed out, urban decay is not a matter of race, but of economics. So would you care to back up your apparent assertion that black people = crime escalating to the level of civil war and genocide?

[Broomstick]

Could deploying the Army or National guard to these cities help at all?

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 severely limits the ability of the military to do anything of the sort. Under some very limited circumstances the National Guard, under authority of a state governor, can be used. Essentially, though, the answer to that question is no.

Perhaps they wouldn't even have to declare martial law but rather relocate all the residents of hopeless areas

The devil is in the details. Many residents will resist being forced out, and remember, a lot of Americans own guns. This could get very ugly.

Flint is compensating residents that are being moved out of their homes, and providing moving assistance for those who need it. That is the only way this could work, but that requires money.

If you wonder why someone would resist moving - in many cases the homes are bought and paid for, so you'd be depriving someone of what may be their only major asset. In other cases, extended families live in close proximity and there's the problem of breaking them up vs. separating such extended families. And, of course, criminals don't want to lose their base of operations.

[FSTargetDrone]

lease those areas to the army for artillery target practice or urban combat drills? (Also maybe saves on deconstruction costs)

I would think that would be a particularly bad idea, for all sorts of reasons.

If you wonder why someone would resist moving - in many cases the homes are bought and paid for, so you'd be depriving someone of what may be their only major asset.

Indeed. Never underestimate how stubborn people can be when it comes to staying in their homes, even when the very ground beneath them threatens their lives. For example, people refused to leave Centralia, PA for years, even defying orders from the government. That is a town which is sitting on top of a huge underground coal fire and there is carbon monoxide and other noxious fun leaking out all over the place.

[CmdrWilkens]

Could deploying the Army or National guard to these cities help at all?

Perhaps they wouldn't even have to declare martial law but rather relocate all the residents of hopeless areas and then lease those areas to the army for artillery target practice or urban combat drills? (Also maybe saves on deconstruction costs)

Without getting into the NO, with a touch of HELL NO (and the tiny qualifier Broom pointed to) I figured I'd address your second poitn which is the idea of using city blocks set for destruction as arty target practice. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of the idea of "correcting the shot" but the problem with artillery is the first shot essentially NEVER lands where you want it to (it can be close but you spend a LOT of money for that) so shooting high explosive shells which may miss their target into a populated city...I rather hope the point is made.

[Balrog]

Could deploying the Army or National guard to these cities help at all?

Ignoring the question of legality, that would just make things worst. Who is going to want to move to a city that's so bad it's being patrolled by the Army? Besides, that already happened back in the '67 riots. Detroit got so bad, Johnson sent in the 82nd Airborne Division backed up by National Guardsmen with armor support to put down the mob. It restored order, but certainly did nothing to repair the city's reputation.

[Starglider]

Could deploying the Army or National guard to these cities help at all?

We tried that in Belfast in the 1960s. It was more justifiable because there was sectarian warfare between two quite distinct groups, and the local police were thoroughly corrupted by one of those groups, but it still didn't go well. I can't see having the national guard setting up checkpoints and shooting at suspicious individuals doing any good.

Besides, for the full-on 'slide in to dystopian corporate future' vibe you should deploy Blackwater mercenaries instead.

[Broomstick]

In fact, the use of military troops in the 1967 Detroit riots is what drove the city off a cliff - who the hell would want to live in a city so dangerous that the Feds were driving tanks down the interstate to restore order? 30 years after people were STILL talking about that, the need for tanks to restore order in a city. The use of troops stopped the riot, but were a major factor in destroying Detroit's viability as a city. After that, pretty everyone who could leave the city limits did so, regardless of color. Business owners pulled out, too - why invest in an area where your customers might burn you out?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

In fact, the use of military troops in the 1967 Detroit riots is what drove the city off a cliff - who the hell would want to live in a city so dangerous that the Feds were driving tanks down the interstate to restore order? 30 years after people were STILL talking about that, the need for tanks to restore order in a city. The use of troops stopped the riot, but were a major factor in destroying Detroit's viability as a city. After that, pretty everyone who could leave the city limits did so, regardless of color. Business owners pulled out, too - why invest in an area where your customers might burn you out?

Wow. A quick google of that has taught me much about why the city ended up in its current state, where the only part that was considered "OK" was a small number of blocks around the GM HQ building. Jeez... I only went to that area once for a jazz festival.

[RedImperator]

Of course you did, read your post, it refer to "dying cities", nothing specific, I never mentioned it would be fun in the worst of the worst neighborhoods of Philadelphia or the country. You're the one who brought that up yourself. Now you're backpedaling furiously while building a cute straw man.

You are one dumb twat. The OP mentions Flint, Detroit, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Memphis, and Philadelphia--all cities with serious drug and gang problems centered in decaying neighborhoods. The entire thread was about the worst of the worst neighborhoods--again, why do you think these cities want to tear them down to begin with? Everybody else in the thread knew exactly what I was talking about and drew the same conclusions from your posts as I did. You were the one who declared those neighborhoods to be "paradise" for little kids, and now you're the one trying to pretend you were just talking about abandoned buildings in general, as if anybody in the thread thought you meant Wild West ghost towns or spooky abandoned mansions or some shit. And then you accuse me of backpeadling. Backpeadling from what? My position hasn't changed in this entire thread, and if you think otherwise, I dare you to quote the post where it does.

The way I see it, one of three things happened in this thread:
1) You didn't realize these cities are dangerous and in terrible shape, but rather than just admit that, you got all butthurt and accused me of lying or exaggerating or what-have-you, and now that you can't sustain that (since everyone else told you the exact same thing), you're accusing me of backpeadling from some position I never held in the first place,

2) You are aware those cities are dangerous and were talking about abandoned buildings in general, but your communication skills are so poor you made it sound like you think the ghetto is paradise and exploring crackhouses is a fine way for kids to spend their summer vacation, and now you're trying to cover your mistake by accusing me of holding the ridiculous position that any building anywhere that becomes abandoned becomes a crack den (because, you know, when I'm exploring ghost towns in the Pine Barrens, I'm always on the lookout for the Crips),

3) You are aware those cities are dangerous and were talking about abandoned buildings in general, but your communication skills are so poor you made it sound like you think the ghetto is paradise and exploring crackhouses is a fine way for kids to spend their summer vacation, and you are so stupid you actually think I meant that any building anywhere that becomes abandoned becomes a crack den.

So, imbecile or liar. Which is it?

[ExarKun]

Of course you did, read your post, it refer to "dying cities", nothing specific, I never mentioned it would be fun in the worst of the worst neighborhoods of Philadelphia or the country. You're the one who brought that up yourself. Now you're backpedaling furiously while building a cute straw man.

You are one dumb twat. The OP mentions Flint, Detroit, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Memphis, and Philadelphia--all cities with serious drug and gang problems centered in decaying neighborhoods. The entire thread was about the worst of the worst neighborhoods--again, why do you think these cities want to tear them down to begin with? Everybody else in the thread knew exactly what I was talking about and drew the same conclusions from your posts as I did. You were the one who declared those neighborhoods to be "paradise" for little kids, and now you're the one trying to pretend you were just talking about abandoned buildings in general, as if anybody in the thread thought you meant Wild West ghost towns or spooky abandoned mansions or some shit. And then you accuse me of backpeadling. Backpeadling from what? My position hasn't changed in this entire thread, and if you think otherwise, I dare you to quote the post where it does.

The way I see it, one of three things happened in this thread:
1) You didn't realize these cities are dangerous and in terrible shape, but rather than just admit that, you got all butthurt and accused me of lying or exaggerating or what-have-you, and now that you can't sustain that (since everyone else told you the exact same thing), you're accusing me of backpeadling from some position I never held in the first place,

2) You are aware those cities are dangerous and were talking about abandoned buildings in general, but your communication skills are so poor you made it sound like you think the ghetto is paradise and exploring crackhouses is a fine way for kids to spend their summer vacation, and now you're trying to cover your mistake by accusing me of holding the ridiculous position that any building anywhere that becomes abandoned becomes a crack den (because, you know, when I'm exploring ghost towns in the Pine Barrens, I'm always on the lookout for the Crips),

3) You are aware those cities are dangerous and were talking about abandoned buildings in general, but your communication skills are so poor you made it sound like you think the ghetto is paradise and exploring crackhouses is a fine way for kids to spend their summer vacation, and you are so stupid you actually think I meant that any building anywhere that becomes abandoned becomes a crack den.

So, imbecile or liar. Which is it?

You're an idiot and a liar. I was referring to the original post which mentioned dozens of US. cities. As for those you mentioned, I live in one of those. Of course, I was speaking generally, but your puny little pathetic mind had to imagine that I was referring to the worst area of Philadelphia, just so you could show off that you lived there blah blah blah, I don't care fuck off. Now you are trying to feed the straw man some more by making choices that you made up for me to pick from. Get over yourself.

Edit:
And one more thing. I haven't had time to go through the whole thread, I might when I get a chance, and I see that I missed out on stuff before, like Baghdad post invasion comment. Are people actually saying some cities are worse than Baghdad?! The level of delusion on here is astounding.

[Bluewolf]

I might when I get a chance, and I see that I missed out on stuff before, like Baghdad post invasion comment. Are people actually saying some cities are worse than Baghdad?! The level of delusion on here is astounding.

Though these cities are overall, probably safer places than Baghdad, there are areas which would not be as good or worse. A lot of cities have had an inside rot in them where a lot of crime and violence and takes place. Who would want to invest there? This means these crap holes will stay as crap holes full of crime, and in some ways, yes this is worse than post invasion Baghad. Do you think Baghdad is some kind of Africa city which is on the verge of breakdown every day? The city has improved slowly since its occupation anyway and though there is less news on violence there, the amount of attacks has gone down .

[RedImperator]

You're an idiot and a liar. I was referring to the original post which mentioned dozens of US. cities. As for those you mentioned, I live in one of those.

If you actually live in one of those cities and think the ghetto is a "paradise" for little kids, you're either blind or so far beyond mere stupidity it defies description. Each and every one of them has serious drug and gang problems related to economic and population decline, and in all of them, abandoned buildings are used as crackhouses and hangouts for gangs, which is why the cities want to tear them down in the first place.

Of course, I was speaking generally,

Then it's your own dumbfuck fault every single person in the thread thought you meant the ghetto is paradise, because you were speaking generally in a thread about bad neighborhoods.

but your puny little pathetic mind had to imagine that I was referring to the worst area of Philadelphia, just so you could show off that you lived there blah blah blah, I don't care fuck off.

I said I worked there, you illiterate fuckhole, working with the kids who were apparently unaware they lived in paradise instead of, you know, a dangerous ghetto.

Now you are trying to feed the straw man some more by making choices that you made up for me to pick from. Get over yourself.

Hilariously, you say this after basically admitting to #2: you know the ghetto is dangerous and you were talking about abandoned buildings in general, but you're such an illiterate shitpile you couldn't get that basic concept across. And frankly, I think you're lying anyway. You're still hanging on to the idea that these cities aren't dangerous in your first paragraph. Well, some of them aren't dangerous everywhere--I walked three miles through Center City Philadelphia last night and I didn't feel the least bit worried about my safety at any point--but those parts aren't full of abandoned buildings. You live in one of those cities. Hooray the fuck for you. You're still fucking delusional if you think the dying neighborhoods are "paradise" for anyone except drug dealers and pimps.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

The interesting thing is, this idea has already been applied on smaller scales and has had some positive effects. The high-rise projects in Baltimore became unpoliceable 24-hour drug markets, so in the early '90s they were all demolished. Crime dropped. Of course, unlike that, this initiative would go after the root of the problem rather than just the symptoms, so I have to think it would be a good idea.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Remember Liverpool's Irish Ghetto apartments called "Strawberry Fields" was a herion shooting gallery, full of drug dealers, pimps, and whores when John Lennon was a child. They finally demolished it, and turned it into a public park, which is now frequently over-run by Chavs, (at least according to my understanding of news reports), so not much has changed.

Not that I want to give Gary Ind. the idea of turning several blocks of slum into Micheal Jackson family memorial park....

[Broomstick]

Too late - at least the 2300 block of Jackson Family Boulevard is already approaching that.

Though honestly, doing that is likely to be a significant improvement for the city. Not that Gary is all bad, but large portions of it is.

[Stormin]

Having watched several episodes of "Life After People" where they visited some of these areas as examples of years of uninhabitation and neglect, it would really be for the best to have these torn down. Compared to the problems they cause, the expense of removing them can't be that great.

[CmdrWilkens]

The interesting thing is, this idea has already been applied on smaller scales and has had some positive effects. The high-rise projects in Baltimore became unpoliceable 24-hour drug markets, so in the early '90s they were all demolished. Crime dropped. Of course, unlike that, this initiative would go after the root of the problem rather than just the symptoms, so I have to think it would be a good idea.

Unfortunately for Baltimroe it just moved out for a few years to teh suburbs before returning to the vast swaths of abandoned row homes that dot SE and NE Baltimore. My uncle-in-law was working on a project that was literally razing blocks at a time and rebuilding them before the slowdown stopped the project. These were row homes, and very typical, that had been abandoned for decades. Trees were growing through the backwalls into some of the homes. The city has literally tens of thousands of these homes which are unwanted and unpoliceable. The high rises were a blight and that area has gotten better but unforunately Baltimore sitll has a lot of space it needs to contract. Right now there are probably (given the population drop of 900k to 600k) on the order of 100,000 homes that are unneeded for the current and near future city population. You could raze a couple square miles and just be getting started.