Jump to content

stadtguy

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About stadtguy

  • Rank
    Unincorporated Area
  1. Modern day machine politics. I wonder how many of the precinct captains will be rewarded with patronage positions for friends and family members? I'm not sure how having the first black sherriff is a good in and of itself. It's neither good nor bad. Putting a guy who went bankrupt to the tune of $300K+ in an office that demands public trust (and you and I picked up the tab in terms of fees, prices, etc. from retailers) is not prudent.
  2. The decision to appoint this Nikita guy is disappointing. The whackos at Meckdeck and elsewhere might be right on this one. This "decision" is rooted in race and patronage. If this is how Democrats in Mecklenburg County make decisions, I can't support them in the future with either money or votes. Sad. It's events like this that further inflame suburban vs. urban conflicts that touch on issues of education (schools), taxes, etc.
  3. Unfortunately, Bruton is not as dumb as he looks. I think he intentionally planned this controversy in order to point the finger at Concord politicians. Now, he has an excuse to leave. I think he's wanted to leave all along. As the Observer pointed out this morning, Lowe's is an older venue. We all know how older venues fare in an age of luxury boxes and the sports industry. If he voluntarily closed Lowe's down, he would have been villified by both NASCAR and non-NASCAR fans alike. Now, he can point at local government and has an out. Of course, he'll get millions in subsidies and screw up two cities in the process but his supporters will claim that he's a man of honor and principle.
  4. There are some great examples of AAA ballparks, I especially like Louisville's. I'm personally not a big fan of these boosterism projects. However, if it's going to happen (and it is), we might as well maximize the benefits. In the Louisville photos, I find the grassy outfield area for sunbathing and relaxing a nice touch.
  5. Thank God the city did not permit a drive-thru. We certainly do not need any more cars idling in drive-thru lanes. Plus, forcing people to get out of their car (how primative!) might be the only exercise some people ever get.
  6. This is indeed a great thread. I'm enjoying the comments. I certainly understand the racial overtones, and I understand the pernicious long term effects of the Home Owners Loan Corporation (1934; redlining) and the Housing Act of 1949 (public housing). Part of the problem associated with our unfortunate history stems from the attitudes of "this is our neighborhood" so lets keep others out. Such attitudes explain the growing tension between white rural residents and growing Hispanic residents. The whites want to keep them out because the community belongs to long-term whites. In Cherry, some of the long term owners who sell will make a nice profit that can be used to fund retirement or buy a newer house in the burbs. The renters will have fewer opportunites, unfortunately. The city could freeze tax assessments on long-term residents who could be displaced by rising property values. Contingencies for affordable rental set asides could be enforced. I'm not a long term resident of Charlotte, but many suburban locales (like Prosperity Church/Mallard Creek) are becoming havens for middle and upper-income African Americans. Granted, not all will be able to take advantage of these neighborhoods, but homes can be found in the $150-175 range in these neighborhoods that lack the urban chic coolness of Cherry but have modern amenities that many would find appealing.
  7. Dubone makes some excellent points. I too agree that no one class or race should have a monopoly on place. Dynamic places require dynamic change. Voyager states: Market forces, not planners, are driving the change. I find the notion of protecting a "historic African American" neighborhood particularly interesting. I realize that urban renewal bulldozed it, but should we be concerned about protecting historic white neighborhoods (keep the new gentry out) or protecting new Hispanic neighborhoods? I'm not sure if protecting neighborhoods on the basis of race is a good idea. We need better fair share models of housing and social services to more adequately share the burden of poverty throughout the city. Setting aside entire neighborhoods for special interests will not achieve diversity, if that's what we want.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.