Gentrification

[runawayjim]

Can we keep these word in mind, people, next time somebody suggests that, for the greater good, poor people should simply refrain from having sex ever again? The very idea is insulting, yet it's come up at least twice in the last several pages of this thread.

it's not that poor people should refrain from sex, but rather tread carefully to be sure they are not having more children than they can afford. i consider myself a liberal, but one thing that really upsets me is that poor people tend to have more kids (i could careless how much sex they have) and those kids end up on welfare and don't grow up with the chances that a lot of others get. i am not in any way suggesting abortion as a resolution to the problem, but more education and possibly cheaper birth control and free condoms. and this isn't just minorities or really poor people. some people just don't understand the consequences of their actions. i know someone who had no money, has a house in CT and a trailer in FL. sold his SUV to buy a $40k pickup truck to drive the trailer to CT to sell it there when he could have sold it in FL (the end result was so he could live in CT full time). now he's in serious serious debt and considering doing a reverse mortgage or something on his house in CT to pay the debt, leaving his kids with nothing. he obviously doesn't know how to manage his money properly. it's comparable to someone who has unsafe/unprotected sex and ends up pregnant when she can't afford a child (or another child) nor can her husband/boyfriend/whatever. i have no intentions of getting my fiancee pregnant, nor would i really be able to afford it right now. i wouldn't dream of having sex without some form of birth control involved. the biggest part of that issue is education and availability.

[damus]

The Netherlands is doing that. But my question would be, whose American Lifestyle would we encourage people to emulate? I can think of a lot of Americanisms that I'd be happy for new comers to never learn about.

If they emulated the hard work and dedication of the "greatest generation", the libertarian values that this country was founded on, and combined those traits with their own values we would have a strong future. Where I work, there are a lot of foreign born people making a lot more money than I am. We definately have brought in a good number of well educated immigrants.

Isn't this a little off the topic of gentrification? Immigration certainly does warrant its own discussion.

[runawayjim]

If they emulated the hard work and dedication of the "greatest generation", the libertarian values that this country was founded on, and combined those traits with their own values we would have a strong future. Where I work, there are a lot of foreign born people making a lot more money than I am. We definately have brought in a good number of well educated immigrants.

Isn't this a little off the topic of gentrification? Immigration certainly does warrant its own discussion.

how many of those immigrants you work with are here on visas or came to the country legally? a big problem is the illegal immigrants who come here for a better life, and while it may look pretty bad to us, it's better than what they came from. they end up in the poor neighborhoods. that's where it coincides with gentrification.

i'm not saying all the illegals are a problem, and i'm not saying all the legal immigrants are wonderful.

[damus]

it's not that poor people should refrain from sex, but rather tread carefully to be sure they are not having more children than they can afford. i consider myself a liberal, but one thing that really upsets me is that poor people tend to have more kids (i could careless how much sex they have) and those kids end up on welfare and don't grow up with the chances that a lot of others get. i am not in any way suggesting abortion as a resolution to the problem, but more education and possibly cheaper birth control and free condoms. and this isn't just minorities or really poor people. some people just don't understand the consequences of their actions. i know someone who had no money, has a house in CT and a trailer in FL. sold his SUV to buy a $40k pickup truck to drive the trailer to CT to sell it there when he could have sold it in FL (the end result was so he could live in CT full time). now he's in serious serious debt and considering doing a reverse mortgage or something on his house in CT to pay the debt, leaving his kids with nothing. he obviously doesn't know how to manage his money properly. it's comparable to someone who has unsafe/unprotected sex and ends up pregnant when she can't afford a child (or another child) nor can her husband/boyfriend/whatever. i have no intentions of getting my fiancee pregnant, nor would i really be able to afford it right now. i wouldn't dream of having sex without some form of birth control involved. the biggest part of that issue is education and availability.

That's the point I was trying to make. People who aren't too well off to begin with lots of times have kids, then become trapped. Instead of having kids young and poor, why not work an extra job, save, and get an education so you can actually afford to raise your kids in a better situation? I do not hate poor people. Usually, poor people are born into the situation. The way society is now, it seems a lot of poor people are led to believe they are victims of society. Hard work and sacrifice aren't virtues you typically hear about in pop culture, which seems to be a bigger and bigger influence on young people.

[damus]

how many of those immigrants you work with are here on visas or came to the country legally? a big problem is the illegal immigrants who come here for a better life, and while it may look pretty bad to us, it's better than what they came from. they end up in the poor neighborhoods. that's where it coincides with gentrification.

i'm not saying all the illegals are a problem, and i'm not saying all the legal immigrants are wonderful.

Considering they all make around 6 figures as highly educated scientists, I'm pretty sure the immigrants I mentioned are either citizens or on visas. My company employs people from around the world, especially from what I've noticed China, India, and Pakistan. Good for them. The entire cleaning crew is Spanish, and I'd guess many of them are illegal.

[Dan]

I disagree with the idea that poor immigrants who aren't educated as well as most of us get a pass to live in filth. It has nothing to do with money or intellect.

When the North End was 90% Italian immigrants, the neighborhood was never a mess. The same goes for Smith Hill and South Providence. The Irish came here dirt poor and they worked long hours in a time before labor standards were enacted, but somehow all those triple-deckers were kept up - back then. Ask some of the old folks in Rhode Island, they'll tell you the way it was.

It doesn't take money to pick up a broom and a shovel. If something is important, if you have pride in something, you'll make it happen. Example - Illegal Immigrants closing up shop and coming out on May Day! But drive through their Broad Street neighborhood on a Sunday morning and observe.

My next door neighbor keeps his property looking spectacular. The house at the corner has junk all over the driveway and empty 12-pack boxes in the front yard. Different ethnicities, both Latino immigrant families. Can anyone explain that?

[Lone Ranger]

it's not that poor people should refrain from sex, but rather tread carefully to be sure they are not having more children than they can afford. i consider myself a liberal, but one thing that really upsets me is that poor people tend to have more kids (i could careless how much sex they have) and those kids end up on welfare and don't grow up with the chances that a lot of others get. i am not in any way suggesting abortion as a resolution to the problem, but more education and possibly cheaper birth control and free condoms. and this isn't just minorities or really poor people. some people just don't understand the consequences of their actions. i know someone who had no money, has a house in CT and a trailer in FL. sold his SUV to buy a $40k pickup truck to drive the trailer to CT to sell it there when he could have sold it in FL (the end result was so he could live in CT full time). now he's in serious serious debt and considering doing a reverse mortgage or something on his house in CT to pay the debt, leaving his kids with nothing. he obviously doesn't know how to manage his money properly. it's comparable to someone who has unsafe/unprotected sex and ends up pregnant when she can't afford a child (or another child) nor can her husband/boyfriend/whatever. i have no intentions of getting my fiancee pregnant, nor would i really be able to afford it right now. i wouldn't dream of having sex without some form of birth control involved. the biggest part of that issue is education and availability.

That's the point I was trying to make. People who aren't too well off to begin with lots of times have kids, then become trapped. Instead of having kids young and poor, why not work an extra job, save, and get an education so you can actually afford to raise your kids in a better situation? I do not hate poor people. Usually, poor people are born into the situation. The way society is now, it seems a lot of poor people are led to believe they are victims of society. Hard work and sacrifice aren't virtues you typically hear about in pop culture, which seems to be a bigger and bigger influence on young people.

Yes, I know what both of you were getting at earlier. My response was tongue-in-cheek. I get a little sarcastic thinking about this idea, if you haven't noticed.

But hey, maybe we should write it into law: until you're wealthy enough to fit into a certain mid-level tax bracket, it should be illegal for you to procreate. Or if you don't fit into that tax bracket and do have offspring, it should be illegal for a person to work less than 75 hours a week.

We live in a free society. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's a bad thing, I guess that depends on your point of view. Anyway, I don't dispute certain hypothetical benefits of the social engineering you're talking about. But I do dispute the practical applicability. And the moral consequences as well.

[runawayjim]

Yes, I know what both of you were getting at earlier. My response was tongue-in-cheek. I get a little sarcastic thinking about this idea, if you haven't noticed.

But hey, maybe we should write it into law: until you're wealthy enough to fit into a certain mid-level tax bracket, it should be illegal for you to procreate. Or if you don't fit into that tax bracket and do have offspring, it should be illegal for a person to work less than 75 hours a week.

We live in a free society. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's a bad thing, I guess that depends on your point of view. Anyway, I don't dispute certain hypothetical benefits of the social engineering you're talking about. But I do dispute the practical applicability. And the moral consequences as well.

i don't believe there should be any government mandated restrictions on procreation. that's absurd and a violation of human rights (see china). i don't think people should have to work a lot of extra hours. but the thing is, a lot of people came here, worked 75 hours a week in awful jobs and made something of themselves. they made money so their children didn't have to work like that. as far as having kids, it doesn't take a well-educated person to figure out that having 3 kids when you are a single income family making $30k a year is a really bad idea... our free society does have it's problems... but as a free society should we be going through and sweeping up everyone else's mistakes? some of these families have a lot of kids. you would think that after they realized that they couldn't afford the second, they would've stopped there, but somehow ended up with 4. but it's a free country, people have that right. there are education programs that work. it's just a matter of reaching the people who need it the most.

[eltron]

wow, there are some really disturbing things being written in this thread.

a little less progressive thought on this board than I might have thought.

[yossarian]

i never said it was a minority issue or that everyone in the ghetto acts teh same or that it's a low-income issue. i said that those areas where there are a lot of minorities or low-income people tend to be teh ghettos and tend to be dirty.

if even one of those 3-10 families took an hour a week to clean up their housing lot, the neighborhood would look beautiful. they don't have neighborhood pride. they have yet to prove their care about their neighborhood. and i undersatnd that they've come to accept dirtiness and don't have the same expectations i do. i will be moving in about a year. i will be considering more urban neighborhoods than the one i currently live in. i will be sure to clean up the area around my apartment even if my neighbors are slobs. i have pride. i refuse to live in a mess. there is absolutely no excuse for it. gentrification can only help the neighborhood in the eyes of the developers and city officials when the actual residents don't seem to care enough to even pick up litter. but then they're given a proposal that will create somewhat upscale housing and they're up in arms. i don't think they have that right when they don't even try to make their neighborhood look nice.

I disagree with the idea that poor immigrants who aren't educated as well as most of us get a pass to live in filth. It has nothing to do with money or intellect.

When the North End was 90% Italian immigrants, the neighborhood was never a mess. The same goes for Smith Hill and South Providence. The Irish came here dirt poor and they worked long hours in a time before labor standards were enacted, but somehow all those triple-deckers were kept up - back then. Ask some of the old folks in Rhode Island, they'll tell you the way it was.

It doesn't take money to pick up a broom and a shovel. If something is important, if you have pride in something, you'll make it happen. Example - Illegal Immigrants closing up shop and coming out on May Day! But drive through their Broad Street neighborhood on a Sunday morning and observe.

My next door neighbor keeps his property looking spectacular. The house at the corner has junk all over the driveway and empty 12-pack boxes in the front yard. Different ethnicities, both Latino immigrant families. Can anyone explain that?

Let me start by saying I am on the whole in favor of the ALCO project. It stands to significantly improve the City's tax base in the long run. While public funds in the form of the historic tax credit will be part of the financing, I think of that as an investment. As no housing is being displaced, the negative seems to be the potential loss of jobs caused by displacing the businesses on the site. My albeit limited and anecdotal experience is that there still remains a fair amount of vacant mill space in the city, and its surrounding areas, so it would seem that the businesses will not be forced to relocate out of the region or overseas and therefore, there would not be any substantial job loss.

However, on the related topic of gentrification a lot of discussion so far has suggested that the poor folks in run down neighborhoods should not be complaining about potential improvements to those neighborhoods, or gentrification, given the presence of trash and graffiti that the current residents are not cleaning up. They are not showing any civic pride. I am always skeptical of "if only people would just ____" type arguments. Suggesting that all of these people just need to get off their butts and start picking up trash overlooks the fact that perhaps there are some broader forces at play. I think its useful to ask, why is it that all of these individuals have all have chosen, independently, to engage in the same type of negative behavior, whether that is to eat fatty foods, to drive gas guzzling SUVs, or to not maintain their neighborhood.

I have absolutely no economics backgrounds whatsoever, but it seems to me that there are a few rational, systemic-type, reasons that people renting an apartment in a rundown, litter strewn neighborhood don't clean it up themselves.

First of all, the folks in Olneyville are by and large renters (18% owner occupied according to Prov Plan, contrast with Elmhurst 62%). When I and my neighbors mow our lawns and pick up trash in the street, I am doing something that benefits my family directly. I get not only the aesthetic benefit, but a monetary one as well. A well maintained yard and neighborhood means my house's value, which for me like most Americans is my single largest asset, goes up. If I am a renter in a three family and I pick up all the trash on the street everyday I am giving up my time and effort to put money in my absentee landlord's pocket, someone who often invests little or nothing in the property in which I live. And if my diligence makes the neighborhood more desirable, he or she raises my rent. So as a renter I have a disincentive to clean up the place.

Second if my neighbor is a renter, even if I clean up the property in which I live, it is likely that he won't. Then my efforts are for naught. In my neighborhood nearly every house has a well maintained yard. Why is that? In addition to most of us having the same personal financial incentives, there is also the often not so subtle social pressure imposed by neighbor/community. People generally conform to the norms of those around them. When you expect to interact with those people for the foreseeable future and you have gotten to know them (i.e. you are part of an established community), that impulse is strengthened. That means a free rider in my neighborhood is going to face some consequence for not doing their fair share. When the neighborhood is more transitory, the effect of communal pressure is diminished. That means there are more likely to be free riders, which means any one individual is going to be less inclined to participate.

If you buy into any of the above, what do you do? Maybe instead of saying these folks just need to start cleaning up their street, you say hey there really is something to the pride of ownership thing, maybe we need to dramatically increase rates of homeownership among the working poor. Or maybe you say that would be way too expensive, so instead we need to strengthen housing code enforcement on absentee landlords and use the funds generated to oay for greater services to the neighborhood.

[brick]

One reason that lower income people often have more children is that it creates a support structure for them as they grow older. One of the big problems that China is going to face in the coming years with their procreation control measures is that as the current generation gets older, there will only be one child to take care of two parents. It is actually a major issue for them. Wealthy people, in contrast, know that they will be able to take care of themselves, and will likely be able to take care of themselves better if they have less children.

We are really far off from gentrification so that's all I'm going to say about that.

As for the rent/own question, I really don't think this is as big an issue as yoss. might want to make it out to be. There are plenty of negligent owners and plenty of responsible renters. I think if you gave all of the people that are bad tenants an ownership option it would not change their behavior. The demographics are likely skewed because the type of people that take no pride in their neighborhood or surrounding are probably the least likely to have the means to buy. In the end, though, I don't think this is a rent or own phenomenon.

edit: Just to be clear, what I mean here is that even though more responsible people own, ownership along does not make one more responsible.

[basachs]

wow, there are some really disturbing things being written in this thread.

a little less progressive thought on this board than I might have thought.

I dont know exactly what type of progressive thought you were thinking of but thinking that people should clean up their neighborhoods and take greater responsibility for family planning and actions does not translate into thinking that there should not be progressive change in the socio-economic status of the poor and disenfranchised.

Now there may be some Liberatrianism strewn in there, but its not a total abandonment of progressive political philosophy, more of a melding.

I know for myself, I would like to see people take better care of their neighborhoods, even if they do rent. but I also understand some of the issues as to why that does not happen. I would like to to see people take better care of their family planning. I also understand the issues around why that does not always happen either. Dont think it makes me less of a progressive and more of a conservative.

I do believe that part of the answer is to get more home ownership in the poorest neighborhoods. I know you believe in these things too. Developments like the Parkis Ave project, WBNA 1577 Westiminster project, the Plant, and the efforts of SWAP are steps in the right direction and proof that these projects do happen alongside the market rate and "luxury" developments.

[eltron]

Newly developed housing costs what it costs due to a variety of factors, including the availability and cost of developable property, the cost of design and development, and the cost of construction. To make housing less expensive, you need to reduce those costs. Cumpulsary "afforable housing" statutes do NOTHING to reduce those costs, so how can they possibly produce affordable units?

The answer is that they distort the housing market, and push the price of "market-rate" units up to account for the loss associated with building and selling subsidized units. Wealthier buyers are directly subsidizing the buyers of the affordable units. Now, one could make the argument that the wealthier buyers are doing so willingly, but if ALL municipalities had affordable housing statutes, and the ENTIRE housing market gets distorted as a result (and this is the current trend), then those "market-rate" buyers have little choice but to subsidize. How is that justified? Can anyone tell me why someone of "low-income" DESERVES a discount at the expense of other buyers? Arguably, as others have pointed out on this thread, someone earning $25K/yr may be a dedicated, hard worker, as can be someone making $50K/yr. But the limits of what you can afford are limited by your income -- that's capitalism plain and simple.

If the goal truly were to make housing more affordable (via government action), then communities could adjust zoning regulations to allow greater density, modify building and fire codes to allow less expensive construction, reduce property taxes to reduce the cost of owning real property, etc. "Affordable housing" legislation is nothing more than forcing developers to steal from one class of people to give it to another.

BJE

BJE, I will agree that there are certainly some areas of government action that could help bring down the cost of housing construction - building code and fire code reform, reducing property taxes, and most importantly, making the permitting process quicker, easier, and more predictable.

However, I disagree with your assertion that "market-rate" buyers are directly subsidizing lower-rate buyers or renters in inclusionary zoning, as well as Garris' assertion that it is essentially placing a "tax" on the developers that other sectors of the economy do not have to bear. Lets take the topic du jour, ALCO and SBER, and look at what they are proposing there. Technically and literally, it is illegal. Were they to build what they propose in that location, without gaining the proper permits - you know, just went out and built it - they would be breaking the law and would face serious legal penalties. Now, inclusionary zoning says that if you contribute a public good, like affordable housing units (or anything really - parks, transit and infrastructure improvements, more fire trucks, whatever), you get something DIRECTLY back in your pocket in the form of more allowed density, or height, or other dimensional bonuses.

It is a direct exchange that allows the developer to make more money on more units than he otherwise would be permitted. Now, some of this additional profit may be offset by the need to build and absorb a loss on the affordable units, but as we have discussed, there are many subsidy sources out there being used by all developers to tap into and offset this burden.

Last I checked, when I fill up my gas tank and pay my gas tax, I don't get a bigger car the next year from the government, or get a free plasma in exchange for all my sales tax contributions.

If I was the developer with inclusionary zoning, I would have the same amount of money in my pocket (and I bet the smart ones would have MORE money in their pockets, thanks to all the financial help out there), the neighborhood has more housing choice across income levels, and is culturally richer and more diverse and interesting, and you avoid all the crap you have to get from the crazy artists, lefty activists, and politicians. Its all part of the game. Not to mention, I'd be able to sleep better at night knowing that I did the right thing, not the easy, most profitable thing (while also profiting rather nicely - I mean, is $55 million dollars really that much harder to live on than $60 million dollars?)

[runawayjim]

I think its useful to ask, why is it that all of these individuals have all have chosen, independently, to engage in the same type of negative behavior, whether that is to eat fatty foods, to drive gas guzzling SUVs, or to not maintain their neighborhood.

I have absolutely no economics backgrounds whatsoever, but it seems to me that there are a few rational, systemic-type, reasons that people renting an apartment in a rundown, litter strewn neighborhood don't clean it up themselves.

If you buy into any of the above, what do you do? Maybe instead of saying these folks just need to start cleaning up their street, you say hey there really is something to the pride of ownership thing, maybe we need to dramatically increase rates of homeownership among the working poor. Or maybe you say that would be way too expensive, so instead we need to strengthen housing code enforcement on absentee landlords and use the funds generated to oay for greater services to the neighborhood.

i think it is less an economics question and more a sociological question. but that's besides the point altogether.

it is useful to ask why these individuals engage in the negative behavior, but how many of them are truly just lazy or don't really care or have civic pride (regardless of the fact that they don't own their home).

there is pride of ownership and we should try to help the working (keyword there) poor own their own homes. we also should increase enforcement of the housing codes. there's a lot that needs to be done, but how much taxpayer money should go to helping people who aren't necessarily willing to help themselves?

[eltron]

However, on the related topic of gentrification a lot of discussion so far has suggested that the poor folks in run down neighborhoods should not be complaining about potential improvements to those neighborhoods, or gentrification, given the presence of trash and graffiti that the current residents are not cleaning up. They are not showing any civic pride. I am always skeptical of "if only people would just ____" type arguments. Suggesting that all of these people just need to get off their butts and start picking up trash overlooks the fact that perhaps there are some broader forces at play. I think its useful to ask, why is it that all of these individuals have all have chosen, independently, to engage in the same type of negative behavior, whether that is to eat fatty foods, to drive gas guzzling SUVs, or to not maintain their neighborhood.

I have absolutely no economics backgrounds whatsoever, but it seems to me that there are a few rational, systemic-type, reasons that people renting an apartment in a rundown, litter strewn neighborhood don't clean it up themselves.

Excellent post, Yoss.

Now, I absolutely hate the trash in my neighborhood. It drives me insane. And there are a ton of people that don't care. But it really disturbs me to read about "those people" when I know and work with many minorities and lower- to middle -income people who hate the trash just as much as I do and struggle every day to do something about it.

To be honest, I think most of the trash comes from people driving through tossing crap out their windows, or from absentee landlords who put out crappy trash barrels or bags that then allow trash to get blown all over the place on trash day. Improvement is needed, yes, but I'm sorry, some of the language on here is rather distrubing.

[HartfordTycoon]

I disagree with the idea that poor immigrants who aren't educated as well as most of us get a pass to live in filth. It has nothing to do with money or intellect.

When the North End was 90% Italian immigrants, the neighborhood was never a mess. The same goes for Smith Hill and South Providence. The Irish came here dirt poor and they worked long hours in a time before labor standards were enacted, but somehow all those triple-deckers were kept up - back then. Ask some of the old folks in Rhode Island, they'll tell you the way it was.

It doesn't take money to pick up a broom and a shovel. If something is important, if you have pride in something, you'll make it happen. Example - Illegal Immigrants closing up shop and coming out on May Day! But drive through their Broad Street neighborhood on a Sunday morning and observe.

My next door neighbor keeps his property looking spectacular. The house at the corner has junk all over the driveway and empty 12-pack boxes in the front yard. Different ethnicities, both Latino immigrant families. Can anyone explain that?

I'm glad people in PVD have always been so tidy. Part of the issue is that those neighborhoods were not really the slums before people moved to the burbs. They were the burbs and the slums were the industrial areas which were always a mess, even when they where filled with italians, irish, and jews. So maybe PVD has always been clean and I'm not from your city and don't know it's history. I do know Hartford history and have read about the conditions Italian immigrants were living in on Front Street in Hartford's since demolished East Side and the rest of Downtown which at that time would have been the slums as well. It is commonly described as a "teaming slum" where trash including food waste and human waste was regularly dumped onto the streets. This was at a time when the minority population was almost non existent in the city and middle class whites avoided poor white immigrant slums the same way they avoid the ghettos today.

[Cotuit]

It's easy to say, spend an hour a week cleaning trash. But then in another part of the discussion it's suggested that people get 2 or more minimum wage jobs. So between working two or more jobs, taking care of your children, and sleeping, where does this time to clean your neighborhood come from? There are people who work very hard, harder I think than most of us could imagine or endure, who live side by side with others who admittedly add little or nothing to their community. You have jobless people who don't care trashing an area where the people who do care don't have the resources or energy to clean it.

When you're barely able to keep food on the table and the lights on, a plastic bag in your yard becomes a less important issue to you.

I'm glad people in PVD have always been so tidy. Part of the issue is that those neighborhoods were not really the slums before people moved to the burbs. They were the burbs and the slums were the industrial areas which were always a mess, even when they where filled with italians, irish, and jews. So maybe PVD has always been clean and I'm not from your city and don't know it's history. I do know Hartford history and have read about the conditions Italian immigrants were living in on Front Street in Hartford's since demolished East Side and the rest of Downtown which at that time would have been the slums as well. It is commonly described as a "teaming slum" where trash including food waste and human waste was regularly dumped onto the streets. This was at a time when the minority population was almost non existent in the city and middle class whites avoided poor white immigrant slums the same way they avoid the ghettos today.

Yes, one doesn't see plastic bags blowing around in historic photos of Federal Hill because there were no plastic bags at the time. I would imagine the smell on Federal Hill was something else early last century.

[Recchia]

Part of this whole trash in low income area problem is probably due to the fact that people who don't even live in that neighborhood but are driving or walking through it, see it as a low income "ghetto area" and therefore don't care about littering in it. They think "these people dont care about litter so I'll just litter here too."

[yossarian]

As for the rent/own question, I really don't think this is as big an issue as yoss. might want to make it out to be. There are plenty of negligent owners and plenty of responsible renters. I think if you gave all of the people that are bad tenants an ownership option it would not change their behavior. The demographics are likely skewed because the type of people that take no pride in their neighborhood or surrounding are probably the least likely to have the means to buy. In the end, though, I don't think this is a rent or own phenomenon.

First, Do you have any facts or an explanation for why it is demographically speaking "the type of people that take no pride" are probably the least likley to have the means to buy."

Second, assuming arguendo that's true, what is the solution? If you are right and it is something inherent in the working poor, what do we as a city do?

it is useful to ask why these individuals engage in the negative behavior, but how many of them are truly just lazy or don't really care or have civic pride (regardless of the fact that they don't own their home).

there is pride of ownership and we should try to help the working (keyword there) poor own their own homes. we also should increase enforcement of the housing codes. there's a lot that needs to be done, but how much taxpayer money should go to helping people who aren't necessarily willing to help themselves?

I am sure there some people who are lazy and some people who no matter whether they rent or own will not care. There is always an outlier. I am sure you can find folks in Olneyville who despite the fact that they rent zealously pick up trash. Anecdotal evidence on an individual level is rarely helpful to coming up with policy solutions. My point is that unless you believe that a certain category of people, whether defined by class, race or ethnicity, are somehow predisposed such that they will never have "civic pride" there must be some other explanation for why the vast majority of people in the neighborhood have each individually decided not to clean the place up. I am not suggesting that the owner/renter distinction is the only explanation. It is just the one that came to my mind. But I do think it is more helpful to think in terms of underlying causes of behavior then passing off everything to individual responsibility. Individual responsibility can be offered as a solution to any problem (littering, teen pregnancy, drug use, graffiti, poverty, AIDS etc.). While it has tremendous moral appeal, I think relying on that solution alone rarely fixes the actual problem. We all remember how well "just say no" worked.

As to your question about taxpayer money and people who aren't necessarily helping themselves, if I were creating such a program I would certainly require full time employment as an entry requirement. Maybe place an emphasis on owner-occupied multi-family homes. So that you the person you are helping will gain a supplemental income source to the pay the mortgage. This far a field from my area of expertise, but I think we are more likely to make Providence a better place to live by trying to sort out these types of problems (i.e. what criteria would we want in a program to increase homeownership, how do we fund it etc.) then falling back on "some people are lazy."

[runawayjim]

Part of this whole trash in low income area problem is probably due to the fact that people who don't even live in that neighborhood but are driving or walking through it, see it as a low income "ghetto area" and therefore don't care about littering in it. They think "these people dont care about litter so I'll just litter here too."

that is part of the problem, probably the majority of the trash is from that. it's a problem in my neighborhood as well (where there are mostly owner-occupied single family homes). i still pick up the trash (i'm probably one of only a few renters on my street). the woman who lives below me (i've complained about her in the past about how she doesn't shovel or anything) is actually part of the litter problem. she doesn't care and leaves trash sitting on our porch so that when the wind picks up, it goes down the street. frankly, it's disgusting. some of the families on my street keep their homes and yards clean. others don't care. there is one house who leaves their big green trash can (the ones provided by the city) on the curb all week long because they're too lazy to wheel it (they have nice big wheels and are easy to move) even as far as next to the house in the driveway.

[runawayjim]

I am sure there some people who are lazy and some people who no matter whether they rent or own will not care. There is always an outlier. I am sure you can find folks in Olneyville who despite the fact that they rent zealously pick up trash. Anecdotal evidence on an individual level is rarely helpful to coming up with policy solutions. My point is that unless you believe that a certain category of people, whether defined by class, race or ethnicity, are somehow predisposed such that they will never have "civic pride" there must be some other explanation for why the vast majority of people in the neighborhood have each individually decided not to clean the place up. I am not suggesting that the owner/renter distinction is the only explanation. It is just the one that came to my mind. But I do think it is more helpful to think in terms of underlying causes of behavior then passing off everything to individual responsibility. Individual responsibility can be offered as a solution to any problem (littering, teen pregnancy, drug use, graffiti, poverty, AIDS etc.). While it has tremendous moral appeal, I think relying on that solution alone rarely fixes the actual problem. We all remember how well "just say no" worked.

As to your question about taxpayer money and people who aren't necessarily helping themselves, if I were creating such a program I would certainly require full time employment as an entry requirement. Maybe place an emphasis on owner-occupied multi-family homes. So that you the person you are helping will gain a supplemental income source to the pay the mortgage. This far a field from my area of expertise, but I think we are more likely to make Providence a better place to live by trying to sort out these types of problems (i.e. what criteria would we want in a program to increase homeownership, how do we fund it etc.) then falling back on "some people are lazy."

we had a that cop who came to my elementary school to talk to us about drugs... he took "just say no" to a new level and created his own slogan... "saying no means never having to say i'm sorry". parents loved that one. kids said "no" everytime they did something bad.

anyways, to the point. we do need to sort out the problems. i never said we didn't. most of my comments were because there is a lack of responsibility on the part of many people, both owners and renters (i'd say the split is 50/50 with an equal number of good renters and bad owners) and from all different socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. there are people who are just plain lazy. they need to be dealt with.

i do agree with the owner-occupied multi-family home. providence college has a home buying assistance program. while i think it should be expanded to include more areas, all of the homes available through it are in the section of elmhurst bounded by eaton (N), huxley (W), smith (S), and oakland (E). most of these homes are multi-family houses (duplexes and triple deckers). in order to keep the assistance money, you need to live there for 5 years. maybe the city should have a program like this.

[PCGrad02]

Having gone to PC and lived @ 137-139 Pembroke Ave for my junior and senior year, I must say that the neighborhood was always dirty. It was 99% due to PC students. You would think that you were in the wild west, but tumbleweeds were replaced with red solo cups. I always felt terrible for the people who did live in the neighborhood and tried to keep thier property clean. I would spend an hour on sunday afternoon cleaning up glass and trash from our front yard and curb area, there needs to be a fine of some sort to discourage this, the college should do something about it internally. PC students overall get a bad rep because of a few bad apples. Hopefully this has been reduced with the new dorms pulling kids back on campus.

[AriPVD]

Developers assess the viability of projects based on their potential to make a certain profit or a certain return on their investment. If this return diminishes (through a "tax" or reallocation of their profit), they will select a project or market that gives them the return that they are seeking. If less projects (luxury or otherwise) are built a) the general tax base stagnates or shrinks (thus allowing less funding to be directed to schools, social programs, government subsidized affordable housing), b) the overall supply of housing across the spectrum does not grow at its maximum potential rate and c) we discourage the relocation of affluence to our cities (which is the reason cities have declined so dramatically in the post-war period). This isn't us vs. them. This isn't haves vs. have nots. My economic argument is based on the premise that we want income diversity in Providence. I can understand the defense of inclusionary zoning in a city or town where the MAJORITY of people make three times over the national median income, NOT in a place that has the highest child poverty rate in the United States and desperately needs high-income individuals and high-taxable properties to support its admirable social welfare objectives.

[yossarian]

most of my comments were because there is a lack of responsibility on the part of many people, both owners and renters (i'd say the split is 50/50 with an equal number of good renters and bad owners) and from all different socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. there are people who are just plain lazy. they need to be dealt with.

I agree with all of that, except the 50/50 split. I think you will find a far higher percentage of folks who maintain their property versus renters who maintain their landlords. Maybe we could test it? Find two neighborhoods with similar socioeconomic demographics except that one is renter dominated and the other is owner dominated, and take a drive/walk. Any ideas?

As to your comments in the earlier post about your downstairs neighbor and the people with their trash can out all the time. I live in Elmhurst too, in the Gentian area and if either behavior was going on in my street I think the "offender" would be "dealt with." Not in the Sopranos' since of the word, but somebody would talk to the girl and to the homeowner and ask them to stop. If the owner didn't shape up, somebody would call the city (there is a reg about not keeping out trash cans except on trash days) and if nobody from the City showed up, somebody would call our councilman... My point is I think these things are more likely to happen in an owner dominated area. For example, the council member responds b/c the neighborhood is stable and can be counted on for votes and contributions. The owner with the trash can is more likley to listen to his neighbors if he is going to live next to the guy for thirty years.

[runawayjim]

I agree with all of that, except the 50/50 split. I think you will find a far higher percentage of folks who maintain their property versus renters who maintain their landlords. Maybe we could test it? Find two neighborhoods with similar socioeconomic demographics except that one is renter dominated and the other is owner dominated, and take a drive/walk. Any ideas?

As to your comments in the earlier post about your downstairs neighbor and the people with their trash can out all the time. I live in Elmhurst too, in the Gentian area and if either behavior was going on in my street I think the "offender" would be "dealt with." Not in the Sopranos' since of the word, but somebody would talk to the girl and to the homeowner and ask them to stop. If the owner didn't shape up, somebody would call the city (there is a reg about not keeping out trash cans except on trash days) and if nobody from the City showed up, somebody would call our councilman... My point is I think these things are more likely to happen in an owner dominated area. For example, the council member responds b/c the neighborhood is stable and can be counted on for votes and contributions. The owner with the trash can is more likley to listen to his neighbors if he is going to live next to the guy for thirty years.

let's rule temporary residents (college students mainly) out of the equation... as PCGrad said, they make a mess and generally don't care. that's a pretty good general statement about most of them, at least the PC kids. i think you'll find that in areas like teh armory or the east side where i imagine there are more higher income renters the areas look about the same as areas like elmhurst (your neighborhood and my neighborhood, which is between admiral and eaton, but west of river). renters don't have to maintain their landlords, they just need to keep the area around their house/apartment/whatever clean. i wouldn't expect my landlord to pick up trash taht was thrown in the street (although she does live next door to me, so she keeps her yard fairly clean, although i'd consider her one of the exceptions to the owner thing as her house and yard aren't the nicest looking on the street, in fact one of the worst looking, but she's got a lot of family issues to deal with and she's older and single).

who in the city do you call about the trash can? i'm gonna call them because it really annoys me... that can has been there for the last month straight. maybe i should move it for him or leave him a note.