It appears to me that on one side of the debate are neighborhood activists who want to improve the long term sustainability and livability of their neighborhoods. Most of these people feel that having an extremely high percentage of residents in poverty is a contributing factor holding back neighborhood revitalization. I am fairly sure that most of these people also believe that there are governmental programs and policies that contribute to the situation.
On one of the other sides of the debate are advocates for the poor, who seem to want to get as many housing units up and available as soon as possible and where ever possible. These people sometimes accuse the neighborhood improvement activists as being racist or classist. Wanting to revitalize one's neighborhood is an honorable goal. Wanting to get housing for the poor is an honorable goal. This is a tough issue. Land is cheaper in poor neighborhoods, so more lots for housing for the poor can be bought with the same amount of money. Richer neighborhoods, and suburbs, are better equipped and organized to oppose housing for the poor. I would guess that property with housing for the poor may reduce property tax income for the city greater in a higher value neighborhoods. What do the studies show? Do poor kids growing up in poor neighborhoods have a higher rate of problems than poor kids growing up in richer neighborhoods? Do they suffer higher rates of academic failure, of dropping out of school, of getting into criminal activity, etc? Dave Stack Harrison --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
