|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Jun 8, 2009 4:54:45 GMT -5
Do I like high rise living....Hell NO if it is low income living. I think there should be a place for people like myself but if you did that then it would be called discimination, racism and all the rest of the adjectives you can think of. But why must I be subjected to a life I was not raised in and will never be comfortable with. I can't imagine why anyone would get the impression you were racist. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 8, 2009 6:43:35 GMT -5
I was referring to the times of blasting music and smoking pot. While something that is common to a ghetto, I'm not in the ghetto. But I am just on the outskirts of what would be considered the ghetto. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 8, 2009 7:38:59 GMT -5
I'm kinda sorry we invented the term racist. Before that word, we just liked certain kinds of people and didn't like other kinds of people. Like most humans, we made broad sweeping and often inaccurate judgements based on country of origin, skin color and the kind of laughing noise they produced. True, if in a position of power and wishing to play one group against another, a few demagogues did murder large groups of humanity. But your average Joe on the street simply made snide comments and invented colorful names until the "minority" moved in next door to him. Or married his daughter. Then they often began to get along.
I doubt anything has changed since we invented the word racist. Except now we have another name to call people.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jun 8, 2009 9:34:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 8, 2009 10:24:52 GMT -5
The term ghetto, according to the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, originally described the Jewish quarter of Venice, in the 1500's. Other cities and authorities later created more similar "ghettos" in Frankfort, Rome and Prague. During WWII, the Nazi's created Ghettos, into which they force Jews all through German occupied Poland and Russia.
If this were still the "true" definition of a ghetto, Utica's "ghetto" would be most likely a portion of South Utica, most likely between Genessee and Oneida St, but also spreading along the Parkway and into other affluent portions of the city.
NY City's ghetto would most likely be found to be in Brooklyn and Queens, not in Harlem.
In modern times, ghetto has come to be defined as "a portion of a city where minorities live, especially because of social, legal or economic pressure.
In the case of Utica NY, the "ghetto" in the inner city and Corn Hill was created by the city, when they eliminated the projects where a good many minority families lived, and did not provide an alternative affordable place for them to move to. It forced minority families to be at the mercy of slumlords that were in business simply to get a check from social programs without having to properly maintain a property in a condition that would make it appealing to anyone other than those unable to afford to go anywhere else.
Minorities are not always the enemy. In some neighborhoods, the slumlord is the enemy. They purchase the homes for 10 or 12 grand, with no intention of doing anything other than what is required my law, to maintain them. They are allowed to continue to purchase and bleed these properties, and then when they become a burden or need a lot of repairs, they either burn them or allow them to go to the city and county for taxes.
I don't agree with the downtown highrise on top of Kennedy Garage, but I do think that one cure for the problem with deteriorating housing in Corn Hill is to create much more "project" style housing, and rent controlled apartment buildings, owned or subsidized by government. That way, maintenance is controlled, government has some input into what is acceptable and what is not, in behavior while living there, and people are taken out of the clutches of greedy slumlords. "Projects" and highrise living works in cities like NY and Chicago, why not in Utica and other smaller cities?
Moving the poor from Cornhill to subsidized project style housing, removes the gravy from the plates of the slumlord, and opens that property to someone who might purchase it to LIVE IN. Many of the slumlord type properties would fall totally into disrepair and end up being given up for taxes. That would allow the city to tear them down, or force them to be torn down at owner expense and for single family dwellings to be built. and sold to lower income families that would take pride in owning their own home. Double wides, modulars and prefab homes would improve the neighborhood.
When I was younger we lived in a National Home, that was a prefabricated house, built in Horseheads NY, piled on a truck and assembled in N Utica, that was sold for $9900 to veterans. It was very cheaply built and not of extraordinary quality, but here we are 50 years later, and those houses on Keyes Road and Briarcliff are selling for prices in the Upper 70's and more. Every morning there was 3 or 4 trucks sitting along Keyes Rd, and by night time there was 3 or 4 more houses standing. Why not in Cornhill for low income families that want to work and own a home, but cannot afford one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 8, 2009 11:32:59 GMT -5
Ok, after that definition you gave, clipper, I feel the need to substitute that definition for the one in my head. To me a ghetto is a section of town that is run down, infrastructure falling apart, like the city forgot that section even exists. Everyone is poor and crime is rampant. With that definition, I stand by my statement. With your definition, I change my statement to reflect something along the lines of what I just wrote before this last sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 8, 2009 12:54:44 GMT -5
Yep, for those that lived in the ghettos of Europe, things went downhill from there. They were eventually either lined up and killed, and buried in mass graves, or they were moved to killing camps.
I am sure that some of the more ignorant and racist bigots today, would find that a satisfactory resolution to the urban blight that plagues Utica today.
Some seem to forget, or do not know, that those that think that hispanics are a "race" are sadly mistaken. Hispanic, Latino, Latin American, are all ethnicities, not races. The hispanic ethnicity can include all races, black, causcasion, native american, asian and others. Hispanics are really no different than us French Candians, Polish, Italian, Irish, or any other ethnicity. It refers to their country of origin being spanish speaking, rather than their genetic makeup, skin pigmentation, or other race indicators.
That is why I find even more disgusting that an educated woman like Sotemayor(sp) is considering herself to be of a racial minority. She is simply a poor assed American like the rest of us, that grew up in a poor family from Mexico or wherever, and was privileged enough to obtain or attain a good education through the hard work of her mother and herself.
I see her as nothing but a feminist bigot, with a chip on her shoulder and an affirmative action card to play. She doesn't deserve to serve on the supreme court.
When race and ethnicity can be set aside, and we can all be simply homosapiens, we will have a chance of living in a non-prejudiced society. Hell, even dogs don't discriminate in their socialization, or define their friends by breeding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 8, 2009 12:59:27 GMT -5
Heck Swimmy, even with your modified definition of a ghetto, we still are kinda like the nazis, in that those run down sections of town are looked upon with disdain, and every attempt is made to keep those folks within the boundaries of that area. The ethnicity may be different, but the principle is still aimed at a specific demographic that is found to be undesireable and maligned by a segment of society.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 8, 2009 17:21:11 GMT -5
As a taxpayer, I really don't care for the idea of being a landlord. I'd rather enact laws to control the landlords who would provide housing.
And I think that's fair. Because if we give a landlord an opportunity to make money which will in large part be paid by taxpayers when they subsidize rents, I think we should be able to put on more restrictions than in a normal free market.
That's all theoretical, of course. You'd have to find politicians who would be willing to enact such laws without regard to their own campaign chests or pocketbooks. And since none of this is rocket science, I have to assume it's the politicians who have been the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 8, 2009 18:04:58 GMT -5
There is always the possibility in Utica, that a politician might BE a slumlord and would not want to hurt his racket.
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Jun 9, 2009 10:47:33 GMT -5
I read where Rome, NY is building apartment housing for low and middle income people. Thats a good thing. And I am not racist. There is good and bad in every race. The percentage seems to move up on one side but that is because of poverty. I am against poverty
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jun 9, 2009 12:35:28 GMT -5
I've been on both sides of the fence. It is not fun nor easy being a landlord so I understand some of the problems attached. What we need is a good landlord and a good tenant. Sometimes you get lucky and it is both.  The View is the only good thing about living in a highrise |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 9, 2009 17:54:14 GMT -5
The View is the only good thing about living in a highrise Isn't it a bit quieter up there? |
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jun 9, 2009 19:49:12 GMT -5
For those of us of a certain age, here is a link to the "real" version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jun 10, 2009 1:41:11 GMT -5
This IS the stupidest idea I have heard of yet. Talk about adding insult to injury.
What happened to our elected officials representing what we the people want?
I think everyone hit the nail on the head. The City does not need to be a landlord, nor construct speculative housing ventures with our tax dollars…..no matter where they come from, they are OUR dollars.
It is just a bad fit, putting a square peg in the round hole and all that. “Come to City Hall where we have subsidized housing right on our doorstep……..literally!”
POOH!!!
Clipper, as an addendum to your thoughts on subsidized/public housing. The old styles you suggest; such as those on the outskirts in high-rises or grouped spots like Adrean Terrace/Matt Apartments and such don’t work. This has been proven a fact. They breed contempt from others and are a breeding ground for criminal enterprises you just wouldn’t believe. The horror stories I have heard from other Coordinators around the country would curl your hair.
And it only perpetuates not only the stereo types involved, but the very fabric of those that grow up in them.
Hope VI, while screwed up beyond belief in Utica, is the one HUD program that not only showed potential, but actually proved itself. Integration of homeowners and renters, no matter what their income level, has always proved to be more fruitful than stuffing low income folks into holes and hiding them from the rest.
Keep in mind that Cornhill was at one time one of the most vibrant areas of the city. It was filled with homeowners…..and those that rented from them. Most of the housing stock was two or three family, and the owners lived there.
What killed that whole philosophy and contributed to the downfall of the “inner city” was something that Strikeslip always goes back to as well…….urban sprawl.
We all know that the majority of the offspring of those that owned the inner city properties struck out on their own, and where else but to buy a single family home……..outside of the city or on its fringe. When Mom & Pop passed away, they didn’t want to be bothered and either let the family home go or sold it cheap to get out from under…….which is where after a fashion the slumlords came to be.
Turning it around will not now, or ever, be easy. You can’t do just “one thing” and expect it to revitalize the whole City, whether in the neighborhoods or Downtown. There has to be a reason for people and businesses to want to locate themselves here.
Folks can dream up all the housing aspects they want, but until they figure out how to get businesses to come here, the best they can hope for is to tax the remaining residents to death and build enough “facilities” to house those that eventually go bankrupt trying to pay them.
But you have to start somewhere. The Mayor of Boston came here a few years ago and told us that if we ever wanted to revitalize the City we had to start in the neighborhoods. If you ever want business to even think about moving here, you better have a damn good place for the CEO’s, underlings and their employees to live.
You can redevelop a neighborhood. I have been back and forth to Boston a lot over the past 30 years. I have seen whole neighborhoods where they couldn’t give the houses away turn themselves around to the point where you can’t afford to even think about buying an inner city home for under $500k…..minimum!
They turned Brownstones that sold at auction for thousands into buildings that are now worth millions.
But again…….there has to be a reason for them to live in the City to begin with.
We have (despite the bitching of some) plenty of venues and attractions for any that come here, we do still have housing opportunities all over the City in one way shape form or another, what we need is EMPLOYERS…….i.e. business.
We do not need this building over the garage, no matter who it is for. What we need are businesses that are willing to come here, for whatever reason. They will bring people with them or attract them to come here……and they will not come empty handed.
That has always been a proven fact.
|
|
