just go on Google news type in downtown shootings another one happen somewhere in the country everyday until these shootings stop I can not see downtown or city living becoming main stream in the USA. Here are some links from a online search.So what is the city doing to resolve that? So far, I haven't seen a whole lot. People shouldn't feel that desperate in a city they call home or think that the only way to resolve their frustration is through violence. Clearly the establishment isn't developing a city or an environment that supports those citizens. I have no confidence that current leaders are doing anything to fix it.I think the crime is the result of a lot of desperate people having no other way to resolve the problems/frustrations in their lives. Nothing more, nothing less.
Is it entirely the city's problem?pat wrote:So what is the city doing to resolve that? So far, I haven't seen a whole lot. People shouldn't feel that desperate in a city they call home or think that the only way to resolve their frustration is through violence. Clearly the establishment isn't developing a city or an environment that supports those citizens. I have no confidence that current leaders are doing anything to fix it.I think the crime is the result of a lot of desperate people having no other way to resolve the problems/frustrations in their lives. Nothing more, nothing less.
I take it you mean hurting economically? Yes, I agree. Although I'd wager that 99+% of residents of those areas simply look at it as not being their problem if it didn't happen in their area.ricke002 wrote:If STL City is hurting, so is Hazelwood, Affton, St. Peters and Fairview. While a lot of these criminals may originate in the City, it affects everyone. The City can't fix the problem by itself.
And then you have politicians playing whack-a-mole, or whack each other over the head about it, and you have a ridiculous situation.The city can't do anything with real impact unless it magically has a way to address the wealth imbalance in its citizen demographics. There are too many people that are too poor living too close to one another in too few census tracts. That is the entire problem. It probably makes it the city relatively expensive to operate, since so much otherwise useful $$$ has to get spent on policing poverty crimes, rather than doing useful things.
Perfectly put. It's astounding how few people understand this.onecity wrote:There are too many people that are too poor living too close to one another in too few census tracts.
Nail meet head. Simple, perfect summary of the problem.wustl_eng wrote:Perfectly put. It's astounding how few people understand this.onecity wrote:There are too many people that are too poor living too close to one another in too few census tracts.
On one hand I get it what you're saying but on the other hand I don't see how simply being in closer proximity with someone who has a little more money magically makes you a better citizen.robertn42 wrote:Nail meet head. Simple, perfect summary of the problem.wustl_eng wrote:Perfectly put. It's astounding how few people understand this.onecity wrote:There are too many people that are too poor living too close to one another in too few census tracts.
The mass migration of wealth to the county is what initially created the concentrated poverty in the city. And at this point most of the wealth that used to be in N. County has migrated farther out. The inner-city poor who manage to make it to N. County now likely find that their situation isn't' much improved.leeharveyawesome wrote:By this logic the migration from poor North City to the wealthier North County would have solved problems and not created them.
It will be the continuing migration of poor blacks northward and the migration of young professional and entrepreneurial whites behind them into central St. Louis that will save St. Louis City. Rebalancing, redistribution, or reorganization don't work in America. America changes through individual actions, not grand plans for change.urban_dilettante wrote:The mass migration of wealth to the county is what initially created the concentrated poverty in the city. And at this point most of the wealth that used to be in N. County has migrated farther out. The inner-city poor who manage to make it to N. County now likely find that their situation isn't' much improved.leeharveyawesome wrote:By this logic the migration from poor North City to the wealthier North County would have solved problems and not created them.
It's not magic; it's a mix of social psychology reinforcing desirable behaviors, and the economic impact of having wealthier neighbors to support businesses for employment and subsidize quality public infrastructure like sidewalks, schools and parks.leeharveyawesome wrote: On one hand I get it what you're saying but on the other hand I don't see how simply being in closer proximity with someone who has a little more money magically makes you a better citizen.
By this logic the migration from poor North City to the wealthier North County would have solved problems and not created them.
Not true. Social Security virtually eliminated the epidemic of poverty among the elderly almost overnight. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for younger people, except that we don't want to.MatthewHall wrote: It will be the continuing migration of poor blacks northward and the migration of young professional and entrepreneurial whites that will save St. Louis. Rebalancing, redistribution, or reorganization don't work in America. America changes through individual actions, not grand plans for change.
I guess we just have deep fundamental differences about how to solve problems. We've already got a huge safety net, we already redistribute wealth, we've been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and things have actually worsened.MarkHaversham wrote:It's not magic; it's a mix of social psychology reinforcing desirable behaviors, and the economic impact of having wealthier neighbors to support businesses for employment and subsidize quality public infrastructure like sidewalks, schools and parks.leeharveyawesome wrote: On one hand I get it what you're saying but on the other hand I don't see how simply being in closer proximity with someone who has a little more money magically makes you a better citizen.
By this logic the migration from poor North City to the wealthier North County would have solved problems and not created them.
And migration to North County probably would've solved problems, if not for the massive capital flight, which points to the problem. If you could make rich and poor uniformly distributed across the region, crime would probably drop immensely. But good luck getting wealthy West County NIMBYs to accept publicly subsidized housing on every block!Not true. Social Security virtually eliminated the epidemic of poverty among the elderly almost overnight. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for younger people, except that we don't want to.MatthewHall wrote: It will be the continuing migration of poor blacks northward and the migration of young professional and entrepreneurial whites that will save St. Louis. Rebalancing, redistribution, or reorganization don't work in America. America changes through individual actions, not grand plans for change.
The idea that we have a huge safety net is a myth people use to argue we shouldn't boost welfare. It wasn't true when Reagan talked about imaginary "welfare queens", and it's even less true now.leeharveyawesome wrote: I guess we just have deep fundamental differences about how to solve problems. We've already got a huge safety net, we already redistribute wealth, we've been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and things have actually worsened.
Despite our fundamental differences I can tell you one thing for certain and this is a very very freaking important point to make.
Despite how you advocate we solve problems and how I advocate we solve problems, it doesn't mean you CARE one tiny bit more than I do about people's well-being.
Isn't there probably a cut off on how much poverty you can distribute across a region? The city is 40% poor. That's a large number. Would distributing that large a number of poverty across the city bring the poor people up or the wealthy people down?It's not magic; it's a mix of social psychology reinforcing desirable behaviors, and the economic impact of having wealthier neighbors to support businesses for employment and subsidize quality public infrastructure like sidewalks, schools and parks.
And migration to North County probably would've solved problems, if not for the massive capital flight, which points to the problem. If you could make rich and poor uniformly distributed across the region, crime would probably drop immensely. But good luck getting wealthy West County NIMBYs to accept publicly subsidized housing on every block!
The hypothetical redistribution would have to include the county to have any impact, because as you say, the city is dense with poverty. But there are all kinds of practical problems with the idea. Like, even if you could stick a subsidized housing unit in Ballwin, how would the occupants get around without a car? How would poverty services be administered in low-density suburbs? Modern suburbs are hostile to the poor by design.pat wrote: Isn't there probably a cut off on how much poverty you can distribute across a region? The city is 40% poor. That's a large number. Would distributing that large a number of poverty across the city bring the poor people up or the wealthy people down?
I think what we need is better educational resources. More education at a younger age, better resources for our current schools, more after-school care, and make community college free for kids that attend SLPS.
You're rejecting my argument by explaining why my argument is true? Very confusing.MarkHaversham wrote:It's not magic; it's a mix of social psychology reinforcing desirable behaviors, and the economic impact of having wealthier neighbors to support businesses for employment and subsidize quality public infrastructure like sidewalks, schools and parks.leeharveyawesome wrote: On one hand I get it what you're saying but on the other hand I don't see how simply being in closer proximity with someone who has a little more money magically makes you a better citizen.
By this logic the migration from poor North City to the wealthier North County would have solved problems and not created them.
And migration to North County probably would've solved problems, if not for the massive capital flight, which points to the problem. If you could make rich and poor uniformly distributed across the region, crime would probably drop immensely. But good luck getting wealthy West County NIMBYs to accept publicly subsidized housing on every block!Not true. Social Security virtually eliminated the epidemic of poverty among the elderly almost overnight. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for younger people, except that we don't want to.MatthewHall wrote: It will be the continuing migration of poor blacks northward and the migration of young professional and entrepreneurial whites that will save St. Louis. Rebalancing, redistribution, or reorganization don't work in America. America changes through individual actions, not grand plans for change.
