I have always wondered that... Why do people not want low income housing near their place? Where do they expect poor people to live? Are poor people supposed to live in high density buildings on the opposite area of town?



I think George Carlin says it best "not in my backyard"...



I agree with what has been said. Poor people must be integrated into nicer neighborhoods. These areas have good police and community involvement. When large groups of poor are isolated, the result is crime, pure and simple. Maybe because the police do not care, or because they cannot enforce the law in such bad areas.



Building these horrible houses in desolated areas, thus trying to emulate the middle class housing in the burbs, and create a subdivision, will only fail. There needs to be high income developments in North St. Louis as well, thus creating a variable income community, not just a vinyl siding slum. If North St. Louis is to be brought back, there must be diverse amounts of URBAN style housing. Low income developments are needed, however not of this style, and they must be mixed with middle and high income houses.

The whole idea of forcing poor people into nice neighborhoods against the wishes of the people in these neighborhoods is the main reason for St. Louis city's decline.



Poor people are poor for a reason. The more a person contributes to others in society, the more money they will have. Those that contribute little will not earn much. The problem is that the government has been encouraging many of these people to have kids that they cannot care for by giving them more money through welfare. Welfare is the primary reason that the black illegitimacy rate is nearly two-thirds (it was less than the white illegitimacy rate before welfare). A child needs a father and a mother to support him. If I recall correctly, about 70-80% of prison inmates came from fatherless families. These perverse incentives need to be eliminated if we are ever going to get rid of unvoluntary poverty (an extremely realistic goal in my mind).

Well said Mista. Welfare is needed, it is a social net. I should not be a crutch however and it needs reform. I am in favor of welfare, and any way to empower people and get them off welfare is a good thing. In fact, now to get onto welfare you must be in college, a little known fact.



St. Louis' decline has nothing to do with poor people in a rich neighborhood. The city is a place where diversity is key, there is income diversity. If you are saying that neighborhoods should be divided by income, my god, that is horrible. Division of people only breeds ignorance and stereotypes, which is a problem for any urban community.



Lack of education in african american communities has to do with jobs leaving the city, then the influx of drugs. It is complicated and dividing communities will do nothing. Communities must be diverse and embrace the qualities of each group, so that all can work toegether for a better metropolis.

So which is it? Are all poor people poor for a reason or is there involuntary poverty? Or is it that the majority of poor people grew up in extreme poverty and therefore started off with various social, physical, and psycological diadvantages. I think the latter is more true. Welfare is needed to help out people who fall on hard times. You never know, YOU may need to use it one day....

I was saying that welfare is what has created a class that subsists on the "poverty" line. There was always a social safety net, until the government destroyed it with the New Deal and Great Society programs. People used to turn to private charities, the churches, friends and family, etc. They only did this when they absolutely had to and there was no abusing this net because the aid was voluntarily given and could be denied to those who didn't deserve it. Bad decisions were discouraged this way. The newspapers used to run articles about the neediest people in the city, but distinguished between the deserving and the undeserving. A widow with kids whose husband died fighting a fire was deserving. An unwed mother was not. The latter still recieved aid, but scorn for her bad mistakes (which discouraged others from doing the same).



But the government replaced all of this with welfare lines. Now you see unwed mothers demanding money from bureaucrats handing out other peoples' money. This government interference has made "Dad" expendable and resulted in single parent households. Without a positive male role-model, there is a strong chance for these kids to make wrong decisions. Welfare has created a vicious cycle of poverty.

Would you say civil servants and school teachers contribute little, because they don't make very much money. You know as well as I do this statement is false as well. Your above rant make little to no sense. If I were you I'd edit it, out of embarrasment.

I should have elaborated on the contribute part. In order to make a lot of money, you have to have a comparative advantage over other workers in satisfying the needs of society. Janitors and grave diggers contribute to society and their job is hard work, but just about anyone can do those jobs. Surgeons are rich because there aren't that many people who can perform surgery, etc. These people are poor because they haven't invested in any building any skills or advantages over others in the labor market.

St. Louis' decline has nothing to do with poor people in a rich neighborhood. The city is a place where diversity is key, there is income diversity. If you are saying that neighborhoods should be divided by income, my god, that is horrible. Division of people only breeds ignorance and stereotypes, which is a problem for any urban community.

Diversity is not an end in itself. 19th century London had little diversity and neither does today's Tokyo or Shanghai. Freedom of association is what is key. Forcing people to mix together is just as bad in principle as forced segregation.

Sigh... well all I will say is that anyone who belives it is the role of governement to make all things equal is foolish. The best one can hope for is eqaulity of opertunity in the philospophy of service open to talents. Whereby if you have the skills then you have a shot at the job. Anything beyond this is man trying to tackle God and thats something that will always fail.



Even in states where they mandate afordable housing it doesn't work (New Jersey).



The best you can hope for is to offer areas where people can mix and meet other different from them and develope the understandings nessisary to have a functioning society. Forced social change always fails.

People tend to gravitate towards people like themselves.

This is a problem, isolating yourself to people that are like yourself breeds stereotypes and slows diversity, as well as, the spread of new ideas, ie, cultural diffusion. I would prefer to live in a more diverse neighborhood such as the central west end, or any place in the central corridor, but, this is not an option yet. If you perfer to be with people like yourself, fine, I am not critizing that. I would like to say just keep and open mind to other people and ideas.







Obviously certian neighborhoods are ethnic enclaves such as the Hill. I am saying that people should not get angry when low income housing is built near their house. Low income housing should not be isolated to one specific area, because, as stated, there is bad schools and a low tax base. These enclaves should maintain their identity, however, they should not selectively exclude other groups from moving into the neighborhood, such as the off the market real estate practice of the hill, with the only reason being maintaining the neighborhoods white population. It is possible to maintain the atmosphere of the hill without excluding other groups of residents, just keep the property maintained and keep prices at resonable levels. Also only sell to responsible individuals who will not ruin the property. This concept is independent of ethnic background, its called being a responsible seller.





I disagree that before the New Deal there was a safety net. Private Charity is not a safety net because you have to rely on the charity of others, and this presupposes that one person cares about another. If people are wary of low income housing near their own home, then how can we expect this person to provide charity to the poor?



You can make the counterargument that the most non-caring group of people is the white collar criminals, or the government, however, the way to fix this issue is to be involved in the government, and vote people out of office who do not represent your issues. Not everyone is selfish, however, most people in power seem to be. It is really a toss up, private vs. public charity, and we can see the results:



Depression - Failure of Private Charity

Katrina - Failure of the Government



Either system is flawed, and until there is a new system, I will have to support our current system, albeit more reformation should be taken.

This government interference has made "Dad" expendable and resulted in single parent households. Without a positive male role-model, there is a strong chance for these kids to make wrong decisions.

I do not see how "dad" was made expendable. Men are required for reproduction, and I do not agree that men are essential for the proper upbringing of a child. Women are capable of raising children alone, just as men can raise child alone.

Such a little known fact, I don't think the actual law even knows it.

Yeah, you are right. TANF requires employment, not college. Anyway, it is a step in the right direction. Forcing employment can help people get off welfare dependency; however, I believe corporations should offer college tuition reinbursement for even the lowest level factory employees. This creates loyal employees and increases their education. When they graduate, you have loyal, educated, and qualified members of your internal work force, which can be promoted at any time. The city could work with coprorations and give them tax incentives if they offer these types of programs, because lower income workers are being educated, thus the education of the citizenry is increased; this benefits the city at larger. The universities could also offer lower tuition for these individuals. This creates greater enrollment, and if these people are property motivated, higher test scores, as well as, a local reputation of being a university truely involved with the community, and its social problems.

Marmar, thats what I am trying to get to, that concept of helping people out, extending help to poor neighbors, not shunning them.