It’s frustrating, because anyone who has the authority to make positive changes either doesn’t understand these issues or will not take action. It’s one of those subjects on which knowledge has come by experience. Cities in America are becoming worse and worse- I’m sure the three examples I’ve seen myself are far from unique. They are cities on the east coast, west coast, and midwest.
The first step in destroying a city is to move everything out. This first came to my attention in the late 1960s. During my childhood, the city in Westchester County NY was a ‘thriving, vibrant community;’ everything one needed was there- department and specialty and discount stores, diners and restaurants, movie theaters, and one did not need to go far to find a physician or dentist. In the late 1960s, though, when people said they were “going to the Beach,” they were not referring to the sand and ocean a few miles away- whether you wanted groceries, shoes, or a movie, it meant traveling out to the shopping center. The pattern of moving everything out continued. The point: when there’s little to nothing left in downtown areas for average people, the areas are breeding-grounds for crime. And that does not even address the inconvenience- when individuals must travel a distance whenever they want something.
The second step in destroying a city is to change the face of its population. This is not a racial/ethnic issue, it’s about the cost-of-living. When the costs of living increase to the extent that middle-class and low-income employed individuals can no longer afford to live there, and those with much higher incomes prefer not to, the average population moves out. Wealthier people move to other cities and towns; people with moderate to low incomes are forced to move on. In many instances, the latter results in homelessness.
Shortly after my family moved from my original hometown, the property taxes doubled. Some of the adults in the community were employed at the Veterans Administration hospital, two police officers, and a high school teacher. Common to the area, everyone owned the homes they lived in. And it’s worse for renters. As one example in the second city, a manager told me the owner’s policy was to increase rents by twenty percent every six months. Without statewide rent control, other apartment managers had no limits on how often or how much they could increase rents. Not only did this mean renters had no security, often not able to live in one apartment for more than a year or two, but it occasionally meant that old saying ‘Californians live in their cars’ was about more than transportation.
I knew an entire family- a married couple, two children, newborn baby- who actually did that. I had neighbors in a small studio apartment- sixteen people in one tiny apartment. With owners allowed any rules they chose, it worsened- affordable housing could be denied solely on the basis of the number of people in a family. From greedy landlords to the lack of rent control, it has worsened over the decades- entire blocks have nothing but vacant buildings up for sale. With moderate-and-low-income people no longer able to live there, and wealthier people choosing not to, it, too, has become a pit of drugs, crime, and gangs.
The changing face of the population- when an area is no longer affordable to many, and distasteful for those who have more options, the new residents they cater to are the unemployed. Individuals who can and should work don’t- and they take over. With the escalating housing costs, more and more people need government assistance for housing, but those who are catered to the most are those who are, by choice, unemployed. Instead of insisting individuals with ‘substance abuse’ problems obtain appropriate treatment and go to work, they’re considered ‘disabled’ and given a wide range of government benefits- including housing. There’s less housing for people who work for a living, elderly/retired people, and those who have a medical need for assistance; it’s an unfair drain on our taxes; and neighborhoods become intolerable- from the day-to-day disturbances to drugs and crime.
These have been my experiences in three cities- in New York, California, and Iowa. If anyone has any authority to make positive changes, these trends need to be reversed. Downtowns must reestablish businesses that meet the needs and preferences of average residents; rent controls must be established so renters are not in the position of frequently moving or becoming homeless; and housing must meet the needs of the general population instead of catering to those who choose to not work.
This has not happened and probably will not. Cities will continue to fall apart. Individuals who do not work will have more benefits and more options than individuals who do. Homelessness will continue to increase. Landlords who consider getting as much money as they possibly can to be their only priority will also lose out- from buildings where no one can afford to live, to buildings that are inhabited by individuals engaged in substance abuse and/or other criminal activities.
The first two cities used to be thriving communities and great places to live; the third was relatively decent, too. But the steps I mentioned near the beginning of this post have destroyed them all- and I’m sure there are many other cities throughout the United States that have been following the same patterns. To politicians, agencies, etc.: Wake up and see what has been happening- if you have any concern for your particular community, start by reversing these mistakes.
The first step in destroying a city is to move everything out. This first came to my attention in the late 1960s. During my childhood, the city in Westchester County NY was a ‘thriving, vibrant community;’ everything one needed was there- department and specialty and discount stores, diners and restaurants, movie theaters, and one did not need to go far to find a physician or dentist. In the late 1960s, though, when people said they were “going to the Beach,” they were not referring to the sand and ocean a few miles away- whether you wanted groceries, shoes, or a movie, it meant traveling out to the shopping center. The pattern of moving everything out continued. The point: when there’s little to nothing left in downtown areas for average people, the areas are breeding-grounds for crime. And that does not even address the inconvenience- when individuals must travel a distance whenever they want something.
The second step in destroying a city is to change the face of its population. This is not a racial/ethnic issue, it’s about the cost-of-living. When the costs of living increase to the extent that middle-class and low-income employed individuals can no longer afford to live there, and those with much higher incomes prefer not to, the average population moves out. Wealthier people move to other cities and towns; people with moderate to low incomes are forced to move on. In many instances, the latter results in homelessness.
Shortly after my family moved from my original hometown, the property taxes doubled. Some of the adults in the community were employed at the Veterans Administration hospital, two police officers, and a high school teacher. Common to the area, everyone owned the homes they lived in. And it’s worse for renters. As one example in the second city, a manager told me the owner’s policy was to increase rents by twenty percent every six months. Without statewide rent control, other apartment managers had no limits on how often or how much they could increase rents. Not only did this mean renters had no security, often not able to live in one apartment for more than a year or two, but it occasionally meant that old saying ‘Californians live in their cars’ was about more than transportation.
I knew an entire family- a married couple, two children, newborn baby- who actually did that. I had neighbors in a small studio apartment- sixteen people in one tiny apartment. With owners allowed any rules they chose, it worsened- affordable housing could be denied solely on the basis of the number of people in a family. From greedy landlords to the lack of rent control, it has worsened over the decades- entire blocks have nothing but vacant buildings up for sale. With moderate-and-low-income people no longer able to live there, and wealthier people choosing not to, it, too, has become a pit of drugs, crime, and gangs.
The changing face of the population- when an area is no longer affordable to many, and distasteful for those who have more options, the new residents they cater to are the unemployed. Individuals who can and should work don’t- and they take over. With the escalating housing costs, more and more people need government assistance for housing, but those who are catered to the most are those who are, by choice, unemployed. Instead of insisting individuals with ‘substance abuse’ problems obtain appropriate treatment and go to work, they’re considered ‘disabled’ and given a wide range of government benefits- including housing. There’s less housing for people who work for a living, elderly/retired people, and those who have a medical need for assistance; it’s an unfair drain on our taxes; and neighborhoods become intolerable- from the day-to-day disturbances to drugs and crime.
These have been my experiences in three cities- in New York, California, and Iowa. If anyone has any authority to make positive changes, these trends need to be reversed. Downtowns must reestablish businesses that meet the needs and preferences of average residents; rent controls must be established so renters are not in the position of frequently moving or becoming homeless; and housing must meet the needs of the general population instead of catering to those who choose to not work.
This has not happened and probably will not. Cities will continue to fall apart. Individuals who do not work will have more benefits and more options than individuals who do. Homelessness will continue to increase. Landlords who consider getting as much money as they possibly can to be their only priority will also lose out- from buildings where no one can afford to live, to buildings that are inhabited by individuals engaged in substance abuse and/or other criminal activities.
The first two cities used to be thriving communities and great places to live; the third was relatively decent, too. But the steps I mentioned near the beginning of this post have destroyed them all- and I’m sure there are many other cities throughout the United States that have been following the same patterns. To politicians, agencies, etc.: Wake up and see what has been happening- if you have any concern for your particular community, start by reversing these mistakes.