3 ms·

I'm not sure you read my response. I'm not saying that "it wouldn't be fun" to move away. I'm saying that, for a huge swath of the residents of these areas, it'

I'm not sure you read my response. I'm not saying that "it wouldn't be fun" to move away. I'm saying that, for a huge swath of the residents of these areas, it's practically impossible. Logistically and financially, impossible. You're making a raft of assumptions -- they have the means to ride out a period of unemployment, or can afford the extra travel required to reach a new job in a healthy area; they can afford to rent in a healthy market; their skills transfer; they don't have a family member in long-term care in the area; they are not on a fixed income; et cetera -- because, as you say, you don't remember very well what it's like to be poor. And that's OK. I understand why you make those assumptions, and I'm happy so many people have the privilege to do so. The shitty things poor people have to put up with are all but invisible unless you're poor. Poverty has a stigma in the US that prevents us from talking openly about these issues. But once you see them, it's frustrating to hear someone say, "But [leaving] is part of being an adult," as if staying in a shitty, crime-ridden, failing municipality is a personal choice. I want to emphasize this point: If you see people living in a one of these places -- drinking lead-infused water, sending their kids to skeletal schools, miles from an operating hospital, with intermittent emergency services, with no trash pickup, etc -- remind yourself that it's extremely unlikely they're there by choice.

shostack 9y ago
I want to state upfront that I 100% agree with everything you are saying about the problems, limitations, etc. of these people. My question though is--what suggestions do you have for solving this? We shouldn't prop up dying suburbs. We don't have universal basic income yet (not that that would solve for all such cases), and there don't really seem to be a whole lot of options. If I imagine myself in such a desperate situation, I feel like my only options would be to stay there while things stagnate, watching things get worse and worse while trying to scrimp and save my way to something that would let me take a gamble and move, or just pack up a few things, yard sale anything I could, buy a bus ticket, and gamble on being homeless somewhere with better opportunities. And that's if I wasn't elderly/disabled/otherwise incapable of doing this. The only larger solutions I potentially see are policy changes for social safety nets with these situations, which frankly, are going to be damn near impossible to get passed given the current government, and also the fact that a huge chunk of these places are in red states that would never do anything at the state level for these folks. Again, not disagreeing with anything you say, but is there actually a potential solution beyond "let these people and places fade away" like so many people have in humanity's past?
- monodeldiablo 9y ago
  I'm no expert, but I can think of a few potential approaches off the top of my head: 1) Force neighboring jurisdictions to take control of blighted areas, increasing the effective tax base, as advocated by TFA. There are NIMBY and fiscal reasons why this is hard, so counties and states might need to step in. 2) Offer free housing swaps to residents of dying suburbs, increasing density in a few targeted areas. This would reduce the cost of delivering services substantially -- fewer customers in a smaller target area -- while slowing the spread of blight. 3) Use state or federal funds to buy back foreclosed and abandoned properties in blighted areas, then employ out-of-work locals to help with remediation. A combination of this and #2 would even make full ecological restoration a possibility, converting large blighted areas into public parks and other amenities. This would have a long-term positive impact on property values and could even reverse the cycle of abandonment. Hell, even straight-up paying people a year's rent just to move out, then leveling the abandoned homes, would be cheaper than the long-term costs of ignoring the problem altogether.

shostack 9y ago

I want to state upfront that I 100% agree with everything you are saying about the problems, limitations, etc. of these people. My question though is--what suggestions do you have for solving this? We shouldn't prop up dying suburbs. We don't have universal basic income yet (not that that would solve for all such cases), and there don't really seem to be a whole lot of options. If I imagine myself in such a desperate situation, I feel like my only options would be to stay there while things stagnate, watching things get worse and worse while trying to scrimp and save my way to something that would let me take a gamble and move, or just pack up a few things, yard sale anything I could, buy a bus ticket, and gamble on being homeless somewhere with better opportunities. And that's if I wasn't elderly/disabled/otherwise incapable of doing this. The only larger solutions I potentially see are policy changes for social safety nets with these situations, which frankly, are going to be damn near impossible to get passed given the current government, and also the fact that a huge chunk of these places are in red states that would never do anything at the state level for these folks. Again, not disagreeing with anything you say, but is there actually a potential solution beyond "let these people and places fade away" like so many people have in humanity's past?

monodeldiablo 9y ago
I'm no expert, but I can think of a few potential approaches off the top of my head: 1) Force neighboring jurisdictions to take control of blighted areas, increasing the effective tax base, as advocated by TFA. There are NIMBY and fiscal reasons why this is hard, so counties and states might need to step in. 2) Offer free housing swaps to residents of dying suburbs, increasing density in a few targeted areas. This would reduce the cost of delivering services substantially -- fewer customers in a smaller target area -- while slowing the spread of blight. 3) Use state or federal funds to buy back foreclosed and abandoned properties in blighted areas, then employ out-of-work locals to help with remediation. A combination of this and #2 would even make full ecological restoration a possibility, converting large blighted areas into public parks and other amenities. This would have a long-term positive impact on property values and could even reverse the cycle of abandonment. Hell, even straight-up paying people a year's rent just to move out, then leveling the abandoned homes, would be cheaper than the long-term costs of ignoring the problem altogether.