10 ms·

The single best thing you can do is pick a neighborhood - not the whole city - and invest deeply. Get to know everyone in the neighborhood and understand what

The single best thing you can do is pick a neighborhood - not the whole city - and invest deeply. Get to know everyone in the neighborhood and understand what they want and need, then try to find ways to bring that. When you have a strong network of neighbors and a little bit of cash, you can ramp up investment by cleaning up dirty corners and getting the basic services that a neighborhood is missing. Here’s an example of how folks in Memphis, TN did this Over time: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/21/this-is-what-we-can-do-together-md2020 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/21/this-is-what-w... If you’re interested in connecting with people who already have this mindset, there are a lot of them in Strong Towns, and there may even be a group in your area.

Retric 6y ago
I mean this in the most objective way possible. The risk with urban improvement is making the area more desirable eventually prices people out of the community. So, the real question is do you help the land or current residents? When you own property it’s seriously worth considering local improvements for several reasons, but it’s also easy to confuse the two. Further, if most people in the community own property then there is a lot of overlap. To be clear both are worthwhile, just be cognizant of what your goals are. Anyway, if you want to help people I suggest either the young as changing the trajectory of someone’s life is easier early on, or the elderly because social inclusion scales well with individual effort.
- musingsole 6y ago
  By being cognizant of these effects, you can probably accomplish both at once. Improve your community with an eye towards projects that empower the residents -- even if they were to move away. Things like financial education/mentoring or around-the-house handyman type skills sharing.
- tedsanders 6y ago
  I think your concern is valid but unfounded. This is fortunate - otherwise the way to help the poor would be to vandalize their neighborhoods, which is a strange conclusion. It's true that increasing quality of a neighborhood will increase its housing price. This will have disparate impact: (1) it will help people who enjoy higher quality, but (2) it will hurt people who would prefer low quality and lower price. However, I think it's important to remember that the stock of people and housing are mostly fixed. If you raise the quality of one neighborhood so that more people bid to move in, then at the same time there must be other unobserved neighborhoods where prices fall. Therefore there is also a third effect of making a neighborhood nicer: (3) it can lower prices in other neighborhoods. One way I like to visualize it is as a supply curve - if you move some neighborhoods up in the desirability ranking, then by conservation of rank, others necessarily fall in rank. The argument I sketched above isn't a proof, obviously. There are edge cases where higher quality induces more people to own multiple homes or to live with fewer roommates, and nuances where heterogeneous preference for locations may make it harder on someone who needs to commute to their job and really would be better served by a cheap neighborhood, but for the most part I think it's reasonable that making neighborhoods nice is an overall positive good for the world.
  - burlesona 6y ago
    I mostly agree with you, but: In a market with a population growing faster than the supply of housing it is possible for there to be no place where values fall, and in fact for people who can no longer afford an improved neighborhood to end up homeless as a result. This is why housing supply is absolutely critical, and as a society we should be working hard to ensure we always have supply in level with (or erring toward slightly exceeding) demand. However, we have a cultural myth that the home is a persons primary investment and wealth accumulation vehicle. That Mrs. very harmful because it creates enormous incentives to do the opposite: restrict supply as a way to ensure that the people who already have a home are guaranteed a good return on their “investment.” It’s true that home is a very large asset and that appreciation can benefit the individuals who live there, there’s nothing wrong with that at the individual level. However when we choose to have house appreciation as a significant goal at the societal level, it directly competes with the desire to end homelessness and see everyone housed. If ensuring that everyone could afford at least adequate shelter was a primary goal for society, we would need to make choices that sometimes worked against, or at least did not help, home appreciation.
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    If you're only concerned about the average quality of housing your argument makes perfect sense, but if I understand you correctly you're casually brushing over people (your neighbors) being forced out of their homes.
  - Retric 6y ago
    It’s likely a net positive for the world, but a net negative for the people displaced. That’s why gentrification is a dirty word in many communities. However, like most things it’s complex. One often overlooked benefit is the knock on effects of gentrification are real improvements in local school systems. Looking across decades you often see gay communities which care less about local school systems acting as a catalyst by increasing local revenue while reducing the demands placed on local schools. The improvement in local schools precedes people’s awareness that the schools have improved. Similarly, many people can leverage the improvements in the local economy to keep up with the transition. That said, relatively few people can keep up with significant changes and those people are simply worse off having lost an affordable community which they had social or economic ties to. A restaurant for example is generally different to relocate. A local handyman may have a steady stream of existing customers, which don’t follow them etc.
- James_Henry 6y ago
  If it is more desirable, then you build more housing, it should be as simple as that. If you build enough housing, rents won't rise.
  - 8note 6y ago
    To build more housing, you have to destroy the old housing. This still displaces people, and likely pushes them into smaller apartments where they would have been in a house
    - James_Henry 6y ago
      No, you can let people decide whether they want to move out. Many of them would elect to then sell their houses to developers who would build apartments. Many would choose on their own to add units to their own property. If some people don't like living next to apartments, then they are out of luck though. I don't know if we should expect people to have that kind of say over what their neighbors do with their property.
    - dionidium 6y ago
      What studies show is that poor people move around a lot, whether there's "gentrification" near them or not, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons, and that they aren't any more likely to leave "gentrifying" neighborhoods than they are neighborhoods that aren't gentrifying. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/8/1/untangling-gentrification-and-displacement https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/8/1/untangling-gent...
- mikesabat 6y ago
  Also in a very objective way, I don't understand this reasoning. I've never brought up the question before and hoping that HN can explain it in a logical way that I might understand. Let's say that a neighborhood is rated 3 out of 10 - not very good. There is a mix of people that live in this neighborhood. Some people own property and some do not. Then the community makes the neighborhood better and it rises to a 7 out of 10 ranking. The people in the community that own houses costs are fixed and they now recognize the improvement. The part of the community that don't own eventually see their costs rise. At some point they can't afford to a community that ranks 7, might only be able to afford a community that ranks 3 and would need to move to a community with that ranking. It seems like part of the original set that owns experiences a large and lasting benefit. Another part of the original set experiences a short term benefit, then a transaction cost (moving) and reverts back to the mean. Can someone explain what this description misses and where the harm comes from?
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    >Can someone explain what this description misses and where the harm comes from? Empathy. Sense of place is real. Home isn't just your house or property values. People deserve not to be priced out of their homes so the sake of profit.
  - dontbeevil1992 6y ago
    moving is not just a reversion to the mean. A neighborhood is more than atomized individuals who live there. There can be a community of people which form a network and a support system that is many years old. Pricing certain people out can rip apart these communities, so it's not just a matter of relocating then continuing as you were. Then there are the individual-level logistical problems. What does moving do to your commute? Is it easy to find a new job? Will your kids have to go to a different school district?
  - Buttons840 6y ago
    Too logical. Here's what non-owners might see: "The neighborhood is improving, things will get more expensive". Bad. "I have to move now." Bad. "This new neighborhood is worse than my old one." Only half true (they started at 3 and ended at 3), but perceived as bad.
- beat 6y ago
  This is the gentrification problem. Make the community more desirable, and you make it increasingly more expensive for the existing residents. It's hard to balance these things. In the case of Minneapolis, the city committed to a plan (Minneapolis2040) to increase housing density. And a lot of that new apartment/condo construction (mostly on unused or old industrial land) is necessarily out of financial reach for average residents. But the increased supply helps protect the prices for the existing houses and older apartments, whether privately owned or rentals. It's not perfect, it's arguably not even good, but it's a tradeoff most Minneapolis residents can live with.
- throwaway1777 6y ago
  Now you know why people support rent control despite it being repeatedly shown to have negative economic impact.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about it when starting a project. That's like worrying the infrastructure won't scale when you barely have enough users to keep the one server you rent busy.
- dionidium 6y ago
  This comes up a lot in progressive urbanist circles. My favorite example was something Matthew Yglesias mentioned once on the Weeds about how some progressives opposed planting trees in D.C. because trees raise property values. I think this is a total non-starter. Trees are good, not bad. Good things are good, not bad. It is good to do good things. If doing good things reveals something bad, then we should work on fixing that bad thing, not on avoiding the good things that uncovered the bad thing. We want a politics where poor people can live in neighborhoods with trees, not a politics that says trees are bad because they make neighborhoods too desirable.
- 205guy 6y ago
  There were 2 replies that I want to summarize together: empowering the current residents as part of the renewal, and rent control. I think as part of the urban improvement is to work with the renters and landlords to let the renters capture some of the rising value, either through some sort of equity rent-to-own, or creative financing that lets the renters find other housing within the neighborhood. Maybe some sort of buy-out conversion from private landlords to private-benefit-corporation landlord (as opposed to public housing). The alternative is localized rent control, that makes sure that the landlords don't capture the rising value of the neighborhood that is being added by the residents and their work. You also need some limits on redevelopment, so the landlord doesn't just replace the building with something more upscale and manage to replace the tenants as part of that. Maybe allow refurbishing and some new units in exchange for current residents getting rent control.
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
for a year I lived in a city on a nice block that was near some not so nice blocks. One thing we had that the other blocks did not, was an old lady with a bunch of brooms that knocked on everyones door once a month and made us all sweep. It really made a difference.
- yobert 6y ago
  This is so great. Old ladies that will not be argued with should never be underestimated.
- ticviking 6y ago
  Every community needs a tough old biddy like that. There's a reason that the single word I know in the most languages is "Grandmother". If yours doesn't have that, then... be the Bubbie your Bubbie would insist is needed or something to that effect
bserge 6y ago
If you do all that, it would make a lot of sense to then run for mayor or at least some local government position.
bko 6y ago
> When you have a strong network of neighbors and a little bit of cash, you can ramp up investment by cleaning up dirty corners and getting the basic services that a neighborhood is missing. I don't think you need a network to begin cleaning up dirty corners. Just pick up garbage you see on the street when you walk around. It has an immediate impact, is easy and doesn't cost anything. Other people may see it and may begin doing that as well. I'm surprised more people don't do. If you want, you can make a facebook group telling people you're going to be picking up garbage at a certain time, if anyone would like to join. Garbage on the street has a very negative externality as people are less mindful of tossing garbage if there is already garbage on the street. It also strips people of dignity about where they live and can have other negative side-effects to the neighborhood or even promote lawlessness.
- mikesabat 6y ago
  True that picking up trash is a direct action that doesn't take many resources. (reminds me to go sweep the alley after hitting reply). Cleaning up the trash on a block might be the most direct first action that anyone can take. I think the poster was also using this as a metaphor.
- burlesona 6y ago
  This is a fair point, but FWIW I worded this the way I did because I think the network of neighbors is ultimately more important than the physical work, and should have top priority. But you’re right that you can start by picking up trash, and in fact that can be a good mechanism to meet the neighbors and build the network, depending on how you approach it.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  I think it's important to know the people who's corner you're trying to clean, lest you been perceived in a way you didn't intend. I'm not saying you should ask permission, per se, but some people find it offensive when outsiders come in and try to fix problems without context.
- PopeDotNinja 6y ago
  Just put a Buddha statue on the corner! https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-11-19/how-buddhist-shrine-transformed-neighborhood-oakland https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-11-19/how-buddhist-shrine-t...
lostsoul8282 6y ago
I agree! We tend to think of things on a grand scale beacuse that's what we see in the media but the truth is there is more visible impact on a local level as you can impact day to day much better. Great site and thanks for sharing!
diegoholiveira 6y ago
Great advice. I would complement saying that you should look for charities in or around your neighbourhood instead of giving to charities that doesn't affect the place you live directly (but if you super rich, do both).
fudged71 6y ago
You should listen to the NYT podcast “Nice White Parents”. Neighbourhood improvement with good intentions can cause systemic problems in a community https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.amp.html?0p19G=0232 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-paren...
- MagnumOpus 6y ago
  Can you summarise? Listening for five hours of chit-chat seems to be excessive to.find out about what might be an anecdote that is not generalisable.
  - granularity 6y ago
    The takeaways (for me) were that: 1) a small number of high-status parents with different priorities than the broader community will often (without malice) influence a school's administration such that the community's more fundamental priorities get lost, 2) political action to enable racial integration of public schools has been a symbolic goal in NYC for generations, but there's been a repeated lack of follow-through due to ... lack of courage and commitment.
newguy1234 6y ago
This personally saved my house during the recent CA wildfires. We have community events where we cut down brush behind the community. The fires burned up to the area where we stopped cutting the brush and it allowed for enough buffer to basically have the firefighters suppress it!
recursive4 6y ago
I second this. I spent 3-4 hours per day sitting on a park-bench in NYC reading, playing guitar, and writing between Jan-June of this year (and before you ask, I work a 9am to 5am). If you keep a friendly disposition and are welcoming by saying hello when people take notice of you, they will open up quickly – I must note with full sincerity and severity that this assumes you listen and ask thoughtful questions; people are quick to sense when someone is not genuinely and empathetically interested in them. I've made friends with musicians (and had some great impromptu jam sessions), homeless people, CEOs, software engineers, mentally ill, folks addicted to hard drugs, guys formerly homeless, people who were in prison for a decade and trying to get by and reconnect with their kids, students, tourists, professionals, hourly-workers, and everyone in-between. Now if you live in an area with a low-density of foot traffic this will not work and I do not have first-hand advice besides, perhaps, move to a more densely populated area. That you asked this question speaks to what you're looking for in this life.
atwebb 6y ago
Thanks for linking that article, I'm not sure if you're native to the area but there have been a lot of good changes in a city that needs them. It feels more community oriented than investment/cash driven from some other cities I've seen but that may be the lens I choose to put on it.
playingchanges 6y ago
This is great advice but wanted to emphasize if you’re looking to make a huge impact with pretty much no money just grab some trash bags and pick a block in need. Trash in the street is one of the biggest problems you’ll see in neglected low income neighborhoods and it just feels so much different when the street gets cleaned up.
- 205guy 6y ago
  I want to second that and add: grab a few tools and do some basic landscaping. Remove weeds and cut grass that is growing over curbs and sidewalks. Make it look tidy again.

Retric 6y ago

I mean this in the most objective way possible. The risk with urban improvement is making the area more desirable eventually prices people out of the community. So, the real question is do you help the land or current residents? When you own property it’s seriously worth considering local improvements for several reasons, but it’s also easy to confuse the two. Further, if most people in the community own property then there is a lot of overlap. To be clear both are worthwhile, just be cognizant of what your goals are. Anyway, if you want to help people I suggest either the young as changing the trajectory of someone’s life is easier early on, or the elderly because social inclusion scales well with individual effort.

musingsole 6y ago
By being cognizant of these effects, you can probably accomplish both at once. Improve your community with an eye towards projects that empower the residents -- even if they were to move away. Things like financial education/mentoring or around-the-house handyman type skills sharing.
tedsanders 6y ago
I think your concern is valid but unfounded. This is fortunate - otherwise the way to help the poor would be to vandalize their neighborhoods, which is a strange conclusion. It's true that increasing quality of a neighborhood will increase its housing price. This will have disparate impact: (1) it will help people who enjoy higher quality, but (2) it will hurt people who would prefer low quality and lower price. However, I think it's important to remember that the stock of people and housing are mostly fixed. If you raise the quality of one neighborhood so that more people bid to move in, then at the same time there must be other unobserved neighborhoods where prices fall. Therefore there is also a third effect of making a neighborhood nicer: (3) it can lower prices in other neighborhoods. One way I like to visualize it is as a supply curve - if you move some neighborhoods up in the desirability ranking, then by conservation of rank, others necessarily fall in rank. The argument I sketched above isn't a proof, obviously. There are edge cases where higher quality induces more people to own multiple homes or to live with fewer roommates, and nuances where heterogeneous preference for locations may make it harder on someone who needs to commute to their job and really would be better served by a cheap neighborhood, but for the most part I think it's reasonable that making neighborhoods nice is an overall positive good for the world.
- burlesona 6y ago
  I mostly agree with you, but: In a market with a population growing faster than the supply of housing it is possible for there to be no place where values fall, and in fact for people who can no longer afford an improved neighborhood to end up homeless as a result. This is why housing supply is absolutely critical, and as a society we should be working hard to ensure we always have supply in level with (or erring toward slightly exceeding) demand. However, we have a cultural myth that the home is a persons primary investment and wealth accumulation vehicle. That Mrs. very harmful because it creates enormous incentives to do the opposite: restrict supply as a way to ensure that the people who already have a home are guaranteed a good return on their “investment.” It’s true that home is a very large asset and that appreciation can benefit the individuals who live there, there’s nothing wrong with that at the individual level. However when we choose to have house appreciation as a significant goal at the societal level, it directly competes with the desire to end homelessness and see everyone housed. If ensuring that everyone could afford at least adequate shelter was a primary goal for society, we would need to make choices that sometimes worked against, or at least did not help, home appreciation.
- solarkraft 6y ago
  If you're only concerned about the average quality of housing your argument makes perfect sense, but if I understand you correctly you're casually brushing over people (your neighbors) being forced out of their homes.
- Retric 6y ago
  It’s likely a net positive for the world, but a net negative for the people displaced. That’s why gentrification is a dirty word in many communities. However, like most things it’s complex. One often overlooked benefit is the knock on effects of gentrification are real improvements in local school systems. Looking across decades you often see gay communities which care less about local school systems acting as a catalyst by increasing local revenue while reducing the demands placed on local schools. The improvement in local schools precedes people’s awareness that the schools have improved. Similarly, many people can leverage the improvements in the local economy to keep up with the transition. That said, relatively few people can keep up with significant changes and those people are simply worse off having lost an affordable community which they had social or economic ties to. A restaurant for example is generally different to relocate. A local handyman may have a steady stream of existing customers, which don’t follow them etc.
James_Henry 6y ago
If it is more desirable, then you build more housing, it should be as simple as that. If you build enough housing, rents won't rise.
- 8note 6y ago
  To build more housing, you have to destroy the old housing. This still displaces people, and likely pushes them into smaller apartments where they would have been in a house
  - James_Henry 6y ago
    No, you can let people decide whether they want to move out. Many of them would elect to then sell their houses to developers who would build apartments. Many would choose on their own to add units to their own property. If some people don't like living next to apartments, then they are out of luck though. I don't know if we should expect people to have that kind of say over what their neighbors do with their property.
  - dionidium 6y ago
    What studies show is that poor people move around a lot, whether there's "gentrification" near them or not, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons, and that they aren't any more likely to leave "gentrifying" neighborhoods than they are neighborhoods that aren't gentrifying. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/8/1/untangling-gentrification-and-displacement https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/8/1/untangling-gent...
mikesabat 6y ago
Also in a very objective way, I don't understand this reasoning. I've never brought up the question before and hoping that HN can explain it in a logical way that I might understand. Let's say that a neighborhood is rated 3 out of 10 - not very good. There is a mix of people that live in this neighborhood. Some people own property and some do not. Then the community makes the neighborhood better and it rises to a 7 out of 10 ranking. The people in the community that own houses costs are fixed and they now recognize the improvement. The part of the community that don't own eventually see their costs rise. At some point they can't afford to a community that ranks 7, might only be able to afford a community that ranks 3 and would need to move to a community with that ranking. It seems like part of the original set that owns experiences a large and lasting benefit. Another part of the original set experiences a short term benefit, then a transaction cost (moving) and reverts back to the mean. Can someone explain what this description misses and where the harm comes from?
- bluntfang 6y ago
  >Can someone explain what this description misses and where the harm comes from? Empathy. Sense of place is real. Home isn't just your house or property values. People deserve not to be priced out of their homes so the sake of profit.
- dontbeevil1992 6y ago
  moving is not just a reversion to the mean. A neighborhood is more than atomized individuals who live there. There can be a community of people which form a network and a support system that is many years old. Pricing certain people out can rip apart these communities, so it's not just a matter of relocating then continuing as you were. Then there are the individual-level logistical problems. What does moving do to your commute? Is it easy to find a new job? Will your kids have to go to a different school district?
- Buttons840 6y ago
  Too logical. Here's what non-owners might see: "The neighborhood is improving, things will get more expensive". Bad. "I have to move now." Bad. "This new neighborhood is worse than my old one." Only half true (they started at 3 and ended at 3), but perceived as bad.
beat 6y ago
This is the gentrification problem. Make the community more desirable, and you make it increasingly more expensive for the existing residents. It's hard to balance these things. In the case of Minneapolis, the city committed to a plan (Minneapolis2040) to increase housing density. And a lot of that new apartment/condo construction (mostly on unused or old industrial land) is necessarily out of financial reach for average residents. But the increased supply helps protect the prices for the existing houses and older apartments, whether privately owned or rentals. It's not perfect, it's arguably not even good, but it's a tradeoff most Minneapolis residents can live with.
throwaway1777 6y ago
Now you know why people support rent control despite it being repeatedly shown to have negative economic impact.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
908B64B197 6y ago
Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about it when starting a project. That's like worrying the infrastructure won't scale when you barely have enough users to keep the one server you rent busy.
dionidium 6y ago
This comes up a lot in progressive urbanist circles. My favorite example was something Matthew Yglesias mentioned once on the Weeds about how some progressives opposed planting trees in D.C. because trees raise property values. I think this is a total non-starter. Trees are good, not bad. Good things are good, not bad. It is good to do good things. If doing good things reveals something bad, then we should work on fixing that bad thing, not on avoiding the good things that uncovered the bad thing. We want a politics where poor people can live in neighborhoods with trees, not a politics that says trees are bad because they make neighborhoods too desirable.
205guy 6y ago
There were 2 replies that I want to summarize together: empowering the current residents as part of the renewal, and rent control. I think as part of the urban improvement is to work with the renters and landlords to let the renters capture some of the rising value, either through some sort of equity rent-to-own, or creative financing that lets the renters find other housing within the neighborhood. Maybe some sort of buy-out conversion from private landlords to private-benefit-corporation landlord (as opposed to public housing). The alternative is localized rent control, that makes sure that the landlords don't capture the rising value of the neighborhood that is being added by the residents and their work. You also need some limits on redevelopment, so the landlord doesn't just replace the building with something more upscale and manage to replace the tenants as part of that. Maybe allow refurbishing and some new units in exchange for current residents getting rent control.

dec0dedab0de 6y ago

for a year I lived in a city on a nice block that was near some not so nice blocks. One thing we had that the other blocks did not, was an old lady with a bunch of brooms that knocked on everyones door once a month and made us all sweep. It really made a difference.

yobert 6y ago
This is so great. Old ladies that will not be argued with should never be underestimated.
ticviking 6y ago
Every community needs a tough old biddy like that. There's a reason that the single word I know in the most languages is "Grandmother". If yours doesn't have that, then... be the Bubbie your Bubbie would insist is needed or something to that effect

bserge 6y ago

If you do all that, it would make a lot of sense to then run for mayor or at least some local government position.

bko 6y ago

> When you have a strong network of neighbors and a little bit of cash, you can ramp up investment by cleaning up dirty corners and getting the basic services that a neighborhood is missing. I don't think you need a network to begin cleaning up dirty corners. Just pick up garbage you see on the street when you walk around. It has an immediate impact, is easy and doesn't cost anything. Other people may see it and may begin doing that as well. I'm surprised more people don't do. If you want, you can make a facebook group telling people you're going to be picking up garbage at a certain time, if anyone would like to join. Garbage on the street has a very negative externality as people are less mindful of tossing garbage if there is already garbage on the street. It also strips people of dignity about where they live and can have other negative side-effects to the neighborhood or even promote lawlessness.

mikesabat 6y ago
True that picking up trash is a direct action that doesn't take many resources. (reminds me to go sweep the alley after hitting reply). Cleaning up the trash on a block might be the most direct first action that anyone can take. I think the poster was also using this as a metaphor.
burlesona 6y ago
This is a fair point, but FWIW I worded this the way I did because I think the network of neighbors is ultimately more important than the physical work, and should have top priority. But you’re right that you can start by picking up trash, and in fact that can be a good mechanism to meet the neighbors and build the network, depending on how you approach it.
bluntfang 6y ago
I think it's important to know the people who's corner you're trying to clean, lest you been perceived in a way you didn't intend. I'm not saying you should ask permission, per se, but some people find it offensive when outsiders come in and try to fix problems without context.
PopeDotNinja 6y ago
Just put a Buddha statue on the corner! https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-11-19/how-buddhist-shrine-transformed-neighborhood-oakland https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-11-19/how-buddhist-shrine-t...

lostsoul8282 6y ago

I agree! We tend to think of things on a grand scale beacuse that's what we see in the media but the truth is there is more visible impact on a local level as you can impact day to day much better. Great site and thanks for sharing!

diegoholiveira 6y ago

Great advice. I would complement saying that you should look for charities in or around your neighbourhood instead of giving to charities that doesn't affect the place you live directly (but if you super rich, do both).

fudged71 6y ago

You should listen to the NYT podcast “Nice White Parents”. Neighbourhood improvement with good intentions can cause systemic problems in a community https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.amp.html?0p19G=0232 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-paren...

MagnumOpus 6y ago
Can you summarise? Listening for five hours of chit-chat seems to be excessive to.find out about what might be an anecdote that is not generalisable.
- granularity 6y ago
  The takeaways (for me) were that: 1) a small number of high-status parents with different priorities than the broader community will often (without malice) influence a school's administration such that the community's more fundamental priorities get lost, 2) political action to enable racial integration of public schools has been a symbolic goal in NYC for generations, but there's been a repeated lack of follow-through due to ... lack of courage and commitment.

newguy1234 6y ago

This personally saved my house during the recent CA wildfires. We have community events where we cut down brush behind the community. The fires burned up to the area where we stopped cutting the brush and it allowed for enough buffer to basically have the firefighters suppress it!

recursive4 6y ago

I second this. I spent 3-4 hours per day sitting on a park-bench in NYC reading, playing guitar, and writing between Jan-June of this year (and before you ask, I work a 9am to 5am). If you keep a friendly disposition and are welcoming by saying hello when people take notice of you, they will open up quickly – I must note with full sincerity and severity that this assumes you listen and ask thoughtful questions; people are quick to sense when someone is not genuinely and empathetically interested in them. I've made friends with musicians (and had some great impromptu jam sessions), homeless people, CEOs, software engineers, mentally ill, folks addicted to hard drugs, guys formerly homeless, people who were in prison for a decade and trying to get by and reconnect with their kids, students, tourists, professionals, hourly-workers, and everyone in-between. Now if you live in an area with a low-density of foot traffic this will not work and I do not have first-hand advice besides, perhaps, move to a more densely populated area. That you asked this question speaks to what you're looking for in this life.

atwebb 6y ago

Thanks for linking that article, I'm not sure if you're native to the area but there have been a lot of good changes in a city that needs them. It feels more community oriented than investment/cash driven from some other cities I've seen but that may be the lens I choose to put on it.

playingchanges 6y ago

This is great advice but wanted to emphasize if you’re looking to make a huge impact with pretty much no money just grab some trash bags and pick a block in need. Trash in the street is one of the biggest problems you’ll see in neglected low income neighborhoods and it just feels so much different when the street gets cleaned up.

205guy 6y ago
I want to second that and add: grab a few tools and do some basic landscaping. Remove weeds and cut grass that is growing over curbs and sidewalks. Make it look tidy again.